In recent weeks, an event in Melbourne has become a striking example of how freedom of speech – especially on sensitive issues of sex and gender – is under increasing pressure.

An event organised by Women's Voices Australia, featuring prominent gender-critical journalist Helen Joyce, was scheduled to be held at the library operated by the City of Melbourne. The booking had been made in July, fully paid for, with an induction for staff already held. But just days before the event, the library cancelled the booking, citing safety concerns and risk of protest.

Despite the fact the event was set to be ticketed and restricted to vetted attendees, the City of Melbourne reportedly told WVA the venue would only proceed if “enhanced safety measures”, including thousands of dollars of security, were arranged. WVA’s spokeswoman, Jasmine Sussex (also an HRLA client), said the cancellation appeared to reflect discrimination against their “sex-realist” views and an unwillingness to host a low-risk private gathering simply because the viewpoint diverged from prevailing ideology.

Fortunately, a local church stepped in and offered its facilities so the discussion could go ahead. In doing so, it ensured that public discourse could continue when a civic institution chose to shut it down. The church’s act of hospitality was more than just a venue change: it was a public statement that ideas deserve to be heard and judged on their merits and that no viewpoint should be cancelled simply because it challenges dominant narratives.

This incident highlights a troubling pattern. Public authorities are increasingly treating certain viewpoints as too risky or politically unacceptable to permit. When a library, which should be a “beacon of free thought”, refuses to host a debate, it signals a narrowing of what counts as permissible public speech. As Liberal MP Moira Deeming put it, the library “is instead being used to gatekeep free discourse using taxpayers’ money”.

Local churches and community groups play a crucial role in preserving public discourse. When civic institutions fail, these communities often carry the torch of free speech and faithful engagement. Their willingness to provide space for debate, particularly on contested issues, keeps alive the possibility that truth may be sought and discussed rather than suppressed.

As long as certain viewpoints are viewed as unacceptable or too controversial, there will be a need for defenders of free speech and freedom of religion. HRLA remains committed to that defence – ensuring Australians are not silenced or sidelined simply for holding to a belief about sex, gender, identity or the rights of women.

If this case in Melbourne tells us anything, it is that freedom of speech and faith are not safe simply by default: they need to be defended by institutions, church communities and legal advocates alike.