Gender Ideology -

The abolition of doctor and patients’ rights since 2008

Published on August 12, 2026August 15, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Dr. Mark Hobart revisits the erosion of conscience rights for doctors and their patients as it has unfolded across Australia in recent decades. This post is based on recent talks and articles from Dr. Hobart.

In this piece I wish to explain and describe the progression of government control over medical practitioners that has occurred over the last 20 years, starting with:

the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act in 2008
the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act in 2010 (particularly with regards to the illegality of being able to discriminate according to gender identity and sex which is essential in the practice of medicine to avoid life-threatening disasters
the “no jab no pay/play” vaccination of children in 2016,
the legalisation of euthanasia in Victoria in 2017,
the Covid injection mandates in 2021,
and lastly the removal of conscientious objection to euthanasia by doctors in the amendments to the Victorian VAD law in December 2025.

I contend that these are all examples of conscription of medical services by the state governments and, because they must be paid for by Medicare which is an Australian government agency, are in contravention of section 51xxiii(A) of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits “any form” of conscription of medical services.

The term “services” in this context means the private contract between the doctor and the patient for a medical service to occur, for which you need both parties, and for the contract to be valid you need informed consent and no coercion of either party.

Abortion

In October 2008, Victoria passed the Abortion Law Reform Act¹ which stated that the doctors
must refer to a “non-objecting practitioner” when a patient presented to them requesting an
abortion if the doctor had a conscientious objection to the abortion. The doctor was not to
proceed with any further discussion or advice regarding the abortion. This law spread to all
the other states over the next few years.

In late November 2011 a woman presented to me who was 19 ½ weeks pregnant, accompanied by her husband. They requested an abortion because the baby was a girl and they did not want a girl because they already had one. I refused to refer her, explaining that it was dangerous for her health, and eventually I had to explain to her that it was also against my religious beliefs, when she replied that she was not concerned about the health risks.

On 17 May 2013, the medical board commenced an own motion investigation into my actions because I had failed to refer to a non-objecting practitioner and demonstrated a disregard for patient rights. On 30 January 2014, I was cautioned because I had stated in the media that I knowingly acted in contravention of section 8 of the abortion laws reform act, that is the section which prohibits conscientious objection.

Doctors unable to discriminate regarding gender or sex

According to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010², attributes protected by law are:

age, race, and disability
gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation
marital, parental, or carer status
religion, political belief, and industrial activity

Of course it is necessary for doctors to discriminate on the basis of gender and sex and do so with every patient; not to do so would be very dangerous because men and women are anatomically and genetically different. However, this legislation has permitted hormonal and gross surgical mutilation, leading in many cases to misery and death.³

In July 2015, I was reported to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission by a patient whom I had not seen previously, because I did not prescribe female hormones as the patient requested. The patient appeared male, and they said they were undergoing treatment to transition into a woman, and they said they were “legally a woman”.

Their usual doctor was not available at the time. It was a new patient. The patient had located me using the internet. I refused to prescribe the medication and explained to the patient that in my opinion it is dangerous to prescribe for a genetic male female hormones.

The complaint was looked at by the Human Rights Commission and conciliation of this complaint was attempted which was unsuccessful. The commission decided to close the matter pursuant to section 115 of the act. They said that conciliation of this complaint had been attempted but was unsuccessful, and that they had decided to close the matter pursuant to section 115(2)(a) of the Equal Opportunity Act which directs to 116(e):

“having regard to all the circumstances, the Commission considers it is not appropriate to provide or to continue to provide dispute resolution.”

So I think I dodged a bullet there!

Other doctors have not been so lucky: for example, Dr Jillian Spencer, the psychiatrist who lost her job at the Brisbane Children’s Hospital for three years because she didn’t follow the policy directions of the hospital with regards to puberty blockers in children. Recently, she has won her case against the hospital, and hopefully she’ll be reinstated.

No jab, no pay/play

In 2016, the Victorian government brought in “no jab, no play” laws which meant parents were required to have their children vaccinated with the recommended childhood vaccines or they would be penalised by withholding of the tax rebate, which could amount to up to $800 per fortnight, so that they could not afford to put their children into childcare or kindergarten.

Wealthy parents could afford to do this, but families where both parents had to work to pay the mortgage and put food on their table could not. I think most reasonable people would define this as coercion.

There is no avenue for the parents to refuse these vaccinations for the children because they are worried about their safety or adverse effects on the health of their child or the fact that some of these vaccines are manufactured from aborted foetal tissue.

Any doctor who advises against these vaccinations is highly likely to be suspended from practice and factor home. Doctors who advised against the vaccinations are highly likely to be suspended from practice and face cancellation of their licence. Dr John Piesse was suspended in 2017 for this and is still suspended.

Euthanasia

In 2017, Victoria legalised euthanasia⁴, calling it “voluntary assisted dying.” In most cases, this involved a doctor giving the patient a bottle of a very strong sedative, phenobarbital, which could be drunk later at a time of the patients choosing and which would, in most cases cause the patient’s death.

It is not called voluntary assisted suicide, possibly because assisted suicide is still a crime in Victoria punishable by five years imprisonment. Although suicide is not illegal, assisting or encouraging another person to commit suicide remains a criminal offence in Victoria.

Section 6B(2) of the Crimes Act 1958⁵ makes it an indictable offence to:

incite another person to commit suicide if the other person does so or attempts to do so.
aid or abet another person to commit suicide if the other person does so or attempts to do so.
be a party to a suicide pact.

The maximum penalty for these offences is five years’ imprisonment. As stated previously, the Victorian government amended the euthanasia law in December 2025, making conscientious objection to euthanasia illegal and stating that the doctor “must” give the patient information regarding euthanasia if the patient presents enquiring about euthanasia:

Conscientious objection of registered health practitioners.

