#sex discrimination act 1984

[coochiequeens]

But the system oppresses poor trans laydees.

By Eva Kurilova. September 26, 2023

Australia’s Human Rights Commission has released a preliminary decision prohibiting lesbians from holding events for females due to the exclusion of men who identify as “women.” The Commission’s decision comes after a lesbian rights group applied for an exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

The application to the Commission was submitted by long-time Australian women’s rights activist Jean Taylor on behalf of herself and the members of the Lesbian Action Group, a collective established to address discrimination experienced by lesbians. The application provided an overview of lesbian organizing and gatherings in Victoria since the early 1970s, arguing that, “many thousands of lesbians benefited from the sense of pride, recognition and wellbeing that a large, well [publicized], public lesbian specific gathering encourages in the participants.”

However, this started to change in 2003 when trans activists challenged the organizers of the 2004 Lesbian Festival, accusing female-only spaces as being discriminatory under the law. This caused the festival organizers to seek and be awarded an exemption that allowed them to invite and only allow access to “lesbians born female.” 

The exemption was revoked on a technicality, resulting in lesbian gatherings in Australia being driven underground for almost two decades in an effort to avoid more challenges from the transgender community.

The Sex Discrimination Act was then amended in 2013 to include gender identity, making it even more difficult to organize single-sex events.

Frustrated by the situation, the Lesbian Action Group attempted to organize a female-only lesbian event at the Victorian Pride Centre this past August. The event was meant to celebrate International Lesbian Day on October 15, 2023, but the Pride Centre declined the booking, claiming that it was exclusionary and conflicted with the organization’s aim of supporting “equality, diversity and inclusion.”

As a result, the Lesbian Action Group applied for a 5-year exemption with the Australian Human Rights Commission with the intention of approaching another venue for the International Lesbian Day event if the exemption was granted. The group also intended to subsequently hold regular female-only lesbian events during its exemption period.

After receiving the application, the Commission requested further information from the Lesbian Action Group, asking for more details about why it is “reasonable and necessary to exclude the relevant groups mentioned in the application and restrict the event to female born lesbians.”

The Group then complied and provided a document of additional information further explaining the importance for minority groups like lesbians to have the freedom to associate with one another and to hold their own events.

The Commission received a total of 236 submissions on the application from individuals and groups by the closing date of September 1, 2023. Of those submissions, 123 individuals and 15 organizations were in favor of the exemption while 82 individuals and 14 organizations were opposed.

One of the applications opposed to the exemption came from Equal Opportunity Tasmania and referred to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner ruling late last year that women-only events are discriminatory towards men who claim they are women. 

In its ruling, the Tasmanian Commissioner wrote that “The applicants propose to exclude ‘biological males’ from their event… The exclusion of such persons engages the provisions of the act prohibiting direct discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity.”

Like the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, the Australian Human Rights Commission’s preliminary view is that it will not grant the temporary 5-year exemption sought by the Lesbian Action Group to host its International Lesbian Day Event or to hold subsequent female-only lesbian events.

While the Commission recognized that “lesbians in Australia have faced structural and entrenched discrimination” and that “it may be important and beneficial for lesbians to gather together as a community,” it nevertheless was not persuaded that it is appropriate or reasonable to “make distinctions between women based on their cisgender or transgender experience.”

The ruling continued:

“The Commission notes that the grant of this exemption may lead to the further exclusion of and discrimination against same-sex attracted transgender women. Transgender women are a group who have and continue to experience discrimination, harassment and social exclusion.”

Australian women’s rights activist Janet Inglis took to X (formerly Twitter) to express her disappointment with the decision.

“Australian lesbians are being denied fairness,” she wrote. “They are being denied their humanity. I am so ashamed of my country.”

Speaking to Reduxx, Inglis said that Victoria is now joining Tasmania in “forcing lesbians underground and out of the public sphere.”

Inglis called it a “damning indictment of Australia” that both federal legislation and the Human Rights Commission have barred lesbians from holding single-sex events.

“The gender amendments to the SDA [Sex Discrimination Act] must be repealed. Our HRC has proven itself unfit for purpose and must be disbanded if it can no longer distinguish between men and women because of shonky legislation,” she explained. “A true HRC would be working to repeal those amendments and restore the rights of lesbians to be recognised in their own right.”

On X, Inglis also called on others to consider making a submission to respond to the Commission’s preliminary view before the October 3, 2023 deadline.

“The War on Women is gaining pace in Australia,” she added. “Australia is so far down the gender rabbit hole it’s truly frightening.”

This is not the first time that Australian women have run into issues with the law in regard to gender identity.

In May of this year, a woman was visited by New South Wales Police after she spoke to media about a trans activist by the name of Riley Dennis who was reportedly injuring female players in a women’s football league. The woman was given an Apprehended Violence Order which required her not to discuss Dennis. Reduxx was also contacted by the Australian eSafety Commissioner and advised to censor or delete an article naming Dennis.

Later that month, two women in Australia were contacted by Twitter and informed that they had broken Australian law by criticizing a trans-identified male for breastfeeding a child.

[whats-in-a-sentence]

Here is the wording of the exemption in the SDA:

Nothing in paragraph . . . 14(2)(c) renders it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's sex, sexual orientation, gender identity . . . in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if the first-mentioned person so discriminates in good faith to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

"In/Out: A Scandalous Story of Falling Into Love and Out of the Church" - Steph Lentz

[uluruanarchist]

In light of this, let's take a closer look at the Lesbian Action Group. (readers should note that this post contains links sourced from anti-trans associations. if you're using Shinigami Eyes, I'm sure you're seeing a lot of red.)

