If Peter Dutton wanted to win the election, he’d weigh in on the side of Canadian dad Chris Elston who is this week fighting for your and my freedom of speech in a Melbourne court room.

Elston, aka Billboard Chris, is challenging the Government’s ‘eSafety’ Commissioner for censoring his 2024 post on X that rightly called out a woman claiming to be a man.

Sadly, Dutton is unlikely to support Elston because he wants to steer clear of  “culture wars”.

But how else can free speech be defended if not by political leaders acting with courage?

Instead, Dutton goes into this election on a unity ticket with Labor, the Greens and the Teals supporting the Sex Discrimination Act which says a woman can have a penis.

On behalf of Dutton and the Coalition, Senator Dave Sharma vowed not to change the SDA, even though it means girls and women’s sports is made unfair and their spaces unsafe.

Neither Dutton nor anyone in the Coalition has repudiated Sharma, despite the promise being made on national television.

So it is left to the courageous Billboard Chris to fight alone in the Administrative Review Tribunal about why it is farcical for an Australian woman to be allowed to identify as a man and then help write World Health Organisation guidelines designed to confuse children.

The woman in question is not any woman.

Teddy Cook (pronouns he/him) is a prominent transgender activist and is on the governing body of Equality Australia, the main LGBTIQA+ political lobby group fighting for the rights of child gender clinics to be allowed to continue to sterilise and mutilate the bodies of children in their futile quest to change their gender.

Equality Australia has also spearheaded the campaign to destroy religious schools in Australia by forcing them to hire staff who do not share parents’ values on marriage and gender.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a US-based law firm is working with Australia’s Human Rights Law Alliance to defend Chris.

The ADF’s blog reported on the case:

In February 2024, Canadian internet sensation and children’s safety campaigner “Billboard Chris” (Chris Elston), took to U.S. social media platform “X” to share the article, adding the comment:

“This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.”

“People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”

In his evidence this week, Elston told the Tribunal that while the first sentence of the tweet was a specific comment to the Daily Mail’s story on Teddy Cook, his second sentence was intended more broadly, to make a political comment about the ideological bias present amongst those in positions of power and influence when it comes to writing gender policy around the world.

Speaking on the witness stand, Elston added:

“It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body…children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.”

Asked further about why he chose to post on this matter, Elston explained: “Because the World Health Organisation has global influence. We should have evidence-based care.”

Under cross-examination, Elston responded, “My goal is not to provoke outrage. My goal is to simply try to educate people, and encourage discussion. I want everyone to think for themselves.”

Freedom of political communication is protected as an implied right under the Australian Constitution.

It has been previously reported that Teddy Cook has had both breasts surgically removed, dresses in kink and advocates for bestiality.

Family First thanks Chris Elston for doing what Labor and Liberal won’t – fight for our free speech so children can be protected from harm and girls and women be given a fair go.

At this election, vote 1 Family First.

Free speech in Australia was already on life support before Victoria’s so-called “hate speech” laws passed this week.

Deeply flawed anti-discrimination laws, which also exist in other states, now have the frightening overlay of criminal sanctions in Victoria.

That potentially means jail simply for speaking the truth about gender or marriage.

The Australian Christian Lobby’s Victorian director Jasmine Yuen summed it up well when she said she feared the “subjective and undefined terminology” used in the Bill could see Victorians hauled in front of the courts for expressing contentious views, such as stating that “trans women are not women”.

Australia’s anti-discrimination laws are already “subjective and undefined” – one only has to read the judgement of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Member Jeremy Gordon in the case brought against me by two LGBTIQA+ drag queens to know that.

Lowering the bar further is legally reckless for a society that venerates its ANZACs for fighting and dying for our freedoms.

Victoria has form in using the threat of jail against its citizens so that the wishes of radical LGBTIQA+ activists can be carried out.

Even the hapless Victorian Liberals support jailing parents for up to ten years if they try and stop their child from being injected with sterilising puberty blockers, taking their support for the so called “anti-conversion” laws to the 2022 election.

