The Australian Christian Lobby is the latest target of weaponised anti-discrimination laws to silence mainstream Christian expression.

HRLA is assisting ACL in responding to a complaint accepted by the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner regarding an election flyer distributed earlier this year.

The flyer exposed the Green Party’s extreme gender ideology and policy of funding “gender transition” surgeries and hormones.

The flyer stated that “biology isn’t bigotry”, and stated the biological reality that male and female distinctions matter in healthcare, women’s safety, and protecting children.

The complaint alleges that the flyer was “offensive, humiliating, intimidating, insulting or ridiculing” based on gender or gender identity.

Mere offence is enough to trigger a legal process that can tie you up in tribunals and courtrooms for years.

This is not the first time these provisions have been used to attempt to chill religious speech.

In 2015, Archbishop Julian Porteous faced a complaint under the same section of the Act for distributing a booklet articulating the Catholic view of marriage.

In 2022 Archbishop Porteous said:

I have seen and experienced first hand the chilling effect of laws like the Tasmanian Anti-discrimination Act which allow complaints because a person feels offended.

Many Australians do not want even the slightest possibility of being hauled before a tribunal of this nature by an activist and so no longer feel comfortable in respectfully expressing their religious beliefs.

That matter was eventually withdrawn, but only after months of legal wrangling and public pressure.

The ACL flyer in question included a basic, factual summary of the Greens’ position on government funding for transgender medical interventions, along with statements based in reality and in Christian doctrine, such as: “male and female distinctions matter for healthcare, women’s safety and protecting children”.

These are not only statements of biological truth but also expressions of belief, protected under the implied Constitutional freedom of political communication as well as the fundamental right to religious expression.

Yet under current law, they can be grounds for formal complaint and legal scrutiny.

This is one of a number of similar cases HRLA is involved in.

HRLA has previously acted for Dave Pellowe in Queensland in a similar matter, which was ultimately discontinued.

Lyle Shelton, former head of the ACL, was sued for vilification after commenting on his blog that drag queens aren’t good role models for children. After winning the case, the other parties appealed, and Lyle is still waiting for a decision over five years after writing the blog.

And Jasmine Sussex, a breastfeeding consultant, is facing a tribunal in Queensland for comments responding to a man claiming to have breastfed his newborn child, including the true statement that “men can’t breastfeed”.

In these cases, the complaint process itself functions as a form of punishment – imposing stress, reputational harm, financial cost, and sometimes professional consequences on those who hold and express mainstream religious views.

If mainstream political and religious expression can land an Archbishop and the ACL in front of a legal tribunal, who is safe?

HRLA exists precisely to defend these freedoms, and we will continue to do so – in Tasmania and across the country.

^{Image source: Hope1032, https://hope1032.com.au/faith/michelle-pearse-vote-based-on-your-christian-values/}