The Lesbian Action Group is apart of the Australian chapter of notorious intersexist anti-trans hate group the LGB Alliance. The LGB Alliance was established back in 2019 in the UK, reportedly splitting off from the prominent LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall (named after the monumental historical event of the Stonewall Riots) over the charity's stance on transgender matters and refusal to allow for debate on said matters. Presumably, this ever-so devisive stance, was Stonewall's announcement of dedication to trans equality back in 2015 (note: this link is to the Trans People and Stonewall report pdf. Available by means of The British Library.) Dissenters argued, that the charity no longer represented them, and that they were promoting a 'trans agenda.' As an organisation, the LGB Alliance has claimed that: gender-affirming therapy is conversion-therapy; amab trans and gender-diverse people cannot be lesbians and afab trans and gender-diverse youth existing is lesbian erasure; puberty blockers are mind-altering(?); sex is not a spectrum; among other things. Also, it seems suggested in their glossary of terms, that people can identify other people as trans, regardless of that person's own self-determination. They claim to value "factual" and "honest" communication, yet ironically, frequently spread misinformation, and simply source a twitter status in some cases (I could not verify personally the nature of the tweets, as I do not have a twitter account, nor do I want to, but a trusted person assures me quite frankly that they're opinions). They have gone on to establish chapters in many countries. Now, onto the Lesbian Action Group. Given the group exists under the Australian chapter of the LGB Alliance, they follow the same core values, and quite obviously so. The Lesbian Action Group claims that lesbians can no-longer legally assemble in single-sex spaces. This is unequivocally false. The Lesbian Action Group seek to publicly assemble, which is an entirely different matter. They also claim trans-only events are widespread, which I cannot find evidence of, which suggests if they do exist, they follow the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, unlike what was proposed by the Lesbian Action Group, and are in fact, importantly, not public events.

The Lesbian Action Group may fall within the definition of a ‘voluntary body’ under the SDA.6 However, the Lesbian Action Group is not seeking an exemption to discriminate in connection with the admission of persons as members, or the provision of benefits, facilities or services only to its members, as permitted by s 39 of the SDA. Rather, the Lesbian Action Group seeks to hold public events restricted to ‘lesbians born female’ and to advertise those events ‘widely and publicly’, beyond their membership base. The Commission is of the view that the s 39 exemption does not apply in these circumstances, where the provision of ��benefits, facilities or services’ is proposed to extend to persons beyond members of the Lesbian Action Group. (source)

(quote text sure is large.) In a bit of a side tangent, I'd like to mention this division within Australian lesbian spaces has been going on for at least 30 years. So while they may claim things about what lesbian means and what women are, I know there are likely many Australian lesbians in their 50s and 60s who disagree (yes they exist! isn't that wonderful? I'm going to make a post later about all the wonderful things i've found researching this!) I also think it's important to mention that the single-sex exemptions of gay hotels, The Laird, and The Peel, mentioned in the Lesbian Action Group's purpose statement (maybe I should just start calling them LAG) and male exemptions granted section, allow trans men. Certainly a claim, LAG cannot make. LAG doesn't consider trans women 'women' after all. (also not entirely relevent but there used to be a Lesbian Action Group back in the 80s who I assume are seperate from the current.) LAG makes mention of a trans-only (the article title in the link says trans and gender-diverse) swimming event. While it may have indeed existed, I cannot ascertain the nature of it as the link they supplied. led to a 404 page, and The Wayback Machine's only capture documented the same 404 page. Also, I believe a bloody good distinction to be made is that LAG is going for a public event and in contrast, The Laird and The Peel are hotels. Those aren't events. Those are places. Also, unsurprisingly, one of the main defenders within the preliminary review is the LGB Alliance Australia. Anyway, I'm really tired of seeing their stuff, so here's a bit from Q+Law.

Q+Law submitted: It is important to note that lesbians are not a homogenous group. The lesbian community as a whole is made up of intersectional experiences and diversities including but not limited to race, religion, socioeconomic background and gender. Q+Law supports rights-based inclusion and seeks to improve the well-being of lesbians regardless of other intersecting identities. … Q+Law assumes the exemption is sought to allow the applicant to discriminate against all people who are not cis-gendered women sexually attracted to only other cis-gendered women. Therefore, the exemption seeks the right to be able to differentiate between sub-categories of women.

Anyway, I would say more, but I am so damn tired. I have spent the last several days reading and watching LGB Alliance material and that of LAG, and it has just been a progressively terrible experience. I'm sure you can see the quality dropping off throughout this and I do apologise for that. I wanted to make this more comprehensive, and maybe I'll go into these groups more in the future, but I can't take anymore days of this right now. Yeah, so I apologise if I've made some errors. I'm a bit overloaded. I mean the stuff in the post-statements, so you'll see that somewhere down along the line. Love you all. Toodles! Bye~ (p.s. If you don't understand some of the words I'm saying. I'll happily elaborate! Also if anyone thinks this could be more accessible, I'm open to suggestions and then I'll see what I can do about it!) (p.p.s If I've gotten some stuff wrong, or there are ways you think I could make this better, let me know! I'm fully capable of making mistakes, and after working on this for a few days and it negatively affecting my sleep I've probably made some mistakes. I'll make an amended version later if I get some good feedback.) (p.p.p.s LAG if somehow you're reading this, please update your page to be better <3)

[brokenpanels]

The "Woke" Agenda: Fear the Queer

Book banning's have unfortunately always been around in the United States. Just about any book can be removed from public library shelves if the public themselves deem it necessary, though in most cases a review process is used. Most people think of famous examples such as 1984 by George Orwell, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, or To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee when book banning's are brought up, and for good reason. These books were very divisive as they acted as a commentary for the systemic flaws of society, flaws few wanted to be reminded of. It is for this reason that these books are considered such important pieces of literature.

But what of modern banned books? Unfortunately, it is more of the same reasoning that originally banned the great classics, even if the topics of the books have changed. When observing the American Library Associations' (ALA) statistics for banned books, the most common themes are those of queerness and racial oppression. These themes are not listed as the specific reason behind why these books were banned, but instead were hidden behind labels such as “sexually explicit content”, “anti-police” rhetoric, profanity, or promoting violence. All of these labels become stretched and distorted under the eyes of angry parents, designed to evoke rage in the casual observer.

In one example from October of this year, a group of protesters numbering in the hundreds disrupted a public school board meeting in Dearborn, Michigan. Even after a heavy police presence, the meeting had to be canceled for safety reasons as the protests became more and more intense. The adults were described as screaming at the school board, booing, and generally disrupted any civilized discussion. Roxanne McDonald, the chairman of the board, even pleaded to the protesters, saying "Let’s show our children how to behave with civil discourse," to no avail. The books the protesters were targeting focused those with queer topics such as Flamer by Mike Curato and Gender Queer by Maya Kobabe. Fears of pornography and other "inappropriate" content were thrown around before the meeting ended.

This is a perfect example of the fear-mongering can quickly get out of hand. What many parents don’t realize is that there are likely hundreds of books in your high-school-aged child's library that have the themes they are protesting. New York Times bestselling book The Fault in Our Stars by John Green, a book rated 14 and up, even contains an explicit sex scene between minors. (the horror!).