(1) In section 7 (a) of the Principal Act, for “to” substitute “subject to subsection (2), to”.
(2) At the end of section 7 of the Principal Act insert—
”If a registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying refuses to provide information about voluntary assisted dying to a person requesting information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, the practitioner must—
(a) advise the person that another registered health practitioner or a health service provider may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and
(b) give the person the information approved by the Secretary.”⁶

Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying, which should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the crime act with a penalty of five years in jail it can’t be called that. It really can’t be called voluntary assisted death either because it’s up to the patient to take the medication which is supposed to kill them (usually phenobarbital which sometimes fails to kill the patient) at their own discretion so the the doctor doesn’t need to wait and make sure that the patient is dead.

Also, the doctor writing the death certificate must not write that the patient has died from the ingestion of the lethal dose of medication but write the terminal condition leading to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more: for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease (which Neil Daniher, a prominent Ausgralian footballer, had been suffering from for many years).

It is impossible to give an accurate estimation of how long these people will be expected to survive with any of these conditions. The legislation at present states that death is to be expected within 12 months.

According to this legislation, if a patient comes to you as a doctor requesting “assisted dying” and wants information as to how to do it, (i.e. they want to know how to kill themselves) instead of asking them why, and whether you feel it is a genuine possibility they would do this, and instead of calling the CAT team or the police surgeon to stop them, or certifying them yourself (as you could formerly do), you must give the advice on how to kill themselves including information approved by the government secretary.

I hope she’s a good secretary.

Imagine a patient coming to see a doctor requesting advice regarding euthanasia, and instead of the doctor asking them why they want to die and arranging urgent psychiatric evaluation, he or she must give them advice on how to do it. It really is beyond belief but here we are.

It is needless to say that if doctors criticise this legislation, they are putting themselves at risk of suspension in the same way as I was cautioned when I criticised the abortion legislation in 2013. Indeed, this happened to me.

On 26 February 2020 I was reported to the Health Complaints Commissioner by Dr Cameron McLaren, an oncologist at Peter McCallum hospital who promoted euthanasia and facilitated euthanasia for his patients and was featured prominently in “The Age” and “The Australian” newspapers on December 26 2019 and February 21 2020 respectively.

He also wrote an article in the “Australian Doctor” magazine on February 26 2020 on which doctors were invited to comment. He was asked “What are the reasons behind the patients coming to you?” He replied,

“for the vast majority, it is not due to the physical suffering they face. Dealing with pain, with physical suffering, is something that palliative care does manage exceptionally well… They might be very comfortable, even peaceful, but through voluntary assisted dying we can provide closure in ways that assist the grieving process for the patient and the family. It’s an existential problem – not just about pain management.”

I made a comment simply stating that Adolf Hitler suspended his euthanasia program on August 18, 1941 after public protests, which I quoted from the “History Channel.” The complaint was forwarded to AHPRA but no further action was taken.

COVID mandates

From the AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) position statement on COVID-19 vaccination:

“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.” ⁷

In November 2021, I was suspended from medical practice by the medical board, being charged with professional misconduct. The main reason was that I had issued temporary COVID injection exemptions to my patients because I could not comply with the position statement.

By that time, it was widely known that the COVID injections caused death from myocarditis and pericarditis, and this was reported in the mainstream medical literature. It was also widely known that the vaccines did not prevent transmission of the virus, and that they caused myocarditis. Indeed, Dr Nick Coatsworth, Commonwealth deputy chief medical officer at the time of COVID, in an interview on “A Current Affair” in March 2025 has since admitted this and said that the covid mandates were “unethical”. (see 7.20 – 8.10)

This was also published in a poster by the NSW ambulance authority in August 2021. (see below).

In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates usually of three months duration to my patients who were being forced to have the COVID injection otherwise they would lose their jobs and or have an injection which was dangerous to their health and or also conflict with their religious beliefs because the injections were made from aborted human foetal parts.

When I had the opportunity to ask, about 50% of them had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a certificate saying that they should not have the injection. I am still suspended now almost five years later waiting for the decision of my last trial which finished on the 16 June. The medical board is attempting to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.

I am one of four doctors who have been suspended for this in Victoria because we all stood up for this violation of one of the most basic of human rights the right to be fully informed of your medical treatment and the right to refuse this treatment if you don’t want it.

Dr Luke McLindon, Catholic, a specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist specialising in fertility treatment at the Catholic Mater Hospital in Brisbane, in an affidavit to the Supreme court QLD found that 73% of his patients that were vaccinated within 6 weeks of conception against COVID had miscarriages compared with 13% of the patients that had not been vaccinated immediately prior to or just after conception. He was sacked by the hospital in June 2022 and has been unable to work in medicine since. He told me that the Mater hospital was the only public Catholic hospital in Australia, offering tubal surgery restore fertility; these are no longer offered and patients are now told “there’s only IVF”, as cost is a significant barrier.

Several other doctors throughout Australia have been suspended for comments they made about COVID in social media or in the mainstream media, or they were sacked from their jobs because they refused to have the COVID injections.

Implications for Catholic doctors

These laws are contrary to fundamental Catholic teaching regarding the right to life, and to live according to the truths of the Catholic faith. Even if you are not Catholic, these laws are against the natural law. The Hippocratic oath from 500 BC contained fundamentals precepts: first do not harm, do not prescribe or administer a poison, do not procure an abortion and there must be confidentiality between the physician and patient; the term “patient” derives from the Latin patientem: “suffering”.

Catholic doctors and doctors who follow the natural law cannot assist patients to kill themselves. We should not stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort their child and certainly not be complicit in abortion. We should not comply with giving a medical treatment the patient is forced into accepting because they believe it is dangerous or against their beliefs, or that we think may be dangerous for them and but recommended it to the patient because the government says it is so. On the other hand if we do not do these doctors are not able to practice medicine in our society.

What can be done?

As I said at the outset I contend these are all examples of conscription of medical services by the state governments and, because they must be paid for by Medicare, which is an Australian government agency, is in contravention to section 51xxiii(A) of the Australian continent Constitution, which prohibits “any form” of conscription of medical services.

This amendment to the Constitution was brought in by the Robert Menzies in 1946, in the context of the then recent Nuremberg medical trials which punished doctors who performed forced experimental medical treatment.

Although it may be sometime before we can use the Constitution to rectify the situation logically, it should be possible if there is sufficient public opinion to push things towards this end.

