Post

https://twitter.com/michaelkoziol/status/1515871920713248771

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

@michaelkoziol

More from @KatKarena

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Aug 4

Thread: Why Noel Hutley’s Arguments in Giggle for Girls Matter – An Observer’s Take
#IloveNoelHutley

I feel stroppy about some of the criticisms on X around Noel Hutley - Giggle's Counsel's performance yesterday - here's some keep points to make for those not listening:

1️⃣ Yesterday’s legal showdown wasn’t just courtroom drama—it was a deep dive into what “sex” and “woman” really mean under Australian law. Noel Hutley SC wasn’t playing to the public, but building a rigorous legal foundation for the judges—and, frankly, for future precedent.

#GiggleForGirls #AusLaw #SexMatters #StatutoryInterpretation #TickleVGiggle #GiggleVTickle

2️⃣ Hutley hammered home that the “ordinary meaning” of sex in the Sex Discrimination Act hasn’t changed, despite decades of amendments. If Parliament wanted a radical redefinition, they had every chance to add it. They didn’t. (And yes, he basically said: “They could’ve just copied from the dictionary!”)
#GiggleForGirls #AusLaw #SexMatters #StatutoryInterpretation #GiggleVTickle #TickleVGiggle

3️⃣ He quoted then-Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus: “Intersex status does NOT create a third sex.” The law remains binary. That’s not anti-anyone—it’s legislative fact.
#GiggleForGirls #AusLaw #SexMatters #StatutoryInterpretation #GiggleVTickle #TickleVGiggle

Read 7 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Feb 7

Stephanie Blanch V Kirralie Smith – Local Court – Sydney – 07/02/205

Lawyers & Barristers:
Ruth Nocka and Julia Leeds from Dentons Law Firm are representing Stephanie Blanch.
Blanch’s barrister: Charles Gregory.

Kyle Kutasi from Solve Legal - is representing Kirralie Smith.
Smith’s barrister: Faraz Maghami
Deputy Chief Magistrate: Sharon Fruend

(NOTE - I've checked this as well, as I can, it was hard to hear at times as Maghami had is microphone pushed away from his mouth)

-----------------------------------------------

First, a bit of background to this case as it was discussed back and forth with Deputy Chief Magistrate and Gregory at the beginning. The case of Blanch v Smith initially began in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). Kirralie Smith, who runs the advocacy group Binary Australia Ltd, was accused of "transgender vilification" under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act after her organisation highlighted the participation of transgender males in women’s sports.

Stephanie Blanch, a transgender athlete, claimed that this constituted vilification.
However, the case was dismissed in NCAT—not because Smith was found innocent of the charge, but because the Tribunal itself lacked jurisdiction. Recent High Court rulings, particularly Burns v Corbett (2018), established that tribunals like NCAT cannot rule on cases involving constitutional issues. Smith’s legal team argued that her statements were protected under the Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication. Since constitutional matters were at play, the Tribunal could not decide on the case, as reaffirmed by Senior Member Andelman.
As a result, the matter was redirected to the Local Court, where it was re-litigated today, February 7, 2025.

/1

Overview of yesterday's (7/2/2025) proceedings:
At today’s hearing the Blanch’s team presented their case first. Then Faraz Maghami put essentially a 3-point argument as to why Kirralie’s case was not vilification. Then Charles Gregory cross-examined Kirralie for 47 minutes. Kirralie team did not call Blanch to be cross-examined, (when I asked as to ‘why not?’, they said the case stood on its own).
Teams went out to discuss responses, strategies etc. amongst themselves a few times in between four breaks over the day. At the end of the day, they organised a time to meet for a judgement on the 7th of May.

Opening Arguments for Blanch’s side:
Gregory summarised the key points of Section 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) that were most relevant to today's court proceedings. That Transgender Vilification is Unlawful. It is illegal for a person, through a public act, to incite hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule against an individual because they are transgender. He mentioned some exceptions where it was not unlawful. Certain public acts are not considered unlawful, including public acts done reasonably and in good faith for purposes such as:

* Academic, artistic, scientific, or research discussion
* Religious discussion or instruction
* Public interest debates or discussions, including the discussion or exposition of an act or matter.