This fact asks the question: if these books are not unique in their controversial themes, why are they being targeted? How did Gender Queer, a two-year-old graphic novel published by a now-defunct company, become one of the most challenging pieces of comic literature in modern America?

The answer comes from the examples of book banning where those involved manage to say the "quiet part" out loud. Jeremy Glenn, a superintendent from a Texas school district, is even being investigated by the federal government for discrimination after he was quoted in a leaked recording after he instructed the school districts libraries to specifically remove queer books.

“I acknowledge that there are men that think they’re women and there are women that think they’re men, I don’t have any issues with what people want to believe, but there’s no place for it in our libraries.”

Later in recording, Glenn clarified further saying, "It’s the transgender, LGBTQ and the sex — sexuality — in books." This excuse completely throws away the charade of "protecting the children from obscenity" as was obvious from the start of the book banning craze.

The fact is, the banning of books has never been about protecting children. The true reason is far more cruel:

Parents do not want their children to read diverse stories because they are afraid of them "becoming" queer, or, god forbid, woke.

It is blatant bigotry.

Luckily, the future isn't dark. Despite news cycles loving to talk about how much hate and disgust these parents have for those different then them, there are far more people speaking up in support of these books then against them. Many bookstores across the country have brought special attention to banned books, creates displays celebrating them. Organizations such as the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, the American Library Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union are all fighting to keep these important books on school shelves and available for everyone.

Every year that passes, despite trials and tribulations, I believe the world becomes a little safer and a little more welcoming. Books like Gender Queer could not exist 50 years ago, and hopefully in the next 50 years a majority of people will look back and think: How could anyone have hated this?

[ginger-fitzgeralld]

An Australian “trans inclusive” Premier League women’s football team with five male players has secured victory in the grand final match after dominating games throughout the summer. During the 2024 season of the North West Sydney Football Women’s Premier Competition, The Flying Bats won all 17 games and scored 76 goals while only a total of 8 points were scored against them.

The Flying Bats, a football club for “self-identified women and non-binary people,” has attracted significant criticism that has escalated over the past year. The mounting outcry presumably motivated the decision by regulators to ramp up security measures during the Women’s Premier League grand final game on Sunday, which they won, 5-4, over West Pennant Hills Cherrybrook Football Club.

Earlier this year the team was awarded a $1,000 prize after winning the North West Sydney League pre-season Beryl Ackroyd Cup, following a season of winning every game they played in the Women’s Premier League matches, 10-0. The news generated significant outcry and resulted in The Flying Bats making international headlines.

Australian talk radio presenter Ben Fordham spoke with one of the attendees at yesterday’s match. According to the caller, identified only as David, security guards conducted bag checks and required all who attended to ditch their recording devices.

“There was quite a high security presence up there, and… they were actually doing bag checks to make sure no one had brought in any sort of device to film the game any bigger than a mobile phone. I was told by security that they’d had to ask one person who refused to let them into their bag to leave the premises. So they were clamping down on people there trying to take footage… because The Flying Bats are a hot topic in football circles these days,” David said.

“West Pennant had a really vocal crowd up there… At the end of the game, when the full-time whistle went, you should have heard the boos coming from the West Pennant Hills crowd section. It was deafening,” he added.

West Pennant Hills Cherrybrook Football Club shared an encouraging message to their female athletes on Facebook yesterday after the loss.

“Our Premier Leauge Womens team have left everything on Christie Park this afternoon losing 5-4 in heartbreaking fashion to the Flying Bats,” the post read. “You embodied everything it means to play for our club over an amazing 90 mins of football. We could not be prouder of you girls!”

Comments on the Facebook post were entirely supportive of the women. “Well done ladies! That team should never been allowed to compete,” read one response. “Your girls are the winners here. [You] didn’t lose, [you] were robbed. Shame on the soccer federation for letting this happen,” read another.

According to regulations put forward by the North West Sydney Football Association (NWSFA), “players may register and participate on the basis of their gender identification.” There are a total of at least nine trans-identified males playing football within the women’s leagues, though their identities have been protected and withheld by Australian media.

Guidelines issued by the Australian Human Rights Commission state that under the federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984, sporting organizations are forbidden from enforcing “discrimination” on the basis of a self-declared gender identity. “An example of direct discrimination would be a sporting organization refusing a trans woman’s application for membership because she is transgender,” the guidelines state.

In response to landslide victories secured by The Flying Bats FC, six other football clubs whose women’s teams had competed against them organized an informal meeting on March 17 at the Ranch Hotel in North Ryde. The Northwest Sydney Football Association became aware of the conversation and scheduled a formal meeting. An email was sent out to the club presidents from the CEO of North West Sydney Football, Matthew Geracitano, instructing them to attend a meeting on the evening of March 20 at Christie Park.

Included in the email sent to football club presidents was a packet titled “Online Hate Speech” produced by the eSafety Commission. Above the attachment, the following sentence was highlighted in yellow: “If individuals responsible for posting seriously harmful material do not comply with a removal notice, we can seek civil penalties or fines against perpetrators (up to $111,000).”

During the meeting, which was attended by CEO of Football NSW John Tsatsimas, attendees were told that a decision to boycott participation by forfeiting matches against The Flying Bats would result in “disciplinary action” being issued.

As previously revealed by Reduxx, one of the five men on the women’s football team is trans activist Riley Dennis, who was previously accused of severely injuring women while participating on another women’s team. Dennis could be seen towering over the female players during Sunday’s game, while wearing the Flying Bats uniform decorated with colors from the Pride progress flag.

Dennis, born Justin, 32, currently plays for The Flying Bats, but last year was a member of the Inter Lions team in New South Wales. On May 21, 2023, during a game between the Inter Lions and the St. George football clubs at the Majors Bay Reserve, Dennis launched his smaller female opponent towards a metal fence using an aggressive tackle as the two chased down the ball.

Reduxx was provided footage of the match, which showed the female player laying on her side, unmoving, as the transgender player casually walked away.

The month prior, Dennis was said to have injured another female player, who reportedly had to seek hospital attention as a result of her injury. A letter-writing campaign was launched by Kirralie Smith, a spokeswoman with Binary Australia, encouraging concerned individuals to contact Football New South Wales, which reportedly then received over 12,000 submissions.

For her role in bringing awareness to the injuries sustained by female athletes, Smith was visited by New South Wales Police and handed an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) on March 30 that year requiring that she neither discuss nor approach Dennis. The AVO was withdrawn by authorities in September.