The main purpose of my talk is to raise public awareness of the current state of affairs so that people can form an understanding of how we got to the situation, which is completely untenable and unacceptable, and then take steps to change it.

Dr Mark Hobart, MBBS.
30 July 2026

Dr. Mark Hobart is an Australian GP in the state of Victoria, who was unjustly targeted for his stance against government overreach during the COVID pandemic. When it became known that he was writing exemptions from the mandatory, experimental mRNA vaccines, Dr. Hobart’s clinic, located in the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, was raided by the authorities and he subsequently was suspended from practising medicine.

ENDNOTES

GenderSpeak: weaponizing gender against sex

Published on July 29, 2026August 1, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

When and why did the word “gender” displace the word “sex?” “Gender” refers to a person’s socially constructed identity of being male, female, or some other category, while “sex” refers to physical characteristics of male or female, such as chromosomes. Gender is a matter of a person’s self-perception; sex is a circumstance of birth.

by Wendy McElroy at the Brownstone Institute

When did sex get pushed to the curb by gender? In his book The Man Who Invented Gender, Terry Goldie claims that the sexologist John Money of Johns Hopkins Medical Center (Baltimore) first used the word “gender” in its modern meaning in 1955. Money pioneered the word to describe his famous John/Joan experiment that was conducted on a young boy named Bruce who’d lost his penis in an accident. To ‘prove’ Money’s theory that sexual identity was learned and not biological, Bruce’s parents raised him as a girl, complete with a surgically constructed vagina. The experiment failed. Bruce ultimately insisted on living as male, but he did not recover from the ordeal Money imposed on him, which he called torture. Bruce committed suicide in his 30s.

By then, however, Money had declared for decades that John/Joan was a complete success; discussions of “gender identity” abounded in ‘60s medical journals and academia. By the ‘70s and ‘80s, feminists brought the term to the streets, with “gender” describing a person’s self-defined sociocultural identity and “sex” meaning biology. Then, the word wedged its way into government. In 1993, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) replaced “sex” with “gender” in its literature. In 2011, “sex” returned to the FDA to mean biology while “gender” meant “a person’s self-representation.” The term went global. Also in 1993, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVAW) vaguely defined this aggression as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women.”

Genderspeak became the language of elites, social justice activists, and the government, while average people still spoke of “sex”. But more than elitism lies behind the difference in words. By swapping in their own terms, elitists—especially professional feminists—grabbed the narrative on sexuality and politicized it to dismiss anyone who disagrees. Since the average male generally still uses biology to define his sexuality, he is an opponent; the average male is a living, breathing disagreement.

The ideology of gender faces an obstacle, however. If people can argue effectively against gender, then the narrative is difficult to manage. Those who dissent must be intimidated into silence or otherwise marginalized. The main strategy is to condemn dissenters as hate-filled. If some people cannot be silenced, then their words or opinions can become hate crimes punishable by law. George Orwell’s novel Nineteen-Eighty-Four is about a dystopian society of social control, which is maintained largely through restricting language. Since words are the foundation of thought, this means people cannot form thoughts, let alone articulate them. The villain of Nineteen-Eighty-Four proclaims, “The whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought.” He concludes, “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.”

Men’s health researcher James L. Nuzzo highlights an attempt to perfect the language. “In recent years, use of the phrase “gender-based violence” (or “gendered violence”) in the titles and abstracts of papers indexed in PubMed has increased noticeably. Between 2019 and 2025, the phrase “gender-based violence” (or “gendered violence”) appeared in the titles or abstracts of 2,784 articles indexed in PubMed.” [Chart available here.]

A typical definition of gender-related violence or gendered violence is “any form of physical or non-physical violence or abuse against a person or group of people because of biased or harmful beliefs about gender. It can include things that happen online and that use digital technology.” This definition is typical because it includes non-physical violence (discrimination) and abuse (words) that are motivated by non-specific ”biased or harmful beliefs about gender.” Nineteen-Eighty-Four would refer to such non-physical violence as “crimethink,” with thought itself being an assault.

Just as “sex” is displaced by “gender,” well-researched and comparatively clear terms such as “domestic violence” are displaced by less-defined ones such as “gender-related violence.” This achieves several goals. For one thing, the confusing definition becomes elastic. Almost any word or act can be stretched to qualify as “gender-related violence,” especially since virtually everything in the politicized feminist universe is gender-related.

But the most important purpose of swapping in the word “gender” is to introduce a subtle but powerful bias that controls the narrative; it creates Genderspeak.

The concept of gender comes directly from the twin ideologies of Social Constructionism and Gender Feminism. Social Constructionism tells us that male and female are learned forms of behavior (gender) rather than biology (sex).

To this, Gender Feminism adds an ideological layer. Male and female are patriarchal learned behaviors; they are social concepts derived from white male capitalistic culture. Thus, approaching violence in a correctly gendered way means rejecting white male capitalism—the economic system that is said to vest power and wealth in the hands of white men at the expense of everyone else. To embrace gender is to reject white male culture and capitalism, with ‘the free market’ usually viewed as a synonym.

Genderspeak is similar to Orwell’s Newspeak. Both are ambiguous speech that embeds ideology into the language so that every word perpetuates correcthink—officially approved thought. In Orwell’s dystopian world, Newspeak serves the ideological goals of Ingsoc – an abbreviation for English Socialism. It gradually replaces Oldspeak and becomes pivotal in defining politics and culture. Genderspeak has the same ideological goal. If you embed gender ideology into words, then you control how people think and how culture develops.

The process goes something like this:

Embed new ideologically-driven language when possible. For example, substitute the term “gendered violence” for the more research-driven term “domestic violence.”

Eliminate “wrong” words. In Nineteen-Eighty-Four, salvageable literature was rewritten in Newspeak so that authors either disappeared or were reinterpreted to serve Ingsoc. Today, school texts are commonly reviewed to eliminate wrong words. ‘Improper’ ones like “Founding Fathers” are changed to proper ones like “Framers.”

Change the meaning of words. In Nineteen-Eighty-Four, the word “free” is used only in the simple form of ‘my sweater is free of lint.’ The concept of freedom does not exist. The current usage of “diversity” in Genderspeak is similar. It is a diversity that tolerates no deviation. Its conclusions are or can be mandated by law.

