Monthly Archives

January 2021

VICTORIAN PREMIERS CHANGE AND SUPPRESSION BILL RHETORIC DOES NOT FIT THE BILL

By Australian Newsletter

Editors comments:  We have devoted this entire newsletter to just one subject, such is the importance of the matter being reported on. The two articles cover the same subject , but from slightly different perspectives. Prayer is urgently needed if Victoria is going to be stopped from going down a path that has very serious implications for the free practice of the Christian faith in that state down the track.

The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Prohibition Bill 2020 passed in the Lower House in Victoria. No MPs were brave enough to oppose this government juggernaut. There are about 30 Liberal/National MPs and most of them understand how dangerous this bill is to parental rights and religious freedom. Yet they did not vote against it. This shows how severe the LGBTQ intimidation and misinformation really are. It will now be debated in the Upper House in early February. There will be no change to the outcome unless there is considerable uprising by the Church and by parents. To indicate what’s at stake, a child who is too young to drive or have a tattoo will be allowed to irreversibly change their gender. If a parent says no, they will be deemed ‘family violence offenders’ and will be subject to restraining orders and up to 10 years in jail.

Pastors will be severely restricted in what they can say or do when a LGBTQ person seeks their help. A same-sex attracted person who wants to live according to the Bible will not be able to request prayer or group support. “On what basis can the government impose restrictions on prayer?” Archbishop Comensoli rightly asks. Soon, praying for LGBTQ struggles could be a crime. All Australians are asked to please pray that MPs, churches, and parents will have the courage to stand against the LGBTQ agenda and protect our freedoms. There is a yawning gap between Daniel Andrews’ extreme rhetoric and the actual content of the Victorian Government’s ‘change and suppression’ bill, according to the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL). “If the Premier’s ‘change and suppression’ bill merely banned so-called ‘bigoted quackery,’ then nobody would stand against it,” said ACL managing director Martyn Iles.

“The Premier’s rhetoric is extreme and insulting because the Bill clearly bans perfectly innocent conduct by Victorians, including parents who want what’s best for their kids.” “A Victorian parent who does not think irreversible hormone replacement therapy is best for their child is not a bigoted quack, yet that is what the bill bans, on the threat of jail. “A Victorian who prays for someone at their request is not a bigoted quack, yet that is what the bill explicitly bans, on the threat of jail” Iles said. “If Mr Andrews wants to ban bigoted quackery, he should go back to the drawing board, this bill would jail parents, pastors and doctors for perfectly innocent conduct. If Mr Andrews truly believes what he says, then he must also believe that 73% of Victorians are bigoted quacks because polling is showing they do not agree with the bans imposed by this bill” said Mr Iles. ACL joins parents, church leaders and others in urging the Liberal Party and crossbench to reject the bill in the Legislative Council.

Source: Australian Christian Lobby

Print This Post Print This Post

PRAYER UNDER THREAT IN VICTORIA

By Australian Newsletter

Totalitarianism is becoming more of a reality each day in Victoria. The government wants to outlaw prayer for gender issues and penalise anyone, including parents, from providing wise counsel, even to their own children. Legislation before the Victorian parliament will make the act of prayer a criminal offence in some circumstances. Yet in an era when it is cool to self-identify as anything but a Christian, hardly anyone is making a fuss. The pretext for the bill is transphobia, a contagion for which the Andrews government believes the church is a super spreader. It will be illegal to counsel a person to change or suppress their chosen gender identity. Prohibited actions include “carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer-based practice”. The prohibition applies whether or not the subject consented to the prayer-based activity. The penalty is up to 10 years’ imprisonment or an enormous fine.

The government is encouraging anyone to do the dobbing, even if they are not personally affected and even if the parties involved consent to the prayer or counselling. It is not just church leaders who might find themselves in strife for failing to affirm a person’s sexual or gender identity. Parents are in trouble, too. The Human Rights Law Alliance warns that “parents who struggle with their 13-year-old daughter’s sudden presentation of gender confusion and who oppose chemical and surgical practices to transition appearance to that of a male, could be made criminals and face jail time”. There has been little publicity about the bill. Only the propaganda of the activists gets a voice while the consultative process remains heavily biased toward the ideological agenda. Binary spokeswoman, Kirralie Smith, said Nick Cater expressed it best when he said.