Earlier this year, Reduxx spoke with president of St. Patrick’s Football Club Frank Parisi, who revealed that at least 20 female players had excluded themselves from the sport, presumably due to safety concerns over serious injuries that had already occurred as a result of male participants in women’s matches.

Parisi described a range of problems that had arisen as a result of men playing in women’s football matches, as well as an incident in which a female player’s leg was broken in two places by a trans-identified male during a game. Female players have been self-excluding from the sport by the dozens, said Parisi, in order to avoid competing against the male players.

“A couple of year ago, one of The Flying Bats players broke one of our players’ legs in a game. It was a clumsy tackle from behind. Our player had her leg broken in two places and she’s no longer playing football. It was a direct result of a real bad, tall player… he didn’t get a red card,” Parisi said.

However, while the trans-identified male who caused the injury was not penalized, one female player who rushed to help the injured woman was suspended for a comment she made during the incident.

“One of our players rushed over to try to help her, she was screaming in so much pain. At that time, she made a derogatory remark to the Bats player, which we apologized for. [She was] suspended. The Bats player, nothing happened to [him].” Parisi clarified that following this incident, the player was suspended from matches for a total of eight weeks.

In 2022, the year in which a female player for St. Patrick’s FC had her leg broken by a trans-identified male associated with The Flying Bats, club president for the latter group, Jen Peden, was honored with a Fair Play award presented by the NWSFA – a fact announced to the club’s Facebook page with the comment, “We play nice.”

In March, massive public outcry ensued after news broke of the five trans-identified players on The Flying Bats team. In response, LGBTI Rights Australia, a Facebook community with over 250,000 followers, made a public statement mocking “TERF Nazis” and suggesting that “transphobes” should “train a bit harder.”

[rad4learning]

From: Sex discrimination in uncertain times

"The interpretative role of the courts during these years is a salutary reminder of the fact that all three branches of government—the legislature, the executive and the judiciary—are important sites for the constitution and reconstitution of sex discrimination. Hence, as I argued on the twentieth anniversary of the SDA,[17] we are not dealing with a finite variable that can be eliminated over time, as suggested by the wording of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Sex discrimination is a slippery concept, tolerance for which depends on the socio-political mood of the moment. As long as ‘the good of the economy’ is permitted to trump the idea of gender justice, change will not occur. These essays seek to challenge what has become the prevailing orthodoxy."

[qnewsau]

Time to end religious discrimination in private schools

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/time-to-end-religious-discrimination-in-private-schools/

Time to end religious discrimination in private schools

National LGBTQIA+ rights group Equality Australia has renewed calls for Anthony Albanese to introduce legislation that protects  students and staff in religious schools from discriminaion in line with the commitment that Labor made before the last federal election.

“Labor committed to these reforms before coming to power but discrimination against students and staff is still happening around the country because of gaps in our laws that allow religious schools to play by their own rules,” Equality Australia CEO Anna Brown said earlier today.

“These schools rely on millions of dollars of taxpayer funding every year and it’s not too much to ask that they uphold the same non-discriminatory practices that other government schools and institutions have abided by for decades.” 

Section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) currently allows religious educational institutions to discriminate against staff and students based on their gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy and marital status.

Religious educational institutions can fire or refuse to hire staff, and suspend, expel, refuse to enrol, or disadvantage students, simply because they are gay, trans, pregnant, divorced or unmarried. 

Discrimination by faith groups still happening

Equality Australia, the Independent Education Union and the Australian Law Reform Commission have each documented stories of discrimination still occuring in private education settings.

These include teachers who have been dismissed or refused employment for being gay, marrying a divorcee or becoming pregnant out of wedlock or with the assistance of IVF, students who have been forced out of school or denied leadership positions based on their sexuality, and parents whose children have been denied enrollment because they are trans or because the parents are in a same-sex relationship.  

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Equality Australia (@equalityaustralia)

In the lead up to the 2022 Federal Election, the Australian Labor Party committed to reforming anti-discrimination laws so that religious schools could no longer discriminate against students and staff in these ways, while schools could continue to preference, in good faith, people of the same religion when selecting staff.  

“It’s time for Prime Minister Albanese to introduce the laws he promised at the last election and let the parliament do its job,” Brown said. 

“There is support for these reforms from across the parliament. Only two years ago five Liberal MPs crossed the floor to vote with Labor and the crossbench to support changes to the Sex Discrimination Act and protect trans students.” 

Brown said it was expected that the draft bill would protect LGBTQIA+ students and teachers in religious schools, and offer protections to women and people of faith, ensuring a teacher could not lose their job for falling pregnant outside of marriage, or that a gardener of a different faith could not be fired from an evangelical school. 

“Our laws should be consistent with Australia’s international human rights obligations and reflect who we are as a nation in the 21st century,” Brown said. 

She also cautioned the government against watering down any protections for teachers in religious schools, with almost two-in-five staff employed in private schools, most of which are religiously affiliated. 

“Schools have no business encroaching into the personal lives of teachers when it has absolutely nothing to do with what happens in the classroom,” she said.  

Strong public support for change

Brown said a recent report by the Australian Law Reform Commission found there was strong public support, including among parents and people of faith, for removing special exceptions allowing religious schools to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people and others. 

It also found that the religious ethos of a school could be maintained without exemptions. 

“Religious schools should not have to harm children or punish teachers to uphold their faith. There are wonderful caring teachers around this country who are gay and also of faith and they should not live in fear of losing their jobs because of who they go home to at the end of their working day,” Brown said. 

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

[lmhrconsulting]

Everything You Need to Know About Australian HR Policies

In the dynamic world of human resources (HR), staying abreast of policies and regulations is crucial for both employers and employees. Australia, known for its robust labour laws and progressive HR practices, has a well-defined framework of HR policies that govern the employer-employee relationship. This comprehensive guide aims to provide a detailed overview of Australian HR policies, covering everything from employment contracts to workplace health and safety regulations.

Understanding the Legal Framework: Australia's HR policies are primarily governed by federal and state legislation, as well as industry-specific regulations. The Fair Work Act 2009 serves as the cornerstone of employment law in Australia, outlining the rights and obligations of employers and employees, including minimum wage, working hours, and leave entitlements. Additionally, each state and territory has its own set of regulations pertaining to workplace health and safety, discrimination, and industrial relations.

Employment Contracts and Agreements: Employment contracts play a pivotal role in establishing the terms and conditions of employment in Australia. While not always mandatory, a well-drafted employment contract provides clarity and certainty for both parties. Key elements typically included in an employment contract are job title, duties and responsibilities, remuneration, working hours, leave entitlements, and termination provisions. It's important to note that employment contracts must comply with relevant legislation, such as the Fair Work Act, to ensure enforceability.

Minimum Employment Standards: Under the Fair Work Act, employees in Australia are entitled to certain minimum employment standards, which include:

National Employment Standards (NES): The NES outlines ten minimum entitlements that apply to all employees covered by the national workplace relations system. These include maximum weekly hours of work, annual leave, personal/carer's leave, parental leave, and redundancy pay.

Modern Awards: Modern awards are industry-specific instruments that set out minimum terms and conditions of employment, including minimum wages, penalty rates, and allowances. Employers must ensure compliance with the relevant modern award(s) applicable to their industry and employees.

National Minimum Wage: The Fair Work Commission sets a national minimum wage each year, which serves as the minimum rate of pay for employees not covered by an award or enterprise agreement. Employers must ensure that their employees receive at least the minimum wage for the work performed.

Work Health and Safety (WHS) Regulations: Ensuring a safe and healthy work environment is paramount in Australia, and workplace health and safety regulations are rigorously enforced across all industries. The model Work Health and Safety Act, along with the corresponding regulations, provide the framework for WHS compliance. Employers have a legal obligation to identify and manage workplace hazards, provide appropriate training and equipment, and maintain records of incidents and near misses. Non-compliance with WHS regulations can result in severe penalties, including fines and prosecution.

Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity: Australia has stringent laws prohibiting discrimination and promoting equal opportunity in the workplace. The federal Sex Discrimination Act 1984, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and Age Discrimination Act 2004, along with state and territory legislation, prohibit discrimination based on various grounds, including race, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation. Employers must implement policies and practices that promote diversity and inclusion, prevent discrimination and harassment, and provide avenues for lodging complaints or grievances.

Employee Entitlements and Leave Provisions: Australian employees are entitled to various types of leave, including:

Annual Leave: Full-time and part-time employees accrue annual leave based on their ordinary hours of work. Employers must grant employees paid annual leave and cannot unreasonably refuse a request for annual leave.

Personal/Carer's Leave: Employees are entitled to paid personal/carer's leave for illness or injury, as well as compassionate leave for caring responsibilities. This leave can be accrued over time and is available for use when needed.

Parental Leave: Both parents are entitled to unpaid parental leave to care for a newborn or newly adopted child. In addition, eligible employees may be entitled to government-funded parental leave pay or Dad and Partner Pay.

Long Service Leave: Long service leave is a statutory entitlement that provides employees with extended leave after a specified period of continuous service, typically ranging from 7 to 15 years depending on the state or territory.

Termination and Redundancy: Terminating employment in Australia must be done in accordance with the Fair Work Act and any applicable industrial instruments, such as awards or enterprise agreements. Employers must provide notice of termination or payment in lieu of notice, and in certain circumstances, may be required to provide redundancy pay. It's essential for employers to follow fair and lawful termination procedures to avoid claims of unfair dismissal or adverse action.

Managing Workplace Disputes: Disputes and conflicts may arise in the workplace despite best efforts to maintain a harmonious environment. Australia offers various avenues for resolving workplace disputes, including mediation, conciliation, and arbitration through bodies such as the Fair Work Commission and state-based industrial relations commissions. Employers and employees are encouraged to engage in open communication and explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before resorting to litigation.

Conclusion: Navigating the complex landscape of Australian HR policies requires a thorough understanding of legal obligations, industry standards, and best practices. Employers and employees alike must stay informed about their rights and responsibilities to ensure compliance with relevant legislation and promote a fair and respectful workplace culture. By prioritizing adherence to HR policies and fostering positive workplace relationships, businesses can cultivate a productive and sustainable workforce in Australia's dynamic employment landscape.

[sentrient]

How To Deal With Unfair Discrimination In The Workplace

Unfair discrimination in the workplace is a serious issue that can have a negative impact on employees and the organisation. As an employee, manager, or employer, it is important to understand how to recognise and address unfair discrimination. 

Understand the laws and regulations: Familiarise yourself with the laws and regulations related to discrimination, such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, etc. This will help you identify discrimination and take appropriate action. 

Know the signs of discrimination: Discrimination can take many forms, such as derogatory comments, harassment, unequal pay or treatment, or being passed over for promotions. It is important to be aware of these signs and to take them seriously. 

Encourage employees to report discrimination: Encourage employees to report any incidents of discrimination and provide multiple channels for them to do so, such as through HR or a designated employee or manager. 

Investigate all reports of discrimination: Take all reports of discrimination seriously and conduct a thorough investigation. Interview all parties involved, gather evidence and document the findings. Take appropriate action based on the results of the investigation. 

Implement diversity and inclusion training: Provide regular training on diversity and inclusion for all employees to help create a positive and inclusive work environment. 

Lead by example: As a manager or employer, your actions and behaviours set the tone for the rest of the organisation. Lead by example and demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion in your own behaviour and decision-making. 

Create an inclusive environment: Encourage and support employee resource groups, celebrate diversity, and create an inclusive and welcoming environment for all employees. 

Monitor and review policies: Discrimination often happens because of policies that are not inclusive or fair. Employers should regularly monitor and review policies to ensure that they do not discriminate against any group of employees. 

Unfair discrimination is not acceptable, and it’s important for employees, managers, and employers to take a proactive approach to addressing it. By following the steps outlined above, everyone can help to create a safe and inclusive work environment for all employees. 

This blog post was originally published here.

[veale2006-blog]

The White House Apostasy And Warning To Believers Wednesday, March 1, 2023 Shalom, to you my Friend and Co-Minister in the Great Commission… At the end of 2022, a critical event took place on the White House lawn. Biden signed into law The Respect for Marriage Act. Like something out of George Orwell's 1984, the law was the very opposite of its name.

It was the first time in American history that same sex marriage was enshrined into federal law. Thus the law of the land was now against anyone who believed the Bible.

The White House went all out, inviting thousands of LGBT activists to the event featuring singers and drag queens. And as in 2015, the highest house in the land, the White House, was lit up in the colors of the rainbow. The act only passed because clauses were added to appease Republican members of Congress - clauses that promised that churches or religious organizations would not be forced to perform or recognize same sex marriage. Though many religious leaders warned that the protections were illusory.