Key Takeaways for Today’s Case
The case seems hinged on whether Kirralie Smith’s statements met the legal definition of "inciting hatred, contempt, or ridicule" against a transgender person (Blanch).
The exception under 38S(2)(c) was particularly relevant—Smith's defense argued overall that her statements were part of a reasonable and good faith public discussion on women’s sports, which is a matter of public interest.

My understanding is that section of the law is central to whether Smith’s speech was unlawful or protected under the public interest exemption.

/2

Charles Gregory – Dentons Lawyers’ Opening Argument

Gregory argued that the public acts in question were not carried out for academic, religious, or other legitimate purposes and that they were not done in good faith or reasonably.

He asserted that the defendant, Kirralie Smith, used Blanch as a “kicking horse for transgenders in sports”, alleging that Blanch was “used to whip up vitriol”, adding, “we take issue with that.”

Gregory contended that over a number of months, Kirralie repeatedly posted Blanch’s image on social media, referring to him as “a man,” “a bloke in a frock,” and associating him with Wingham Football Club, where he played soccer.

Gregory stated that before Kirralie’s involvement, Blanch had been playing for that club for decades, before he transitioned. He emphasized that Blanch had even played for the women’s team while still a man, before transitioning eight years ago, and that “she was good friends with other members of the team and was very comfortable playing in the soccer club.”

Gregory further speculated that when Kirralie first saw a photo of Blanch, she did not immediately know if “she was male, female, or a transwoman” but then reacted by saying to herself:

“WOW! That is a man in a dress! I am going to use this as a centrepiece of transwomen in sports.”

Gregory asserted that, as a result, Blanch suddenly 'became the centre of a media storm because of the way she looked.'

Over the following months, Kirralie’s continual references to Blanch as “a male” and “a bloke in a frock”, along with references to concerns from other club members about being ‘scared to have a man in the changing room,’ were framed as painting Blanch as a predator.

Gregory stated that this characterisation “painted (Blanch) as a terrible person—a predator who would cause harm to others in the club.”

Finally, Gregory argued that all of these instances were "public acts of vilification", and "the key issue before the court was whether they constituted vilification against a transgender person".

(Note to self: It was difficult to hear this final point clearly, but he appeared to be raising the question in order to answer it.)

/3

Read 20 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Sep 16, 2024

WHICH RALLY BROUGHT THE NEO NAZIS TO MELBOURNE’S PARLIAMENT ON THE 18 MARCH 2023?

I. The neo-Nazis did not ‘attend’ or participate in the Let Women Speak Rally but were present on the steps of Parliament House for a Protect the Children rally (PC Rally) being held in front of Parliament House at or about the same time as the LWS Rally.

EVIDENCE:
1. Approximately 11:38 am, See: (Platform Melbourne) Between the start of the footage and 1 second into it, and again at the 59 second mark Thomas Anthony Sewell of the National Socialist Network (NSN) is seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'PROTECT OUR CHILDREN STOP THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY SILENCE IS NO LONGER AN OPTION' Banner, that was located on the speaker system of Matthew Raine Trihey of the Australian Unified Movement, (also known as Grass Roots Rally, Freedom Rally, Freedom Fighters)

"Thomas Anthony Sewell is not seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'Let Women Speak' banner."

2. By 11.44 am in LuluHeart’s video the NSN are stretched across Spring Street by the Protect Children Rally with their banner unfurled. See timeline.

3: At approximately 12:18pm after the Victorian Police had removed the line of officers that had been positioned across Spring Street just to the south of Turnbull Alley, the NSN moved from the north into the area on Spring Street where attendees of the AUM Grass Roots Rally were located. They formed a line across Spring Street facing the south, backs to women, facing ANTIFA, roughly in the same location that the Victorian Police had been previously.
See videos at timeline:

Although the way was clear, the (NSN) did not make their way through to the 'Let Women Speak' event."

4. At approximately 12:24 pm AEST on 18 March 2023, one of the organisers of the "A stand to protect the children. A stand against the moral decay of society" AUM Melbourne Protest says the following:

[Pointing to members of the National Socialist Network (NSN) that are standing in a line across Spring Street, facing towards the north and holding the banner "DESTROY PAEDO FREAKS".]
"Yeah, so ok here's the thing. They're here to support us right. They're here to support us these guys right, in the black."facebook.com/watch/?v=19706…
docs.google.com/document/d/1QT…

II. The neo-Nazis did not speak or display their banner or make their Nazi salute in respect of the LWS Rally but spoke and displayed their banner and made their Nazi salute in respect of the Protect the Children Rally.