We should be encouraging minors to seek a second, third or fourth opinion from doctors, priests, pastors and other professionals before embarking on a path that could alter their bodies irreversibly with a limited chance of improving their mental health. Yet the Victorian law will make it illegal to do anything other than pat them on the head. The issue here is not the maturity of minors, but the intellectual immaturity of adults who exploit teenage anxiety for ideological ends.

Source: Binary

Print This Post Print This Post

 

 

TASMANIAN VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING ADVOCATE ON “UNBIASED” PANEL

By Australian Newsletter

A key member of the “independent and objective” panel advising Tasmanian MPs on Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) has a long history of strong advocacy for the reform, prompting claims that the body lacks balance. University of Tasmania law professor Margaret Otlowski is one of four review panel members whose expert report will help shape the state’s final voluntary assisted dying law, which is set to pass parliament in March. The panel was requested by Premier Peter Gutwein, a declared supporter of the private member’s bill, to provide “independent and objective” advice to MPs ahead of the vote. This advice is to include a comparison to legislation in other jurisdictions, an “objective analysis” of safeguards, the interrelationship between VAD and palliative care, and stakeholder feedback. Opponents of the bill have said they are concerned Professor Otlowski, as the key legal expert on the panel, has been a consistent and firm supporter of VAD.

A check of the public record shows the professor, whose integrity and expertise are not questioned, has made submissions to various inquiries in support of the concept of VAD. She even was credited with helping to draft previous, doomed Tasmanian VAD legislation in 2013. The professor, a pro vice-chancellor, has publicly dismissed some of the key concerns raised against VAD, including in relation to the adequacy of safeguards adopted elsewhere, and appeared in public as part of a group of VAD supporters in 2013. Live and Die Well, representing opponents of the bill put forward by independent upper house MP Mike Gaffney, said a second legal expert should be appointed to the panel to balance Professor Otlowski’s pro-VAD views. “Professor Otlowski has a 25-year track record as a euthanasia advocate,” group spokesman Ben Smith said.

“Professor Otlowski’s many parliamentary submissions display a dismissive attitude in respect to the risks of euthanasia legislation for vulnerable people, so her views appear fixed. “It is critical that there is a balance of legal views on the panel so that people will have confidence that the issues they raise in their submissions will get a full and fair hearing and consideration.  Professor Otlowski declined to comment, saying that the panel members had agreed among themselves not to speak to the news media during their deliberations on the euthanasia legislation.

Source: Australian Christian Lobby

Print This Post Print This Post

CLOSE OUTCOME SHINES LIGHT ON CRUCIAL 2021 ABORTION VOTE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

By Australian Newsletter

Those who care for the vulnerable, viable babies and little unborn girls shone a bright light in the South Australian (SA) Upper House, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) said whilst praising the Hons Clare Scriven, Nicola Centofanti and Dennis Hood for contributions on the abortion to birth bill that will illuminate the Lower House debate in 2021. Mr Christopher Brohier, Australian Christian Lobby’s SA Director said, “Sadly their efforts were not enough. The Upper House voted to allow abortion to birth 12 votes to 9 and rejected an amendment which would have banned gender selection abortion 11 votes to 10.”  “Members had before them an Attorney-General’s Office fact sheet which said in relation for late term abortions:  ‘In later term terminations, either an induction of labour or surgery will be used. If induction of labour is the chosen method of termination, the most usual outcome in this situation is that the baby will be stillborn. In this instance, palliative care is offered, the baby born is wrapped in a blanket and the mother is given the opportunity to hold the baby as it dies. In some instances, in late termination feticide is undertaken which means the baby will be stillborn.’

“MLCs knew they were voting to allow babies to be born and left to die or to sanction the in utero killing of living unborn children, which is feticide, yet they did so!” Mr Brohier said the final words should be left to the Hon David Ridgway MLC, who in the last speech of the debate said, “I have listened to the debate and listened to the amendments but mostly the ones I have supported have been lost. The one I wanted to make particular comment about was the Hon. Mr Hood’s gender selection amendment. That was a very close vote in the end but I think it demonstrates to me that this chamber really has not had the health and wellbeing in mind of either the mother or the child when they were not prepared to support the Hon. Mr Hood’s amendment about gender selection.” “He is right. ACL calls on the Lower House to reject abortion to birth when the bill is debated there in 2021.

Source: Australian Christian Lobby

Print This Post Print This Post