By signing the act, Biden struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, the very Act that he had previously voted for and boasted in, that marriage was between a man and a woman. But Biden went further, as he declared that anyone who believed that homosexuality or gay marriage or the transitioning of children was wrong - was now equivalent to a racist and an anti-Semite. Thus the American government was now equating believers as dangers to the public well-being. But that wasn't all.

In the wake of the Act, a CBS news reporter asked the White House press secretary if allowing the religious freedom clause was not a codification of discrimination. In other words, should not churches and Christians now be forced by the State to recognize and/or perform same-sex marriages?

Now you would think that the White House press secretary, being politically savvy, would have immediately attempted to change the subject. But instead she answered, Is there more work to do? Absolutely. In other words, the White House was saying, Yes. Absolutely. We need now to work to overturn such religious exemptions so that churches and believers will be forced to recognize or perform same-sex marriage.

If you had any doubt that you were living in the end-times, doubt no more. But prepare yourself. This month, ready yourself, consecrate yourself that you will not bow down nor compromise - but stand for God - no matter what - come what may. And may God greatly bless you as you do!

Your sister and co-laborer in His love and service, Debbie

[whats-in-a-sentence]

Section 38 of the SDA relates to 'educational institutions established for religious purposes', of which Covenant Christian School is one. The school's vision and mission make it clear that it has an expressly religious purpose:

Vision: To faithfully serve in God's plan to restore all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Mission: To assist parents in the nurture of their children, by providing a Christ-centred, biblically grounded, culturally engaging and academically rigorous education to equip the children to live for God's glory.

"In/Out: A Scandalous Story of Falling Into Love and Out of the Church" - Steph Lentz

[sickofthis666]

"Sall Grover, founder of the female-only networking app Giggle for Girls, is being sued for discrimination by male trans rights activist Roxanne Tickle (who identifies as a woman) after Grover removed him from her app on the basis he is a man. 

This case is significant because it is the first time ‘gender identity’ will be measured against ‘sex’ as a protected attribute under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA) in Court."

Other interesting fact:

"In 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW is an internationally recognised ‘bill of rights’ for women to protect them from discrimination, exclusion and restriction based on sex. "

"The six UN member states that have not ratified or acceded to the convention are Iran, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga, and the United States" according to Wikipedia.

despite its funny name, Tickle vs Giggle will be a landmark case in the fight for Australian women's rights.

not sure how many on here are aware that it's going on right now.

[legalupanishad]

Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying Laws in Australia

This article on 'Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying Laws in Australia' was written by Aditi Amarawat, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

INTRODUCTION

The Australian government has significantly failed to curb the sexual harassment cases faced by employees in their work environment. The cases reached a crescendo in 2020 when it was discovered that every 1 in 3 public servants was sexually harassed in Australia. (Karp, 2021) According to the commonwealth of Australia constitution 1901, any unwelcome advances physical or vocal fall in the category of sexual harassment. Even a working environment which sexually premeditated or hostile in nature also amounts to sexual harassment. In harassment related to the workplace, the employers will be vicariously liable for the complaints until they can prove that they took all the reasonable steps. Workplaces along with education were one of the first places recognized by legislators as a place of sexual misconduct which needed protection. This article attempts to explain the concept of sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace and the laws regulating the same in Australia.

HISTORY OF WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT

The history of harassment in the workplace is almost similar to that of Sexual harassment in general; it was not recognized as a crime until the 1970s initially by some of the states in the south such as New South Wales and Victoria which saw harassment as a part of discrimination on the grounds of sex. Sexual harassment was first recognized as a federal crime when it got introduced in the Equal Opportunities Act and Sexual Discrimination act 1984; both these acts make sexual harassment of any individual in any environment illegal, including work. The sexual discrimination act 1984 was the first law that stated sexual harassment as a separate ground for complaints in workplaces and not just as another type of discrimination. O'Callaghan v Older It was through this landmark case in 1983 that the federal government realized a need to define and criminalize sexual harassment in workplaces. The case was filed against the commissioner for main roads Mr. Older who allegedly sexually harassed two of his subordinates. Even though older was acquitted due to lack of evidence it was marked by the court that sexual harassment was also a form of sexual discrimination. The judgment by Justice Mathews attempted to define sexual harassment for the first time:  unwelcomed and unsolicited sexual advances by a person in power. (Mathews, 1983) These judgments lead to an amendment in the sexual discrimination act in 1984 to include harassment in workplaces as a form of discrimination, hence, criminalizing it for the first time. Even though this judgment was a significant step in the right direction, Justice Mathews implied the need for there to be a relation between subordinate and superior and a threat to employment for harassment. R v EQUAL OPPORTUNITY BOARD This landmark judgment added some important prerequisites to sexual harassment in any work environment. The judgment by the Victorian court mentioned that the harasser need not be of a superior position they can also be a colleague of equal status. RICHARDSON v ORACLE CORPORATION AUSTRALIA PTY LTD This landmark judgment in 2014 by the federal court raised the ceiling for monetary compensation paid to the victim from a maximum of 18,000$ to 100,000$. In the case the victim was sexually harassed by her partner on a project, the trial awarded the maximum compensation of 18k, The appellant later moved to the federal court, the highest judiciary authority in Australia, for higher monetary compensation as she had to resign from her job due to the harassment. Even though most of the claims by the appellant were dismissed by the apex court it was heard that she must be paid 100,000$ as compensation for monetary loss and the psychological distress faced by the victim.

Workplace Sexual Harassment and Bullying Laws in Australia

CURRENT STATUS

Even though many legislations on federal and state levels have criminalized sexual harassment in workplaces it is still as prevalent as ever, the Morrison government has acknowledged this national issue on multiple occasions. SET THE STANDARD REPORT - A report by the sex discrimination commissioner, Kate Jenkins, is being held landmark in many senses as it put forward the gritty truth regarding the sexual harassment and bullying being faced by the employees in the parliamentary departments. - The report was an independent study into the work culture of the parliament and interviewed almost 1700 staffers in all the government departments. - The findings of the report were “disturbing” and the harassment in the government was at “unacceptable levels” as stated by Prime Minister Scott Morrison - According to the report, one in three staff members in the parliament experienced some kind of sexual harassment in course of their employment.