Introduce doublethink. Doublethink is when someone accepts two contradictory ideas as being true. A modern example is students who attend “sensitivity training,” which includes publicly ridiculing and humiliating whites and males because of their race and sex. This is sensitivity?

Last of all, decry anyone who objects as a hater and oppressor; punish them.

Precise wording provides the incredible benefit of letting people know what they are talking about. It is time to reclaim the richness of precise English…verb by verb, adjective by adjective. Words should not be propaganda that blocks thought; disagreement is no crime. And sex is reality, while gender is not. The concept and the word “gender” should be abandoned by people who respect either accuracy or truth.

Wendy McElroy is a Canadian individualist feminist and voluntaryist writer. McElroy is the editor of the website ifeminists.net. This article first appeared at Brownstone Institute and is reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Sydney landlords shut down anti-Christian LGBTQ+ performances at heritage-listed former church

Published on July 24, 2026July 24, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Landlords have shut the door on the LGBTQ+ desecration of a former Sydney Catholic Church and theatre named after saints.

by Rod Lampard

Concerned critics said St John the Evangelist, which had previously also served as a school for the poor and a men’s shelter, was being used to mock Christianity in the name of art.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the club was “slated to host live music, cabaret shows and performances — most of it adopting Catholic themes and names.”

Dubbed as an “experimental nightclub” and the brain-burp of LGBTQ+ company Heaps Gay Events, the former church was branded “The Unholy Playhouse.”

Organisers quickly changed this to “The Divine Playhouse” after media attention attracted an apparently unexpected flood of public criticism.

Owners issue notice of breach of lease

St John’s current owners, Anthony El-Hazouri and Charbel Hazzouri (Revelop), caught wind of the proposed use, then “issued a notice of breach of the lease over offensive trade.”

Heaps Gay founder, Kat Dopper, said her company “had acted in good faith throughout this whole process and remains committed to meeting our obligations as tenants and working towards a constructive resolution.”

Dopper claims the group was “being silenced,” and has said they are “exploring legal options.”

Sydney’s alt-news site CityHub blamed “radical Christian groups” for the cancellation.

They were referring to Christian Ministries Fit for the Kingdom (FFTK) and The Prodigal Sons (TPS).

Both ministries gathered over 150 Christians to pray outside the 158-year-old church building last week.

Saying it without stating it, CityHub accused the two groups of selective outrage, and insinuated that they were “seeking to prevent [those who identify as] LGBTQ+ from expressing themselves.”

Confirming the context, CityHub quoted Revelop’s breach of lease notice, which read:

“We note that the trade carried on by HG Events has been the subject of significant protest and public criticism, given its offensive nature.

“Such offensive trade has caused, and will continue to cause, grievance and disturbance to owners of adjoining properties and to the general public.

“In circumstances where future public protests are almost certain to occur and are likely to endanger members of the public, our client considers that the time by which the offensive trade is to cease is reasonable.”

On Instagram, Fit for the Kingdom founder, Tomas Mones-Cazon, said: “What makes this worse? The club is openly supported and funded by the NSW Government through Create NSW.”

“Taxpayer money from hardworking people including Christians is being used to desecrate a sacred heritage building and mock the Christian faith that helped build this nation.”

“This would never be allowed for Islam or Judaism,” he protested, “There would be immediate outrage, protests and government intervention.”

A second prayer vigil outside St John’s is planned for 17 July.

NSW state government funding Christian mockery

Validating Mones-Cazon’s claims, Australasian Leisure Management (ALM) confirmed that the NSW State Government had contributed 100,000 dollars to the venue.

Now removed, Heaps Gay’s insensitive marketing and social media posts are what first drew public attention to the LGBTQ+ club’s blatant mockery of Christianity.

For example, ALM recalled the former church being marketed as a “Sanctuary for Divine Mischief.”

Heaps Gay also openly “promoted events using Christian language and symbolism.”

This included “promotional material featuring drag performers dressed as nuns and religious imagery.”

Images that have resurfaced online show “The Divine Playhouse” mocking the Eucharist using McDonald’s fries and a man dressed as a pig.

One post shows a crucifix attached to a BDSM “dog collar.” Another picture shows someone wearing stiletto heels with a cross on the soles.

Others show a clear mockery of Christian ritual and liturgy being performed within St John’s.

‘Neither respect nor tolerance’

The Australian Christians Party backed the owner’s cease and desist notice.

Maryka Groenewald stated in a press release that “even after deconsecration, Church buildings remain places that still carry deep spiritual and cultural significance for believers.”

“They shouldn’t be used as backdrops for explicit entertainment that mocks or trivialises the Christian faith.”

The Western Australian Legislative member then protested the double standard, rightly arguing that this is the “same political lobby that constantly speaks about ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’.”

Now they’re “trying to bully a landlord into hosting events that show neither respect nor tolerance for the Christian worldview.”

“Sydney is not short of nightlife venues or performance spaces.

“It again raises a fair question: why the determination to stage these particular activities in churches?

“We want the [owners of St John’s] to know they are not alone.”

“Many Christians and common-sense Australians can see the double standard at work,” Groenewald added, stating that they “are grateful for their willingness to draw a line in defence of Christian morality and basic respect.”

Reading the room, Family First’s Lyle Shelton simply said, “Imagine if this happened to Islam?”

In a Family First statement published online, he added, “The Minns Government would never dream of funding an arts project devoted to mocking Islam’s prophet Muhammad or ridiculing Islamic religious practices.

“There would be an immediate public outcry and possibly violence. Christianity should be afforded the same respect.”

History of St John the Evangelist

Built in 1868, St John the Evangelist was deconsecrated in the 1930s.

The Catholic Press reported in 1938 that a “gradual clearing out of the residential population” had shifted the building’s usefulness.

Kent Street was being transformed into a commercial hub.

St John’s “carried on as a school, but even that was discontinued as there was no longer either any people or children to be served.”

As The Sydney Morning Herald wrote one month later: when St John’s on Kent was built, “sunlight flooded through its windows. From its front door there was a view of the harbour.”