Thankfully the Liberals belatedly saw sense and did not repeat this mistake,  opposing this week’s “hate speech” laws.

But it wasn’t enough to stop Labor and the Greens ramming it through.

One of the big changes this week was the insertion of the word “likely” into the law.

To go to jail, intent or some objective “reasonable persons” test, is no defence.

If what a citizen does is “likely” to incite contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a minority group, you can be dragged before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and ultimately sent to jail.

If this test was applied to the case brought against me by the two Queensland drag queens who are suing me for saying they are dangerous role models for children (which they are), I could be in even more trouble than I currently am.

Australia’s regime of flawed anti-discrimination/anti-vilification laws have much in common and Victorian and NSW cases have been cited the two trials I have been through.

Having sat through around 10 days of court room legal arguments and read hundreds of pages of submissions against me over the past five years, it is clear to me this week’s Victorian laws have been constructed to ensure people like me can never get away with exercising freedom of speech when calling out the nefarious agenda of the LGBTIQA+ political movement.

Victoria has even made “drag queens” a protected attribute in the legislation.

Is this so people like me can never again criticise the gender-fluid and “camp culture” indoctrination agenda of children that even the expert witnesses in my case admit is behind DQST?

The public rationale for beefing up federal and state “hate speech” laws was the antisemitism crisis.

The LGBTIQA+ political lobby cleverly used it to smuggle in chilling advances to their agenda to completely snuff out free speech.

They are totalitarians and for a large part of their journey the Liberals supported this. Thankfully they woke up this week, but it was too late.

Family First plans to contest next year’s Victorian election.

Just as we are fighting at the current federal election for free speech and freedom of religion, our efforts will be redoubled in the state campaign.

Family First Senators, if elected, will fight for a Commonwealth override of state-based anti-free speech "hate speech" laws. Family First has already announced it will abolish state and federal human rights commissions which are activated by these laws.

Fighting to repeal anti-free speech and anti-family laws constructed by LGBTIQA+ political activists with the help of politicians will continue to be top of Family First’s agenda.

MEDIA RELEASE

It’s a new day in Washington DC and if Australia wants to maintain its security alliance with the US, it better take note.

The heated Oval Office exchange between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, alongside Vice President J.D Vance’s recent address at the Munich Security Conference, highlight the U.S. administration’s new priorities.

The Oval Office spat with Zelensky at the weekend is clear evidence the Trump Administration is serious about its “America First” agenda and that it will not keep underwriting wars on behalf of allies indefinitely.

At last month’s Munich Security Conference, Vice President Vance delivered a pointed critique of European leaders for undermining democratic principles, particularly freedom of speech.

He asserted, “I believe that dismissing people, dismissing their concerns or, worse yet, shutting down media… protects nothing.

“Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters,” he said.

This critique is equally pertinent to Australian politicians who preside over laws that clearly infringe upon free speech, thereby failing to uphold Western ideals.

While Family First unequivocally supports efforts to combat anti-Semitism, it is crucial to acknowledge that recent “hate speech” laws may inadvertently encroach upon legitimate free speech.

Australia’s longstanding anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws also encroach freedom of speech, as evidenced by Family First’s National Director Lyle Shelton’s five-year legal battle with LGBTIQA+ drag queens.

Laws which allow litigation for speech that is deemed to likely ‘offend’ or ‘insult’ only serve woke agendas and suppress legitimate speech.

In light of these developments, Australia must critically evaluate its domestic policies and defence posture:

Australia must reexamine and amend laws that infringe upon freedom of expression to ensure alignment with democratic principles.

Australia must urgently increase defence spending by committing to substantial and timely enhancements in military capabilities to meet emerging global threats and fulfil alliance obligations.

Australia’s weak response to China’s live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea will not have gone unnoticed in Washington DC.

By proactively addressing these issues, Australia can reinforce its dedication to the principles underpinning its alliance with the United States, ensuring mutual respect and continued collaboration in promoting global security and democratic values.

It would be foolish for Australian politicians to ignore the new Administration’s priorities and its clear warnings.

Time to wake up.

If politicians really cared about free speech, they would reform these laws.