AMENDMENTS IN LEGISLATIONS

Following the backlash of the Kate Jenkins report multiple amendments were formed based on the suggestions report; the report suggested a total of 28 suggestions across 277 parliamentary offices across the country. FAIR WORKS ACT 2009 - The proposed change will give the fair works commission executor powers to not only act but also file complaints against alleged sexual harassment in workplaces.  The amendment further makes sexual harassment a valid ground for the dismissal of an employee. (Skyring, 2020) - To make a report of sexual harassment the prerequisites that the commission has to look into are; - Sexual harassment has occurred - There are future chances of such activity being repeated SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 - The proposed changes further broaden the meaning of ‘sexual harassment ‘workplace’ and ‘worker’. - The proposed change will also include the working sectors which were previously excluded from the protection such as workers in the judiciary and public servants. - The amendments also hold liability towards an employer on the grounds of aiding or permitting the said act. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 1986 The act increases the time for a victim to report alleged sexual harassment in workplaces from 6 months to 24 months. The intended amendments are expected to flatten the curve and give employees and staffers a safer work environment

SUGGESTIONS

- SIMPLE PROCESS the current proceedings first by a tribunal and then by the federal court on appeal make the process exhaustive and lengthy. The process can become distressing for the victim to recall all the details of the harassment all over again. - INCLUSIVITY some departments such as defense and universities are still not a part of the harassment workplaces. - MONETARY COMPENSATION The ceiling on the monetary compensation is still not high enough to compensate for the loss of time and money that a worker incurs due to the ongoing harassment and proceedings that follow.

CONCLUSION

Sexual harassment especially in workplaces is equivalent to an epidemic in the Oceanic country. The rape of a parliamentary staffer in the office of the defense minister of the country is reason enough to worry and ponder upon the severity of the problem and how high it goes.  The lack of female employees in corporate Australia and the formation of a ‘boys club’ culture in almost all the government departments adds to the hostility toward minorities and women in the workplace which in turn leads to harassment and threatening of the victim. (Banks, 2020)

REFERENCES

- Shawn Skyring and Laure Kenworthy, Sexual harassment in the workplace, Mondaq, 5 November 2021, available at: https://www.mondaq.com/australia/health-safety/1128922/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace - Sex discrimination, Legal Services Commission South Australia, available at: https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch17s01s02s10.php - Sexual harassment, The University of Queensland, available at: https://law.uq.edu.au/files/5957/Sexual-harassment.pdf - Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009, Government of South Australia, available at: https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/lz?path=/c/a/fairwork(commonwealthpowers)act2009 Read the full article

[mariacallous]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday halted a key piece of the “Stop-WOKE” Act touted by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, blocking state officials from enforcing what he called a “positively dystopian” policy restricting how lessons on race and gender can be taught in colleges and universities.

The 138-page order from Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker is being heralded as a major win for campus free speech by the groups who challenged the state.

The temporary injunction granted by Walker over the anti-woke law has significant implications for policies in Florida, including a pending university tenure review rule that requires professors to abide by it.

“’It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen,’ and the powers in charge of Florida’s public university system have declared the State has unfettered authority to muzzle its professors in the name of ‘freedom,’” Walker wrote, citing George Orwell’s novel “1984.” Walker was appointed to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama.

Florida’s Republican-led Legislature approved the “anti-woke” legislation, FL HB 7 (22R), or the Individual Freedom Act, earlier this year. The law, directly inspired by DeSantis, expands Florida’s anti-discrimination laws to prohibit schools and companies from leveling guilt or blame to students and employees based on race or sex, takes aim at lessons over issues like “white privilege” by creating new protections for students and workers, including that a person should not be instructed to “feel guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress” due to their race, color, sex or national origin.

Bryan Griffin, a spokesperson for the governor, said the administration will appeal.

“We strongly disagree with Judge Walker’s preliminary injunction orders on the enforcement of the Stop W.O.K.E. Act and will continue to fight,” he said in a statement.

In his ruling Thursday, Walker determined those policies violate First Amendment free speech protections along with due-process rights in the 14th Amendment on college campuses.

“The law officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints,” wrote Walker. “Defendants argue that, under this Act, professors enjoy ‘academic freedom’ so long as they express only those viewpoints of which the State approves. This is positively dystopian.”

Thursday’s court ruling stems from two separate challenges to the Stop-WOKE Act that were heard together since they both fought how the law applies to higher education. Other legal challenges target K-12 schools and the workplace.

One of the lawsuits was filed by Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a college free speech group, on behalf of a University of South Florida professor, student, and student group. It alleged that the legislation pushed by DeSantis violates their freedom of speech, evidenced by how it could restrict lessons on critical topics such as Jackie Robinson, who broke professional baseball’s color barrier.

“Faculty members are hired to offer opinions from their academic expertise — not toe the party line,” Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney for FIRE, said in a statement. “Florida’s argument that faculty members have no First Amendment rights would have imperiled faculty members across the political spectrum.”

In the other lawsuit, the ACLU, ACLU of Florida and Legal Defense Fund sued the state over the “anti-woke” legislation on behalf of students and educators. They claim it is a “discriminatory classroom censorship law that severely restricts” how race and gender can be taught and talked about in schools.

“This is a huge victory for everyone who values academic freedom and recognizes the value of inclusive education,” Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a statement. “The First Amendment broadly protects our right to share information and ideas, and this includes educators’ and students’ right to learn, discuss, and debate systemic racism and sexism.”

The state university system Board of Governors, one of the central defendants in the case, declined to comment on the ruling. Officials with the Florida Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, attorneys for the state contended that the legislation prohibits teachers and professors from endorsing concepts spelled out in the anti-woke law, not “descriptive, historical discussion of racism in the past.”

“If, for example, a professor instructs students that in some period in history, individuals’ status as either privileged or oppressed was necessarily determined by race, that instruction does not violate the Act,” attorneys for the state wrote. “The professor has merely described historical factual circumstances, not personally endorsed the view that an individual’s status today is necessarily determined by race.”

Florida university leaders earlier this month granted initial approval to a new rule outlining reviews for tenured faculty members across the state, guidelines that require schools to probe university professors for any violations of the “Stop-WOKE” law, as well as unapproved absences, substantiated student complaints and other metrics.

[sophjuly]

I read all 68 pages of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 (Cth) so you don't have to... here is a brief overview the two most controversial sections.

Before you read this, please note that this is NOT legal advice and contains only a 'spark notes' version of the two most controversial sections of the Bill - sections 7 and 12. It is only intended for your information and as a starting point for you to educate yourself on the Bill.