EVIDENCE:

3. "Thomas Anthony Sewell is seen raising his arm to point in the direction of the 'PROTECT OUR CHILDREN STOP THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY' Banner, which was located on the speaker system of Matthew Raine Trihey of the AUM."
"Sewell is not seen pointing in the direction of the 'Let Women Speak' banner." see: (1 second and 58 seconds in) 4. In Randell Ceetwo’s live-stream he interviews the NSN 35:12 minutes in: “Hi guys. You wanna tell the public what’s going on? Tell the public what’s going on here guys.[pause] What are we doing?

35 mins/12 secs - NSN Members Nathan Bull and Stefanos “Stefan” Eracleous say simultaneously: “Protecting the children. We are here to protect the children.”

35 mins/ 26 secs - NSN Member Jimone Lyle Roberts states: “We're here to smash the child grooming here in Melbourne.”

35 mins/ 35 secs - NSN Member Graham Connolly states: “You know they have, ya have jobs and stuff like that. But we’re here to protect the children” 5. Later at approximately 12:33 pm Thomas Anthony Sewell, along with other members of the NSN made their way onto the steps of the Victorian Parliament, Spring Street, Melbourne, Australia. At approximately 12:36 pm, Thomas Sewell gave a speech outlining why they were there. The speech focused on their presence to defend against a globalist homosexual agenda, which aligns with the Protect the Children rally messaging."
[51 mins/51 secs]
Also see Timeline.
facebook.com/watch/?v=19706…
facebook.com/10007837422990…
facebook.com/10007837422990…
docs.google.com/document/d/1QT…

III. The Protect the Children Rally was not associated with the Let Women Speak Rally but was promoted and held in Melbourne in association with a PC Rally being held in Sydney on the same day, 18 March 2023.

EVIDENCE:

6:"On Saturday 4 March 2023, Yosra Alyateem placed an advertisement for a protest in Melbourne on her Instagram account. The protest was titled 'A STAND TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN A STAND AGAINST THE MORAL DECAY OF SOCIETY,' and it was held at the Victorian Parliament, Spring Street, Melbourne, on Saturday 18 March 2023."

7:"On 2 March 2023, an advertisement was posted for a 'Protect Our Kids' protest in Sydney, scheduled for 18 March 2023. This was the same day as the Melbourne protest, showing the rallies were coordinated events but separate from the Let Women Speak rally."

8. On 20 March 2023, Sewell stated in a public interview on titled ‘The Vanguard – Anti-Paedo protest with Tom Sewell’ ‘…there was a Liberal Party MP that went to the Let Women Speak Rally which was a rally that was going on simultaneously to ours, and she’s being removed from the Liberal Party right now, because she wanted to let women speak and have their say…’

9. On 28 March 2023, Sewell on his Telegram account of the Let Women Speak rally he said: “We do not care for the opinions of a bunch of childless 40 something wine- aunts, they are an irrelevant side effect of a dying society. We do not care for their complaining; we do not care for the symptom vs band- aid politics of arguing over whether a dick-less freak is a woman or not and which bathroom they can use. Our politics is focused on the cause. Straight to the point. We advocate for the LEGAL arrest, trial and capital punishment of every single person involved in pushing this sickening degeneracy on our children and society as a whole.”Odysee.com

Read 12 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Sep 13, 2024

🧵1/ Back to LAG vs AHRC:

Recapping what I've done thus far:

Day 1 - Preliminaries:
docs.google.com/document/d/1UO…

Day 1 - The cross examination of Carol Ann - Part 1 and 2
docs.google.com/document/d/1ec…

Day 1 -The Cross examination of Elena Jeffreys
x.com/KatKarena/stat…

Day 1 - The Cross Examination of Sheila Jeffreys
x.com/KatKarena/stat…
docs.google.com/document/d/13w…

2/ Day 2 Preliminaries:
Prelude to the Cross Examination Elena Jeffrey – 2nd Day.

On the morning of the second day there was first a conversation that was a prelude to the cross-examination of the expert witnesses, Elena Jeffrey. Leigh Howard and Stewart Fenwick discuss the role of expert testimony, the application of law, and the weight of evidence.

Key Points:
1. Dr. Blake and Dr. Jeffrey:
Leigh Howard notes that Dr. Blake's evidence will stand as is without cross-examination, and they are now prepared to cross-examine Dr. Jeffrey. However, Dr. Gerber's affidavit and expert report are also discussed, with Howard objecting to certain parts.

2. Role of Experts in Law: A central theme is Howard’s argument that questions of law should not be addressed through expert testimony, as this is the domain of the independent tribunal and the bar, not witnesses. Howard emphasizes that law should not be treated as if it were a subject for experts, which could create a misleading sense of authority.

HOWARD:
"So, questions of law is for Dr. Gang and me, the independent bar and the independent tribunal. Not the witness in this box. So, I'm not cross-examining anybody about questions of law."…."The danger of pretending, which it is, that law is the field of an expert, not the independent bar, not the independent tribunal, gives it a superficial wrong and incorrect air of authenticity."

3. CEDAW and Legal Interpretations:
Fenwick mentions a contradiction between positions, specifically the Al Salam perspective on CEDAW, and asks if this should be accepted without opposing viewpoints. Howard insists this is a matter for legal submission, not something for witnesses to address, and that it is the role of the bar to clarify legal issues.

4. Distinction Between Law and Facts:
Howard repeatedly emphasizes that witnesses can provide facts, but not legal interpretations, which should come from legal counsel. Fenwick agrees but notes that as a tribunal member, he must gather information from various sources, including written submissions and independent research.

5. Gerber's Report:
Howard questions the relevance of Professor Gerber's input, asserting that it has been rendered irrelevant by the court's decision in Tickle v Giggle and that Gerber is not an authoritative interpreter of law.

i.e.

LEIGH HOWARD
Dr. Gerber? No. Right. No. So, questions of law for Dr. Gang and me, the independent bar and the independent tribunal. Not the witness in this box. So, I'm not cross-examining anybody about questions of law.

STEWART FENWICK
You don't want to cross-examine about different perspectives of international law, which is not common fare?

LEIGH HOWARD
No.

STEWART FENWICK
Right.

LEIGH HOWARD
That's not the province of a witness. It's just not. I have a lot to say about it.

STEWART FENWICK
I look forward to that, Mr. Howard. Thank you. Thank you. I think we will sink out to the end. You're aware there's a slight contradiction in that we've got the - one way or another -we've got the Al Salam position paper and perspective on CEDAW. Should I just accept that without contrary opinion?

LEIGH HOWARD
That's a legal submission put forward by Ms. Chaligoy yesterday. And it's Dr. Gang's responsibility to inform you about its correctness. This is really problematic. It's very problematic. For centuries, tribunals have operated this way. To say that questions of law for the witness box is very problematic. Very problematic.

STEWART FENWICK
But what's the difference between written and oral evidence? I'm saying written documents speak for themselves and I just digest them and then form my own opinion.

LEIGH HOWARD
Or fact.

STEWART FENWICK
Yeah.

LEIGH HOWARD
Facts. Finding facts, not law.

STEWART FENWICK
Well, what's the law?

LEIGH HOWARD
That's for me to assist you with.

STEWART FENWICK
Sure.

LEIGH HOWARD
And that's why the bar exists and why you exist. That's how we've operated for centuries
Tickle v Giggle Case: Howard highlights that certain issues in this case have been overtaken by the Tickle v Giggle jurisprudence. While Howard acknowledges that some of the arguments may be problematic or wrong, they remain binding legal authority, and political debates should not interfere with legal obligations.

STEWART FENWICK
Well, I need sources of information to inform the decision, if I need to make it, about the scope of CEDAW, don't I? I can do my own research, but if it's not discussed openly in the hearing, it might be wrong.

LEIGH HOWARD
But it's my duty to tell you what it means from Dr. Gang, the air of experts; it gives a wrong, legally wrong, procedurally actually, jurisdictionally wrong air of authenticity. It's advocacy; it's advocacy of the witness- is being an advocate.

I will address this in further detail once I understand whether and what is to be made of Dr. Gerber’s report, because I don't, I cannot seek to convince you out of Tickle and Giggle. It's binding; it's plainly wrong. I accept it's not plainly wrong in the sense that I can't and convince you that it's just so wrong that you can't have regard to it. Of course, I can't when it's not assumption, I'm going to make. It's just it's a court authority that we have to accept; we'd like to discuss it politically, that's another point so why are we even hearing Dr. Gerber on the meaning of sex well I think..

