Burn the witch

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Here is the message that an Australian court has ordered Kirralie Smith to pin to all her social media whatsits.

PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE LOCAL COURT OF NSW AS VARIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NSW Following proceedings in the Local Court of NSW (2024/78280) the Local Court of NSW has declared that Kirralie Smith and Binary Australia contravened section 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 (NSW) by making and publishing various social media posts between 19 January 2023 and 27 March 2023 and a newsletter dated 19 January 2023 that incited hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a soccer player on the ground that she is a transgender person. Public acts that incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground that the person or group are transgender are unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The Local Court of NSW has ordered Kirralie Smith and Binary Australia to pay damages to the soccer player, and to remove the offending posts and to not repeat or continue the offending behaviour.

But it’s not “on the ground that she is a transgender person”. Not not not. It’s on the ground that he is a male person. We don’t give a shit whether people call themselves transgender or not. We give a shit about men calling themselves women and then taking all our stuff and forcing themselves on us in our own spaces.

Courts abusing women for refusing to call men “women” is not social justice, not progressive, not lefty, not liberal, not reasonable, not sane, not fair, not decent, not ok, not acceptable.

Comments

8 responses to “Burn the witch”

  1. Southwest88 Avatar
    Southwest88

    What happens if she refuses to comply? Australian laws are so different from USA laws that I cannot even understand how this judge can do this. What if the judge’s victim says “no, I will not be treated this way” and does not pay up and does not grovel? Life in prison?

  2. maddog1129 Avatar
    maddog1129

    Or what if she “complies” with an annotated version specifying what the order glosses over?

    That is, instead of accepting the characterization that “various posts … incited hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of” anyone, show the actual content of the “various posts,” showing that all that happened was the totally innocuous recognition that a man is a man, and that there was no “on the ground that she [sic] is a transgender person,” but rather, by scrupulously maintaining the distinction between sex and “gender identity,” recognizing that he is a man, which, in fact, he is.

    Similarly, don’t hide the punitive nature of this required speech; she isn’t required merely to “pay damages.” She has been ordered to pay a ruinous sum — was it Au$40,000? — for the crime of recognizing the actual sex of the soccer player, which was 100% true and correct. The “damages” are out of all proportion to any possible offense, and it is merely “offense,” and zero actual harm, that is caused to a transgender-identified man by recognizing the indisputable scientific fact of his sex, which is male.

    It’s truly unbelievable. What a flabbergasting, total miscarriage of justice.

    This whole thing is so unfair and outrageous that it just leaves me staggering in disbelief.

  3. maddog1129 Avatar
    maddog1129

    It was Au$95,000, plus another Au$40,000 if she does not post the compelled confession of guilt; and the confession of guilt is, in fact, a lie.

  4. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    Same about the unfair and outrageous leaving me staggering. It really is hard to believe.

  5. Sumi Avatar
    Sumi

    Her best bet is to appeal. Non-payment can lead to wage garnishment, driver’s license suspension and jail time.

  6. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    Maybe she should make sure the posts are present on the front page of the website, so people can see for themselves that they are not inciting hatred or discriminating against anyone, they are calling a man a man.

  7. maddog1129 Avatar
    maddog1129

    First, there isn’t any “offense,” but second, the damages award is beyond ridiculous in terms of any actual damage or harm. This is draconian, meant to bankrupt the accused for a de minimis act. It’s so beyond belief.

  8. Omar Avatar
    Omar

    Courts abusing women for refusing to call men “women” is not social justice, not progressive, not lefty, not liberal, not reasonable, not sane, not fair, not decent, not ok, not acceptable.

    Nor is it ‘conservative’ in the traditional sense of the word.

    The Supreme Court of NSW has managed to violate the social norms and decency of all but the ~ 1% (if that) of the population that are transwhatevers.

    Quite an achievement, come to think of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts