Thread by @HaydenJOConnor

Insulting, stupid, homophobic, biphobic or transphobic questions asked during the debate on the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 last night. Naturally with the member named and shamed. A thread! ⬇️⬇️⬇️ #auspol #springst #LGBTQ

"If, for example, somebody goes to them and
says, ‘I feel that I need a gender transition’, and the person says, ‘I don’t think that’s a very good idea’,
does that make them liable to be charged?" - Bernie Finn

.@JaclynSymes excellent answer "I assume you would be referring to seeking advice from a medical practitioner in relation to gender transition, and nothing in this bill changes the advice, support and medical treatment that a qualified medical professional deems appropriate."

Naturally Bernie Finn (who voted against the bill) had no further follow up questions after having his stupid question shut down by Attorney General Jaclyn Symes

Stupid question from @_davidlimbrick, over several tweets as it is a long question. "someone who is married with children, for example—let us say it is a man, for argument’s sake. They discover later in life that they are same-sex attracted." 1/

"They make a decision that they want to seek to
suppress that part of their sexuality because they do not want to break up their family. They go out and
seek help with that from someone-let us say in a group. It could be a church. It does not have to be." 2/

"It is not necessarily religious. The person providing that advice to help them suppress that part of their
sexuality would appear to me to meet the criteria that you mentioned before." 3/

"It is directed to an individual, because they are getting that individual advice. It would also be directed around their orientation, so it would also meet that criteria, and it would also have the intent of suppressing their
sexuality." 4/

"So my question to you is: does the government denounce people engaging in this type of
activity and support for people who consensually want to engage in this type of activity?" - @_davidlimbrick

What a disgusting and ignorant question from David Limbrick! Regardless of one's situation, we should all be proud of who we truly are. David Limbrick might want you to suppress who you are as he voted against the bill but he is just a bigot. Ignore him and vote him out.

Limbrick asked a follow up ending in "I do not see what the justification is for the government’s denunciation of this type of activity that someone would seek out consensually" -he believes consented conversion therapy is ok. How many parents made their children 'consent'?

.@_davidlimbrick had further stupid follow ups but we'd be here all day if I included them all. However, after a few questions from other members Limbrick piped up again to claim that bisexual people that are married are suppressing part of their sexuality. See below.

.@_davidlimbrick "Again going back to the scenario of the married person seeking assistance, any person that is, for example, bisexual and is in a monogamous married relationship is already suppressing part of their sexuality and so—"
.@JaclynSymes "Not necessarily."

.@_davidlimbrick "Well, not necessarily, but they possibly are. And so the idea that somehow this is necessarily harmful—I cannot understand how it needs to be denounced in all scenarios. Can the government not provide any ethical scenarios where this might be possible?"

What a bigot. An openly bisexual person can be happily married. Choosing to spend your life with a particular person is not suppression of your sexuality. If a bisexual person has a relationship with a man, that does not deny their attraction to women and vice versa.

.@ccummingmp decided to tag in with Limbrick and asked a few 'what if people want to consent' questions. Jaclyn Symes responded by explaining that seeking advice from a pastor or family member / friend etc. is perfectly fine as long as they don't attempt to change your sexuality.

Symes also explained that with this bill no one can consent to a 'change or suppression practice'.

.@ccummingmp responded "But I have heard of people consenting, so there is consent at times. They may be living their authentic life in a heterosexual relationship, waiting for their partner to pass away so the they can explore their bisexuality..." 1/

"and, during that time, looking for counsel and prayer. They might feel helped by that." How nice of Dr Cumming to suggest that people are suppressing their sexuality, just waiting for their partners to die so they can explore their bisexuality.

Does @ccummingmp think people are just itching for their partners to die, eagerly waiting for the moment that they can download Tinder or Grindr? Honestly, vote her out!

I'm sick of typing about David Limbrick and his bigotry. So, see the screenshot of the Questions and Answers between him and Attorney General Symes. VOTE DAVID LIMRICK OUT!

.@TaniaMaxwell14 who voted against the asked "will there be an age limit of any kind below which children in Victoria will not be able or eligible to receive affirming transition-related medical interventions?"

Has Tania Maxwell actually read the bill? If she did, then surely she would know that her above question is irrelevant as the bill does not cover the eligibility for medical interventions, it covers conversion therapy. What a time waster. Vote her out.

Why did @ccummingmp propose an amendment to REDUCE the amount of time (after assent) for the legislation to be in force from 12 months to 6 months and then vote against the actual bill anyway? What was the point in that? Vote her out.

Ha once, again, I've reached the Tweet limit for a thread and should have used an app instead. Many more stupid questions to come.

Stupid question for @BevMcArthurMP: "how many change or suppression practices currently exist in Victoria?"
Keep in mind that Bev voted against this bill so I guess she was keen on knowing exactly how much damage she could do be voting against it?

After being told by Attorney General Symes that it's not possible to know how many exists; @BevMcArthurMP followed up with "how many ‘extreme conversion
practices’ exist in Victoria as defined by the Human Rights Law Centre?".

McArthur was clearly trying to waste time with her stupid questions that naturally can't be answered with a numerical value. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how many practice exists because THEY SHOULD ALL BE BANNED and they will be (no thanks to Bev). Vote her out!

.@ccummingmp moved another stupid amendment to change the wording of the objective of the act, citing that her amendment had the same intent as and that 'It is just words'. If that's that case Dr Cumming then why propose this amendment and why vote against the bill? Vote her out!

I'd just like to point out that many members asked good questions that helped everyone become more informed on the bill and how it works etc. I'm just highlighting the stupid ones in this thread :)

.@_davidlimbrick somehow thinks that if he words his stupid question differently he will get a different answer. @JaclynSymes had to state several times last night (and already had to Limbrick) that the bill will not allow an individual to consent to conversion therapy.

Wow. I actually missed this question last night. @BevMcArthurMP tries to suggest that someone partaking in conversion therapy could be 'expressing their gender identity'. VOTE HER OUT!

Unbelievable. @TaniaMaxwell14 compares the banning of conversion therapy to treatments applied to sex offenders. Derryn Hinch's Justice Party; Justice for everyone but the #LGBTQ community. Vote the Justice Party out. Both Maxwell and @stuartgrimleyMP both voted against the bill!

After getting a pretty clear response, Maxwell doesn't drop her case. I must say, I read this legislation and not once did I think it would prevent sex offender treatment. Perhaps Maxwell needs better advisers? This legislation isn't that hard to comprehend.

These questions and amendments from Dr Cumming are incredibly infuriating given that she voted against the bill.

Imagine being on a 180k per year, having advisers and having it be your job to understand the legislation but somehow not knowing what falls under the category of health service provider even though it is literally defined in the bill itself. Get your act together @BevMcArthurMP!

Also, imagine asking such questions when you were clearly going to vote against the bill anyway. A waste of everyone's time! Vote Bev McArthur out!

This is silly question from @MelinaBathMP (who did vote for the bill). The bill doesn't need an age limit, it's to ban conversion therapy, not ban discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity. Adding an exemption to 18 would defeat the entire purpose of the bill.

.@JBourmanMP moved an amendment that would see people be able to consent to conversion therapy. How many children 'wanted' conversion therapy only to have it ruin their lives? VOTE HIM OUT!

Allowing consent to conversion therapy allows vulnerable people to be manipulated. Conversion therapy has no scientific basis. You can't change who you are. Catherine Cumming, Jeff Bourman and David Limbrick whined about consent the entire time. VOTE THEM OUT.

On the topic of not changing who you are and with the latest B99 season coming out in Aus on Sunday and to add happiness to this thread. "Every time someone steps up and says who they are, the world becomes a better, more interesting place." is my fav TV show quote of all time.

Despite @LiberalVictoria voting in favor of the bill (except Finn and McArthur), they all voted in favor of the amendment above, they wanted to let consent to having your sexuality 'converted' to be legal. Turn this awful party into a minority party at the next election!

Amendment pest Dr Cumming proposes this amendment and agrees with Attorney General that it will not affect the operation of the bill (the clause is for illustration purposes), so why propose amendments that do not affect operation if you are going to oppose the bill? TIME WASTER!

These next series of tweets are laughable from one perspective at how poorly written the amendments are. From another perspective, it is disgraceful the lack of seriousness that @LiberalVictoria has taken with this bill as evidenced by the sloppy and lazy amendment below.

The below amendment was moved by Shadow Attorney-General @ODonohueMLC. Can you see the problem with it? Attorney General Jaclyn Symes pointed it out straight away. See below.

"Mr O’Donohue, could you please explain who you envisage would be covered by the definition of ‘family member’? - Jaclyn Symes

"That would have the ordinary meaning" -@ODonohueMLC
We are still waiting for Edward O'Donohue to tell us what the ordinary meaning of family is. The definition of family vastly differs from person to person depending on their culture, religion and life experience etc.

It's ridiculous that he moved an amendment with no definition. Symes pointed this out; "I am related to half of Benalla. I would consider my second cousin a family member. Are you envisaging that a second cousin of someone under 18 could be caught up
by your proposed amendment?"

So you can understand how laughable the lack of a definition is, legislation defines relevant terms so the law isn't open to unlimited interpretations. If family isn't defined then a lawyer could argue that it includes your 5th cousin (or whatever) and the judge has to decide.

If the law provides a clear definition then it limits the interpretation / arguments that can be made and the accepting or rejecting of those arguments (based on the definition) in court or in other circumstances by law enforcement etc. Anyway back to the politics!

O'Donhoue then responds to Symes: "The general context of this proposed amendment is a family setting - conversations between parents and children and that would be the interpretation."

"I think this conversation, this interchange, if this amendment passes, would be useful for any interpretation purposes. That would be the general intent of this amendment."

.@FionaPattenMLC from the perfectly named Reason Party responded to O'Donohue with a perfect example (reason 😉) as to why no definition for family is troublesome, see in the screenshot.

O'Donohue then low key implies that he has an authority on what an ordinary family is. "I think the example, Ms Patten, you offer would not meet the definition of the ordinary meaning of family, and therefore I do not think that it would apply in this case."

Remarkably, Maxwell was actually constructive and asked "if we were actually speaking about an Indigenous community, which is very broadly considered as family, Mr O’Donohue, could you just confirm for me how great that would be in regard to an Indigenous family?"

O'Donohue then responded and defend the amendment by saying "Ultimately an interpretation of this clause, if it were tested, would be a matter for the court, which is the normal course for a clause or an expression in any piece of legislation that is not specifically defined."

Whilst he is technically correct, it is simply and naturally obvious that good legislation provides definitions. That makes it easier for lawmakers, law enforcement, judges, lawyers and the general public. So this amendment is bad, does it get worse? Yeah, a little bit.

The amendment was proposed by Edward O'Donohue who is the Shadow Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is the first law officer and basically the legal advisor to the Government. For the Shadow AG to put forward such a poor amendment reflects poor on their legal ability.

Fortunately Edward O'Donohue isn't the Attorney-General and given how hated @LiberalVictoria is; he likely never will be. I don't think he actually wrote the amendment himself but legislation should be taken seriously and he should've amended his amendment before circulating it.

Definitions aside, the amendment is also stupid because it defeats the purpose of the bill. Family are allowed to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with their children, the bill does not stop that.

It stops them from attempting to suppress sexual orientation or gender identity. Allowing O'Donohue's amendment would allow family to attempt to suppress or convert the orientation or identity of those under the age of 18.

So again; whilst the Liberals voted for the bill (except McArthur and Finn) they did try to ruin it entirely and thus we should be attempting to reduce their numbers again in 2022. MAKE THEM A MINOR PARTY!

Back to another stupid Limbrick question. See screenshot. I'd like to ask @_davidlimbrick if someone was breaking into your home and I witnessed it, would you want me to report it or just ignore it because I'm not affected? Seriously. I actually laughed at this question.

How did Jaclyn Symes remain calm answering the exact same question on consent from Limbrick over and over. Is he incapable of retaining information or does he just ignore the answer?

Really? Really? How about an activist-type campaign to vote Limbrick out. Clearly the answer to his question is that complaints are investigated and not just taken as true. Really though. How is this guy in parliament?

That's it! We're done! Thanks for reading. Keep the anger up against those who voted against this bill for the next election. Let's vote them out! Naturally, there is further bigotry in the initial speeches from each member but I didn't cover that. The thread is long enough LOL

You can however read the entire day (speeches, questions, motions etc.) in the chamber here. Keeping in mind it covers all business on that day so you will have to scroll a bit.

parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories…

And here is a reminder of who voted against the bill! Have a goodnight people, although it's almost Saturday now.😅😅

https://twitter.com/HaydenJOConnor/status/1357309613339668481?s=20