STEWART FENWICK
It was all prepared in advance of the decision, but anyway I'm fine, I'm not like wishing to be difficult, I'm just trying to find out, given the flexibility afforded the tribunal about informing itself from the - you're telling me it's fine,

LEIGH HOWARD
So, let's deal with that.

6. Rights of Different Groups:
Both Howard and Fenwick recognize the human rights of the transgender community, with Howard asserting that the dispute is not about denying rights but about balancing them, particularly in the context of protecting lesbian rights under CEDAW. Howard emphasises that there is no hierarchy of rights in this case.

Agreements:

Leigh Howard and Stewart Fenwick reach a general agreement that the role of expert witnesses is limited to providing factual evidence, not legal interpretation. Legal questions must be addressed by legal counsel and the tribunal, not through expert reports or testimony.

They also agree on the importance of balancing human rights and the need for a clear legal framework, rather than relying on potentially misleading expert opinions.

Fenwick acknowledges the challenge of navigating international law and rights-related issues but appreciates Howard's clarifications.

3/
📰⭐️Day 2 - The Cross Examination of Elena Jeffreys (part 2)
(This is new)

docs.google.com/document/d/15a…

Read 17 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Sep 3, 2024

🧵#LAGvsAHRC - The closing arguments of Leigh Howard (LAG Barrister)
LH = Leigh Howard, SF = Stewart Fenwick

LH started with appreciation of SF to continue to offer to people who are members and supporters of LAG accomodation to hear and see the proceedings...

1/
Leigh Howard:
"So, the conclusion of that cross-examination points.

First, is that LAG means no harm to anyone.

Secondly, all LAG wants to do is to exercise the same human rights that we do.

Thirdly, all LAG wants to do is to exercise the same human rights to expression, association, culture, sexual health that others have in the LGBTI community and society more broadly.
The third point is that LAG is not asking for anything else; no assimilation, no resources, nothing.

Fourthly, that there is no harm. There are groups that don't want that to happen. And that includes the Human Rights Commission."

2/ Leigh Howard continues:
"So, my closing, I'll just address in two topics: what's fallen out of the evidence in light of cross-examination, and then secondly, apply that evidence to the legal principles that I've set out in my SOFIC. And the SOFIC's a really good guide to the disposition of the dispute and how to address the dispute.

So, turning to the evidence, the commission's questioning covered three topics.
The first was why is LAG associative?
And why does it need to associate in all public events?

That's answered comprehensively by Ms Anne's annexure, where she annexes the constitution of LAG. And that's answered comprehensively by Ms. And it's not really a matter for debate, given that's the source document. Now, that's at page 21 of Ms. Ann's statement, page 22, and the Constitution states, and I quote, 'Freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, freedom from violence, and freedom in law.' That's their purpose.

And then they articulate a dozen ways to fulfill that, the first being a political advocacy group asserting their biological fact, that sex is binary and immutable, so on and so forth.

So, this is a political lobby organisation, but also, as you see in the middle of the dot points, an organisation wants to promote outlets for lesbians to meet, to have discussion and organise events for political, social, cultural, physical and mental wellbeing of lesbians specifically.

So that's answered. That's the finding.

Read 35 tweets

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

@KatKarena

Aug 22, 2024

Tickle vs Giggle - Notes from today
(Open to corrections I can't find the published summary as yet. Will expand on each point, once I've translated my hand writing)

1/ 🧵 Case Overview: Roxanne Tickle sued Giggle for Girls & its CEO for gender identity discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The dispute involved the Giggle app, a platform exclusively for women, which excluded men from joining. #GenderDiscrimination #Legal

2/ Key Issue: The central question was whether Ms. Tickle’s exclusion from the app was unlawful gender identity discrimination or based on her sex, which the respondents argued was male. #LGBTQ #Equality

3/ Court Decision - Direct Discrimination: The court found no direct gender identity discrimination. The exclusion was based on visual criteria that couldn't distinguish between cisgender men & transgender women—not an intention to discriminate based on gender identity.

Read 24 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @KatKarena

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Kat Karena, lostwomensrights.com,

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!