News

pregnant

An Australian pro-lifer who was fined $5K and convicted for speaking about abortion in a censorship zone has spoken out publicly.

Kathy Clubb was arrested in October 2016 by Victoria Police near an abortion centre in East Melbourne.

Recalling the events in a recent piece for LifeSite News, Clubb wrote that:

“After some time, I approached a couple who were about to enter the abortion mill and offered to help them.  The encounter took no more than five seconds and ended with them declining my help.

“This five-second encounter was to earn me a $5,000 fine, a good behavior bond, and a criminal record.”

Clubb pointed out that several courts had noted the couple were not visibly distressed by her actions, and there was no shouting or abuse.

She was convicted in the Magistrates Court in 2017.

“But not before the magistrate subjected me to highly offensive questioning at the sentencing. ‘How many fathers do your children have?’ and ‘Why are you homeschooling?’ were among the many irrelevant questions asked by this magistrate,” wrote Clubb.

In April 2019, an appeal to the High Court on the basis that the censorship laws infringe the implied right to political communication was unanimously rejected.

Clubb’s most recent appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court on the basis that there was no evidence that she communicated about abortion in the censorship zone also failed last week.

“It is so strange to think of trying to save lives as being a criminal activity while killing babies is the legal one. I was placed on a good behavior bond and given a stern admonition that had I not had a family, I would have been sent to prison,” wrote Clubb.

“In our ‘enlightened’ Australian culture, killing babies is a protected activity, offering help is against the law, and thoughtcrime has become a legal reality,” she concluded.

Police Headquarters 2063 1024x512 1024x512 850x455

In a remarkable incursion by South Australian Police into a matter of public policy, a senior officer has recommended legalising euthanasia.

The proposal issued by Assistant Commissioner Scott Duval provoked a sharp rebuttal from FamilyVoice Australia State Director David d’Lima.

“We sympathise enormously with police who must investigate instances of attempted or completed suicide, but it beggars belief that senior officers would therefore recommend legalising euthanasia.”

David d’Lima said the laws of Parliament should promote the common good and not deal with limited instances.

“While the reported claim of about twenty suicides of terminally ill people each year is twenty too many, it does not warrant any change in legislation.”

He also warned that the proposal, if heeded by Parliament, could make matters worse.

“Since general suicide rates tend to increase in the jurisdictions that have legalised euthanasia, the ordinary copper can expect to attend more suicides if MPs heed this most unwise recommendation of the brass.”

gender 800

Parents in the US state of Wisconsin are fighting back against a school policy on gender transition, in defence of their “fundamental and constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children”.

In legal documents lodged against Madison Metropolitan School District, the concerned parents say educational authorities have implemented a policy enabling “children, of any age, to socially transition to a different gender identity at school without parental notice or consent.”

Parents are concerned that the policy “requires all teachers to enable this transition, and then prohibits teachers from communicating with parents about this potentially life-altering choice without the child’s consent”

Upset at the loss of their rights, the litigants have criticized the Madison School District for “directing its teachers and staff to deceive parents by reverting to the child’s birth name and corresponding pronouns whenever the child’s parents are nearby.”

The District has adopted a policy “designed to circumvent parental involvement in a pivotal decision affecting their children’s health and future,” they say.

Parents are also upset as the District has given children colouring books asserting “Everyone has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they are a girl or a boy or both or neither or something else, and no one else gets to choose for them.”

The case continues.

pregnant

A Victorian woman who incurred a $5,000 fine for breaching an abortion censorship zone has lost her Supreme Court appeal.

Kathleen Clubb, mother of 13 children, was convicted after providing information to a couple outside an abortion clinic in East Melbourne in 2016 and received the hefty fine.

As part of her appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court, her lawyers argued it could not be proven that Clubb had “communicated in relation to abortion”.

Supreme Court Justice Maree Kennedy disagreed:

"The appellant has chosen to enter the safe access zone - invading the personal space of an unknown couple - armed with material which related to abortion,” the judge determined.

"There was an approach to a young couple, unknown to the appellant, raising an issue of a highly personal nature as they were making their way into an abortion clinic in circumstances where they were likely to already be feeling distressed or highly vulnerable.

"I consider that there was a substantial chance of causing a significant emotional reaction or psychological response."

FamilyVoice State Director Peter Stevens responded to the judgement.

“The problem is not the judiciary but the government that cares as much for free speech as it does for the rights of the unborn.

“The Andrew’s government continues to erode basic freedoms and must be brought to account.”

Rainbow police car

The UK High Court has brought the police to account for infringing freedom of speech.

The matter arose when a concerned member of the publilc, Harry Miller, posted social media comments about transgenderism.

This prompted a police visit at Miller’s workplace. The police told Miller that although he had not committed a crime,  his actions would be recorded as a “hate incident.”

Miller understood he must stop commenting on the subject or face prosecution.

Unwilling to accept the action of police, Miller challenged the matter in court.

 “We are heading absolutely towards some Orwellian state and the police are using 1984 as an operating manual and this frightens the life out of me.”

The Court found the police were in the wrong and had infringed Miller’s freedom of expression

Justice Julian Knowles, adjudicating the case, firmly ruled against the constabulary. “I find the combination of the police visiting the claimant’s place of work, and their subsequent statements in relation to the possibility of prosecution, were a disproportionate interference with the claimant’s right to freedom of expression because of their potential chilling effect,” he said.

The judge said the impact of the police visiting Miller’s workplace “because of his political opinions must not be underestimated”. 

“To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society,” he said. 

Miller described the decision as a watershed moment for liberty.

"The police were wrong to visit my workplace, wrong to ‘check my thinking’” he said.

Miller’s lawyer, Paul Conrathe, said: “It is a strong warning to local police forces not to interfere with people's free speech rights on matters of significant controversy.”