“Today the church is wedged between large commercial buildings.”

After the people had moved on, the church building was “rented out for secular purposes.”

In 1938 the church reintegrated the building back into its Christian mission. Priests from St Mary’s Cathedral proposed using the church as a hostel for the down and out.

Consequently, St John’s on Kent became the first site of the Matthew Talbot Hostel, Sydney’s long-running Saint Vincent de Paul’s men’s shelter.

From 1952–2020, the Gothic, Victorian-style, stone building served as the home of The Genesian Theatre, named after St Genesius, the patron saint of actors.

Now it’s being used by the LGBTQ+, who, with the monetary blessing of Labor politicians, are funding the mockery of Christianity behind the guise of “art” and “freedom of expression”.

As evidenced by the recent Australian Christian Freedom Index, the 21^st century now offers plenty of examples showing the consequences of de-Christianisation.

The abuse of St John’s and the “be tolerant — don’t shove your religion down our throats — love is love” hypocrisy attached to it is one of the loudest.

Christians repeatedly deployed St John’s to serve the community; homosexuals are now using it to serve their own self-interests.

The difference between the two groups does not get any clearer than that.

By Rod Lampard. Republished with permission from The Daily Declaration. The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good.

Religious leaders sound alarm on Victoria’s oppressive conversion therapy ban

Published on July 8, 2026July 8, 2026 by EF Team1 Comment

Religious leaders in Victoria, Australia, have called on their Government to roll back its oppressive conversion therapy ban, warning that it criminalises conversations between parents and children, and prevents ministers from offering pastoral advice to those seeking it.

by The Christian Institute

Victoria’s infamous Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act criminalises any practice deemed to be ‘aimed’ at ‘changing or suppressing’ an individual’s ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’. The penalty is up to ten years in prison or a maximum fine of over A$200,000.

Not only does Victoria’s ban make it unlawful not to affirm a person’s declared gender identity, but official state guidance on how to avoid prosecution under the law also prohibits prayers about sin and repentance. Just as alarming, the guidance even said a parent discouraging their child from taking puberty blockers would be guilty of unlawful conversion therapy — this was only deleted following public backlash.

This video was created for the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission two years ago. It shows how committed the government is to promoting gender ideology, and to minimising religious practise in Victoria.

Four years on from the Act coming into force, the Victorian Law Reform Commission has launched a review of the legislation.

In their submission to the review, a group of religious leaders with pastoral oversight for more than two million Victorians warn that the Act extends far beyond addressing harmful practices, and that its “broad overreach, ambiguity and ill-defined concepts of faith, has caused confusion in the community”. They say this is most notable among religious leaders and parents, who “appear to be disproportionately affected by the Act”.

Representing a range of religious traditions – including Anglican, Catholic, Sikh, Hindu and Muslim – the leaders go on to say there has been “a chilling effect, particularly on religious leaders, many of whom feel constrained or unable to provide appropriate pastoral care to those seeking guidance for fear of breaching the law”.

Joanna Timm, Senior Public Affairs Officer at The Christian Institute, commented:

“For years, activists have championed Victoria’s conversion therapy ban as the model for the UK to follow. That is why this latest intervention from religious leaders in Victoria is so significant.

“It puts paid to the claim that concerns about a UK conversion therapy ban are alarmist, and pulls back the curtain on the impact such laws have on ordinary church work and parenting. With the Westminster Government doubling down on its commitment to legislation, Victoria shows us what happens when activist demands are written into statute.”

NOTES

• There are already robust protections in law against abuse and coercion. Independent legal advice from multiple KCs is clear that any extension of the criminal law could breach no fewer than four rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights by criminalising ordinary church work, parental guidance and gender-critical beliefs.

• The Westminster Government confirmed in the King’s Speech that it intends to publish a draft ‘conversion practices’ Bill for England and Wales.

Republished from The Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches. The Christian Institute is committed to upholding the truths of the Bible which we believe is inerrant and the supreme authority for all of life, and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

Cancelled child psychiatrist takes gender fight to court

Published on May 14, 2026May 14, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Child psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer faces a November court showdown with Queensland Health after being fired for questioning gender-affirming care protocols for children.

by Rod Lampard for The Daily Declaration

The second showdown between Dr Jillian Spencer and Queensland Health is set for November.

Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA) announced the date in a recent statement published online.

This will be decisive, they said.

“The Court has allocated a two-week hearing window in the first two weeks of November.”

HRLA then added that the window will mark “a major step in what has become a closely watched case.”

Of special interest is Spencer’s professional protest against “no questions allowed” ideologically based “gender-affirming care.”

Her case, HRLA determined, is “at the intersection of proper care for vulnerable children, professional integrity, and the rapidly evolving debate around gender ideology.”

“Key deadlines have been met, including filing further evidence in February.”

“These court dates allow some certainty going forward,” HRLA explained.

Fired for asking questions

While the November date is welcome, Spencer’s case, they said, is another example of “the process is the punishment.”

A child psychiatrist with over 16 years of experience, and a mother of three, Jillian Spencer has had to endure “four years of legal proceedings.”

Recalling reasons for the legal challenge, HRLA said,

“This all happened because she, as a professional psychiatrist at Queensland Children’s Hospital (QCH), questioned the automatic ‘affirmation’ model of treating gender-confused children.

“Dr Spencer was concerned about untested and unproven treatments, including the use of puberty blockers, and the long-term effects they would have on young patients.”

The QCH suspended, then fired her.

In effect, Spencer wasn’t fired because she spoke disparagingly about those who identify as LGBTQ+. Spencer was fired because she dared to exercise her right to question the legitimacy of the ideology propping them up.

Spencer’s dismissal, HRLA argued, “reveals a failure in protecting fundamental freedoms in this country.”

HRLA’s case directs attention to discrimination against Spencer for freely sharing her views.

Filed by HRLA as a political discrimination case, this is the second of two lawsuits.

Spencer’s first case challenging her unfair dismissal from the Queensland Children’s Hospital went before the Qld Supreme Court in April.