What is the purpose of the Bill?

The Bill claims to be for the purpose of ensuring "Australians are protected from discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity – just as they are protected from discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race and disability", which sounds fine on the face of it, and some of its Objects actually make sense, for example s 3(1)(a), which states "to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination against 19 persons on the ground of religious belief or activity in a range 20 of areas of public life;" and s 3(1)(c ) "to promote the recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that people of all religious beliefs, including people with no religious belief, have the same fundamental rights in relation to those beliefs;". HOWEVER, the concern surrounding the Bill centres on sections 7-12 in Part 2 of the Bill, which relates to "Conduct etc. which is not discrimination". In effect, this Part of the Bill legally absolves religious institutions from their obligation not to discriminate against others on the grounds of "religious belief or activity".

The main sections in question are sections 7 and 12.

Section 7

Section 7 sets out circumstances in which a religious body's conduct is not discrimination. This includes any "area of public life", including work, education, access to premises and the provision of goods, services and accommodation.

Essentially, there are two types of conduct that are not discrimination under this section, if the religious body by engaging in conduct "in good faith":

which a person of the same religion "could reasonably consider to be in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of that religion"(see sub-section 7(2)).

to "avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of the same religion as the religious body" (see sub-section 7(4)).

Basically, if a person who subscribes to the same religious beliefs as the religious body agrees that the conduct is in accordance with their faith, and the conduct is done "in good faith", it's not discrimination.

This includes giving preference to a person of the same religion as the religious body (see sub-sections 7(3) and 7(5)).

A note to sub-sections (2) and (4) states that conduct that is not discrimination under this section may still be discrimination under other anti-discrimination laws such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). However, I will note that various consequential amendments are proposed to be made to various other anti-discrimination laws which would include conduct under the Bill as exceptions to the relevant sections of those Acts, including the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). Further, the government's plan to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) to "ensure schools can't expel students and teachers for their sexual orientation won't extend to protecting transgender students from expulsion" and "would also not protect same-sex attracted students against other forms of discrimination, opening the possibility religious schools could punish them with measures short of expulsion" (see this ABC News link and this article by The Guardian).

Section 12

Section 12 states that a "statement of belief" is not in and of itself discrimination under the Bill or under various federal and state-based anti-discrimination legislation including: the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth), the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA), Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas), Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) and more.

What is a "statement of belief"? A "statement of belief" under section 5 of the Bill is a statement that is:

of a religious belief held by a person;

made in good faith; and

of a belief that the person genuinely considers to be in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of that religion.

This applies to "written or spoken words or other communication (other than physical contact)". It can also apply if it is a statement in relation to beliefs held by a person who does not hold a religious belief, is made in good faith and "is of a belief that the person genuinely considers to relate to the fact of not holding a religious belief".

Essentially, you can say whatever you want if you really believe that the statement is in accordance with the teachings of your religion. It's a shame that the fact you genuinely believe that your statement is in accordance with your religion doesn't do shit to minimise the harm - trauma - you are inflicting on another person.

As a personal example, shortly after I graduated I found out that my former school had circulated a letter to parents and students stating that they shouldn't socialise with people from "broken homes".

Other relevant sections

It is important to note that there are other relevant sections of the Bill which apply in addition to those discussed above. For example, section 7 does not apply to certain conduct by religious hospitals, aged care facilities, accommodation providers and disability service providers. In this case, section 9 sets out what conduct would not be considered discrimination.

In addition, Part 3 of the proposed Bill deals with discrimination against another on the grounds of their religious belief or activity. Ironically, it looks like some of the actions that would be considered discrimination under these sections is similar to the conduct that sections 7 and 12 allow for religious bodies... but anyway...

Update: this Bill has now passed the House of Representatives.

[qnewsau]

NSW apologies for laws criminalising homosexual acts

New Post has been published on https://qnews.com.au/nsw-apologies-for-laws-criminalising-homosexual-acts/

NSW apologies for laws criminalising homosexual acts

NSW Premier Chris Minns has formally apologised on behalf of the government to people convicted of homosexual acts.

NSW is the last state in apologise for the anti-gay laws which were reformed in 1984.

Mr Minns said these laws “persecuted, and harmed” people based on their sexuality, and acknowledged there was “still much more work to do to ensure the equal rights of all members of the LGBTQIA+ community”.

“We’re here to apologise for every life that was damaged or diminished or destroyed by these unjust laws,” he said to a packed public viewing gallery.

“To those who survived these terrible years and to those who never made it through, we are truly sorry.

“As a state, we told you were wrong. But the truth is you are never wrong. These laws were wrong.”

Attending the apology were more than a dozen 78ers, NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb and Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore.

Pride in Protest responds to apology 

However, Pride in Protest has called the apology a “distraction” and is calling for the state government to do more to protect LGBTQIA+ people – specifically, passing the Equality Bill.

Chris Minns is apologising today for the historic ways the law was weaponised against the queer community,” Pride in Protest and Sex Worker Action Collective member Wei Thai-Haynes said.

“The big problem is that while he’ll apologise in one breath for the past, Minns’ is delaying progress and refusing to act on all the ways the law is STILL homophobic and transphobic.

“An apology is long overdue and we would all like to be together to commemorate an important symbolic moment. But the victims of the criminalisation of homosexuality and our broader queer community deserve a genuine apology – that means an apology that is accompanied by an end to the ways the law still fails us”

“The Minns Labor Government have the numbers in Parliament to pass the Equality Bill today. They could give us legal protection from discrimination. They could remove the barriers that prevent many trans people from living their lives freely and authentically. [The NSW government] could ignore the noise from religious extremists and transphobes and protect the dignity of queer people.

“Every day, NSW Labor is choosing to leave us unequal.”

More to Come

If you need someone to talk to, help is available from QLife on 1800 184 527 or online at QLife.org.au, Lifeline on 13 11 14, Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or beyondblue on 1300 22 4636.

More NSW News:

Mardi Gras tells MPs to pass Equality Bill or get out of Parade

Drag icon Glenda Jackson’s memorial booked out within hours

NSW Parliament inquiry clears way for Equality Bill

Sydney’s rainbow crossings are now Progress Pride flags

For the latest LGBTIQA+ Sister Girl and Brother Boy news, entertainment, community stories in Australia, visit qnews.com.au. Check out our latest magazines or find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.