By LYLE SHELTON
LAST Wednesday, my lawyers were back in the Queensland Supreme Court defending me in what has become a seven-year legal saga over my criticism of “Drag Queen Story Time” events for children.
I was unable to attend the hearing due to a prior commitment in Canberra, but the issues at stake could not be more important.
The case began in 2020 when I was living in Brisbane. I wrote a blog arguing that drag queens promoting gender fluid ideology to children in a Council library were dangerous role models. I stand by that assessment today.
After reviewing the public social media content of the drag queens involved, I believed parents had every right to be alerted to the messages and values being presented to children in taxpayer-funded public libraries. That blog triggered legal action against me.
I was compelled into mediation through the Queensland Human Rights Commission, a taxpayer-funded body which embraces the idea that a man can be a woman and appears comfortable with sexualised queer culture being promoted to children.
When the complainants failed to secure an apology or force me to censor my views, they took me to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The matter finally went to trial in 2022. In 2023, I received a judgment vindicating my position.
With the assistance of taxpayer-funded lawyers from the LGBT Legal Service, the drag queens appealed.
Following a three-day appeal hearing in March 2025, I received a decision from the Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal 11 months later which upheld their appeal and sent the matter back for reconsideration.
While no finding of vilification has ever been made against me, the decision was a significant setback.
My legal team has now sought Judicial Review of that appeal decision in the Supreme Court. Last Wednesday’s hearing concerned an application by the drag queens to have my Judicial Review case struck out before I can fully argue it.
They are also seeking extraordinary orders that would require me to indemnify them against legal costs. In other words, they want me to pay their costs even if I ultimately win. Make that make sense.
This case highlights a fundamental problem with Australia’s anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws.
People who possess protected attributes relating to sexuality or gender are granted special legal avenues to pursue those who question the ideology underpinning their identity claims. The result is a chilling effect on public debate and political commentary.
People who possess protected attributes relating to sexuality or gender are granted special legal avenues to pursue those who question the ideology underpinning their identity claims. The result is a chilling effect on public debate and political commentary.
These laws are increasingly being used against free speech, and they need reform if Australians are to retain the freedom to discuss matters of public importance.
Parents cannot protect children from harmful gender ideology or sexualised activist culture if people are too frightened to speak about these issues.
Yet where are the politicians willing to fix these laws? At present, there are very few.
That is one reason I have been involved in rebuilding Family First and why I am standing for the NSW Legislative Council at next year’s election. Without freedom of speech, we are not free.
One final point deserves attention.
Equality Australia, a political lobbying organisation that enjoys special tax-deductible status unavailable to most political advocacy groups, has publicly backed the drag queens pursuing this case against me.
Following my setback in the appeal tribunal, Equality Australia issued a media release welcoming the decision.
The patron of Equality Australia is Governor-General Sam Mostyn. Its co-patron is Shane Jenek, better known by the drag persona Courtney Act.
In my view, it is inappropriate for the Governor-General to lend her office and prestige to an organisation actively supporting efforts to suppress the free speech rights of Australian citizens.
In my view, it is inappropriate for the Governor-General to lend her office and prestige to an organisation actively supporting efforts to suppress the free speech rights of Australian citizens.
It is also concerning that Equality Australia continues to advocate for Australia’s child gender clinic system, where vulnerable children can be placed on pathways involving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible medical interventions.
The Supreme Court has reserved its decision. It may be weeks or even months before I know the outcome.
What I do know is that there appears to be no end in sight to the litigation being pursued against me.
I will keep supporters updated as developments occur.
In the meantime, I will continue campaigning as hard as I can for election to the NSW Parliament, because ultimately the solution to Australia’s free speech crisis lies not with the courts but with our Parliaments.