This was a judicial review, Spencer said on X, “of the Termination Letter sent to me by the Queensland Children’s Hospital for speaking up about the harm to children from gender interventions.”

Questions asked, she added, were:

“Did the hospital adequately consider my implied right to freedom of political expression under the Constitution?
Did the hospital adequately consider my right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act?”

A judgment is yet to be handed down.

Forcibly removed from psychiatry conference

Spencer is in the free speech fight for the long haul.

She was allegedly assaulted by a security guard at this week’s Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) conference in Melbourne.

The guard appears to have forcibly removed her from the conference on Monday for silently protesting the college for cancelling Queensland Doctor Andrew Amos’ membership.

Her protest was a sign that simply read: “RANZCP kicked out Dr Amos. Why?”

This morning, I silently held up a sign at the @RANZCP Congress during the keynote speech. Security pushed me over, dragged me out, and cancelled my conference registration. @RANZCP CEO, Damian Ferrie, told me my sign counted as ‘advertising’ so wasn’t allowed. The College is so… pic.twitter.com/f1whVxZGp6
— Jillian Spencer (@Jilliantweeting) May 4, 2026

As an AusDoc report recalled, AHPRA banned Amos from clinical practice after he questioned “gender medicine on social media.”

RANZCP booted Amos soon after, which, AusDoc said, is an automatic response whenever a doctor is suspended.

Frustrated about how she was treated, Spencer took to X to further protest RANZCP.

The X post also called out “gender-activist psychiatrist colleagues [for] lying in chat groups, saying: ‘She lay on the floor herself’.”

Responding to claims she was hyping up the incident, Spencer added two screenshots of a statement given to Queensland police about the incident.

In the statement, she testifies to walking up an aisle holding the sign above her head.

This was held for about eight minutes, as she moved to a sitting area.

Spencer said security approached her, declared that the sign was prohibited and told her to leave.

Just over a minute later, the security officer allegedly pulled her to the ground, then apparently dragged her down the stairs.

Spencer said, “he continued dragging me to a flat area near the main stage.”

RANZCP’s CEO, Damian Ferrie, turned up and told Spencer the sign was advertising. He accused her of “disrupting the presentation and ruining it for 2,000 people.”

Rather than offer comfort or understanding, Spencer said Ferrie tried to take the sign from her. This was despite her obvious state of shock and tears.

“I just sat on the ground for the next 5 to 10 minutes crying,” Spencer testified.

Another security guard turned up, who helped Ferrie escort her out the door.

While Spencer was being removed from yet another medical forum, for simply asking questions, RANZCP was patting itself on the back for being “allies” of those who identify as LGBTQ+.

“It was a fantastic turnout this morning at the LGBTIQA+ people and allies morning tea at the RANZCP conference,” they wrote.

“Thanks to everyone who came along to connect and share their support for our LGBTIQA+ community.”

Spencer responded, “They’re smiling, and I’m bruised.”

The pictures, which show Queer flags plastered all over the room like it’s 1930s Nuremberg, only serve to validate Spencer’s protest.

PRIDE activism is harming professionals, the vulnerable and weakening Australia’s healthcare system.

They are not just demanding absolute, unquestioning allegiance in every aspect of life; they are cancelling evidence-based dissenters.

With the help of HRLA, Dr Jillian Spencer is holding the line.

Please consider actively praying for Dr Spencer and her family.

Also consider supporting the Human Rights Alliance’s important work here.

You can read The Daily Declaration’s ongoing and extensive coverage of Spencer’s fight for free speech here.

Pro-lifers win again at UN conference

Published on April 28, 2026May 1, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Pro-lifers chalked up another win at the United Nations in April as the chairman of the UN Commission on Population and Development refused to put a document forward for approval. He objected to the European efforts to load up the document with abortion and gender ideology.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. for CFam

Ambassador Zéphyrin Maniratanga of Burundi did not present a final agreement for adoption because the draft agreement that had been negotiated in recent weeks could not be adopted unanimously.

European and other progressive governments objected to the final draft of the agreement because it did not have enough language linking sexual and reproductive health, gender, and censorship to human rights.

Maniratanga chose to withdraw the agreement rather than accommodate the progressives or propose an agreement that they would vote against. This follows the practice of UN conferences and meetings to require adoption by consensus, that is, without a single UN delegation objecting.

Maniratanga’s decision was a quiet but sharp rebuke to the European and progressive governments that, just last month, forced a vote on the agreement at the Commission on the Status of Women rather than one that would have defined what a woman is. It was the first time in the history of that commission that a vote was necessary. Europeans and their allies seemed poised to call a vote this week, too.

The Holy See expressed thanks to Ambassador Maniratanga for preserving the “practice of consensual adoption” and lamented how an “inordinate focus” on sexual and reproductive health derailed negotiations. The Holy See emphasized that language on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights had “always been controversial” and that it was unfair not to focus on a broader health agenda.

The Gambia, Egypt, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United States also congratulated Maniratanga and expressed similar concerns.

Europeans and their allies vowed to continue to promote abortion, gender ideology, DEI, and censorship through UN agencies and non-governmental organizations that implement UN policy on sexual and reproductive health and gender.

A representative of Cyprus, speaking on behalf of all EU member states, said they were especially disappointed not to reaffirm commitments to “women’s and girls’ rights and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.” On censorship, the EU emphasized that “for technology to be beneficial to all, it must align with human rights and uphold the principles of non-discrimination and gender equality.”

The Commission on Population and Development, which meets for one week in April every year, is the scene of ongoing debates about abortion, gender ideology, population control, and other controversial social policies. It has failed to reach an agreement in seven of the last ten sessions.

The custom of adopting agreements by unanimity at the commission and other UN conferences has been a thorn in the side of progressive governments for decades. It has repeatedly blocked controversial issues from being added to UN agreements, including express endorsement of abortion, gender ideology, and “comprehensive sexuality education.” These are all priorities for EU foreign policy.

In recent years, the EU and progressive governments have increasingly pushed the commission to discard unanimity in order to adopt resolutions by vote. This would allow them to pressure developing states and win close votes on controversial social policies.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

Pro-life optimism abounds at UN women’s Commission

Published on March 20, 2026March 21, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

There is a spirit of optimism and momentum among pro-life and conservative advocates gathered at the annual UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). This optimism has been bolstered by the U.S.’s leadership at the UN this week, both in negotiations and in participation in side events with civil society.

By Iulia-Elena Cazan and Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

For the third year in a row, the pro-life and pro-family coalition hosted a two-day conference near the UN, where speakers addressed packed rooms about the importance of family, motherhood, defending the unborn, and the dangers of gender ideology. The U.S. sponsored five of the events at the Conference on the State of Women and Family (CSWF), and the government of Burundi sponsored two others.

The harm of transgender ideology to women and children was a frequent theme. Representatives of the Trump administration discussed recent executive measures to ban sex-rejecting surgeries and hormones for minors.

Bethany Kozma, Director of Global Affairs at the US Department of Health and Human Services, said, “Parents should never be dismissed when raising concerns about what children are being taught. Families are the first and most important institution in any society.”

Chris Elston, a Canadian known as “Billboard Chris,” spoke about his efforts to educate the public about the harms and his fight against pediatric “gender affirming care,” which he called “the greatest child abuse scandal in the history of modern medicine.”

“In the name of inclusivity, and acceptance, and diversity, we are sterilizing children and sending teenage girls into menopause with its side effects of its own,” Elston continued, adding, “Puberty blockers are not reversible because time is not reversible.”

Elson rejected controversial narratives suggesting children are born in the wrong bodies. Instead, Elson emphasized that there is no right or wrong way to be a boy or a girl, that there are “two sexes, zero genders, and infinite personalities.”

Former college swimmer Paula Scanlan shared her story of having to share a locker room with a female-identified male teammate, while Amie Ichikawa, who spent time in a women’s prison, spoke about the dangers of housing biological men—some of them sex offenders—alongside vulnerable incarcerated women.

At a separate event at the mission of Nigeria, UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, spoke on the danger and the “dehumanizing” effect of erasing women as a “material, distinct category in law but also in reality” through gender-neutral terminology or definitions of “women” that include men. Alsalem mentioned that in some countries, the “official statistics of female sexual offenders or female rapists have jumped by 700%” because statistical bureaus now classify some biological males as females.

An event by the International Youth Coalition (a program of C-Fam, publisher of the Friday Fax) featured young leaders in the international pro-life movement. A young mother and lawyer from Costa Rica shared how her family was a source of joy and meaning, and not a barrier to her professional advancement. A young leader from Students for Life USA discussed his visits to college campuses, helping to start pro-life groups, and encouraging young leaders to find the confidence to find each other and speak out.

The CSWF conference was originally launched after conservative groups were repeatedly denied space for events by the “official” CSW civil society parallel event platform. Its events draw crowds of like-minded advocates and volunteers, delegates from foreign capitals and missions, as well as some critics who call its message “antithetical to gender equality.”

By Iulia-Elena Cazan and Rebecca Oas, Ph.D. . C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

About the authors:

Iulia-Elena Cazan joined the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) in the summer of 2023 as Associate Director of UN Government Relations and International Youth Coalition (IYc) in NY. She graduated from Drexel University in June 2023 with a degree in Political-Science and minors in French and Philosophy.

Rebecca Oas is the Director of Research for the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) in Washington, D.C. Before joining C-Fam, Rebecca earned her doctorate in Genetics and Molecular Biology at Emory University. She has written for Human Life International as a Fellow of HLI America and is has served as a Contributing Editor for HLI.

US resolution to protect women and girls faces uphill battle at the UN

Published on March 20, 2026March 20, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women is wrapping up this week amid historic disagreement between delegations over what it means to be a woman. You read that right. Diplomats at the annual international meeting focused on “women’s issues” are engaged in negotiations and backroom maneuvers to avoid clearly defining what they mean by the word “gender.”

By Grace Melton

Last week, when the meeting opened, it was the first time in the commission’s 70 years that the “agreed conclusions”—the negotiated document that the diplomats usually adopt by consensus—had to go to a vote.

The U.S. diplomats requested that the commission members take more time to negotiate a document that all countries could agree to, and then subsequently proposed amendments to the document that would have brought it more in line with U.S. policy. The U.S. opposed the “ambiguous language promoting gender ideology,” as well as references to “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which U.N. agencies use to promote abortion.

But the chair of the Commission on the Status of Women, Costa Rica’s Maritza Chan Valverde, used procedural machinations to require that the proposed U.S. amendments be packaged together, effectively killing their chances of passage. She was able to censor the countries that shared some of the U.S.’ objections to the document but were unwilling to join in opposition to all of them.

Ultimately, the controversial “agreed conclusions” were adopted by a vote of 37 in favour, with six abstentions and only the U.S. voting “no.”

This ideological battle is nothing new. The U.N. bureaucracy and European countries routinely push gender ideology and a radical abortion agenda under the guise of women’s rights and gender equality. And over the past several years they have labeled their opposition—those who hold traditional beliefs about the sanctity of life and the protection of the family—as “the pushback” or “anti-rights actors.”

Last year, the newly reelected Trump administration opposed the business-as-usual progressive agenda at the Commission on the Status of Women. And this year, the U.S. is taking its defense of women and girls a step further. As the new Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance Policy illustrates, the Trump administration intends to “promote human flourishing” by opposing abortion, gender ideology, and DEI activities at home and abroad.

After losing the vote last week, the U.S. delegation is now proposing a new resolution on the “Protection of Women and Girls Through Appropriate Terminology.” It seeks to reaffirm the original language from the 1994 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which defines “gender” according to “its ordinary, generally accepted usage, as referring to men and women.” It rejects any expansion of the term to include “gender identity” or other subjective and ideological terms.

Pro-life and pro-family organizations, including Family Watch International, are encouraging the many countries that consistently oppose radical gender ideology to join with the U.S. in sponsoring the resolution.

While the U.S. resolution faces an uphill battle—some say insurmountable—these countries would be wise to support it nonetheless. A strong showing of support would challenge any assertion that customary international law has developed to expand the meaning of gender to include “transgender” or other so-called gender identities.

Such support would build on the momentum of the successful vote late last year in the General Assembly to remove controversial “sexual orientation and gender identity” language from a resolution on implementing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. And it would send a clear message to U.N. bureaucrats that U.N. Member States have the sovereign right to define U.N. policy through transparent processes.

The dangers of gender ideology are not theoretical. Reem Alsalem, U.N. special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, has highlighted many of them in her recent report on sex-based violence against women and girls. Women’s dignity, privacy, safety, and opportunities are at stake when men can violate female-only spaces by claiming to “identify” as women.

Sadly, much of the world is only beginning to understand the horrific physical and psychological harms that those who have attempted to “transition” to another sex, boys and girls alike, have experienced under the euphemistically named “gender-affirming care” regimen of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and surgeries that aim to change the appearance of their bodies.

For too long, activists on the Left have insisted that abortion is necessary for women’s empowerment, that motherhood and family are impediments to personal fulfillment, and now, that “gender identity” is something real that others must validate.

These are lies that hurt women and girls. In the decades since the Beijing conference, more people have come to recognize them as ideological deceptions that hurt men, women, and children alike. Now it’s time for more countries to confront those lies at the U.N., even when that means they’ll likely lose a vote.

Republished from The Daily Signal.

About the author: Grace Melton is senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Human Flourishing.

CIA promoted LGBT & abortion to Muslims

Published on February 27, 2026February 27, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Redacted reports show how CIA analysts recommended “discrete” promotion of LGBT rights in the Middle East, increased funding for “sexual and reproductive health services” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe has ordered the intelligence agency to retract and revise nineteen “intelligence products” because they were determined to be highly politicized and contained substandard work. Three of the reports were published by Ratcliffe in a redacted format.

The published reports show how CIA analysts recommended “discrete” promotion of LGBT rights in the Middle East, increased funding for “sexual and reproductive health services” during the COVID-19 pandemic relying primarily on reports from abortion industry groups that stood to receive those funds, and meddling in German politics through “tailored gender-conscious approaches” to prevent the recruitment of women with traditional views of motherhood by “white extremists.”

The three products released until now may be the tip of the iceberg. They are likely the least controversial of the nineteen, the ones deemed least dangerous to national security. This raises the question of how bad the other sixteen CIA intelligence products are that have not been published.

The reports were produced while Obama, Trump, and Biden were in the White House. A CIA press release that accompanied the reports said they show how the intelligence agency failed to remain “independent from a particular audience, agenda, or policy viewpoint.”

“The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned,” said Director Ratcliffe. “There is absolutely no room for bias in our work, and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record.”

The reports were reviewed by the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) alongside hundreds of other reports containing intelligence assessments and analyses produced in recent decades.

Notably, a CIA “Wire” report titled “Middle East-North Africa: LGBT Activists Under Pressure” produced in 2015 shows the inherent dangers of attempts at cultural engineering abroad, something C-Fam, publisher of the Friday Fax, has reported for many years.

This report should be understood in the context of the Obama White House designating LGBT issues a U.S. Foreign Policy Priority beginning in 2011 and expanding that commitment with several subsequent executive actions by Obama and Biden. The Trump administration revoked all those actions.

The report warns that the governments of majority-Muslim countries in the region would “almost certainly” portray U.S. efforts to advance LGBT rights as “foreign meddling” and that this in turn would undermine the U.S. goal of protecting LGBT rights abroad. It cites the reactions of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, calling this “cultural imperialism” in the context of United Nations debates, as an example of the resistance to be expected.

The report specifically warns of backlash against the very individuals intended for protection.

“Discreet international support could help avoid drawing undue attention and possibly counterproductive backlash against activists,” the report reads.

It warns that “Egyptian civil society organizations –already vulnerable to government scrutiny—have warned US officials that overt engagement puts them at risk” and that “a Lebanese activist in May 2014 stated that public outreach by the US would be counterproductive.”

Nevertheless, it calls for “community engagement with local police forces and the Ministry of Interior to limit the targeting of LGBT individuals” and “supporting gender studies in academic institutions in the Middle East and North Africa.”

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. . C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

Scathing review of Cairns gender clinic

Published on February 24, 2026February 27, 2026 by EF TeamLeave a comment

A Queensland Health review of Cairns Hospital’s paediatric gender clinic raises serious concerns about safeguards, oversight, and the treatment of vulnerable children in Australia.

By John Steenhof

A newly released review of the Cairns Hospital paediatric gender service has raised serious concerns about the treatment of vulnerable children and the clinical culture surrounding youth gender medicine in Australia.

The Queensland Health investigation identified a “negative patient safety culture”, with troubling shortcomings in assessment practices, oversight, and clinical governance at the paediatric gender clinic at Cairns and Hinterland Hospital. The review found incident reporting and risk management processes were inconsistent or absent.

In some cases, young patients with developmental delays were on medication despite not understanding the treatment they were receiving. Among the most concerning findings were reports that children as young as 12 were prescribed puberty blockers without adequate multidisciplinary assessment or robust psychological evaluation.

While some defenders of gender medicine may seek to characterise Cairns as an isolated or poorly managed service, the broader significance of the report should not be overlooked. The findings add to a growing body of international and domestic evidence calling for greater caution, stronger safeguards, and more rigorous clinical standards when dealing with children experiencing gender distress.

Global reassessment of youth gender medicine

Across the Western world, medical authorities and courts are increasingly scrutinising the “affirmation-first” model. Reviews in the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and parts of the United States have already led to tighter restrictions on puberty blockers and cross-sex interventions for minors. The Cairns report now places Australia squarely within that global reassessment.

The developments are particularly striking given the treatment of clinicians who have urged caution. For years, Queensland child psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer has advocated for a careful, holistic approach to children presenting with gender distress. Rather than being welcomed as part of a legitimate clinical debate, she has faced disciplinary action and professional pressure.

The Cairns findings underscore why open medical discussion is so important. When complex and evolving areas of medicine become insulated from scrutiny, the risk of harm increases – especially where children and irreversible interventions are involved.

Calls for open debate and stronger safeguards

This is not merely a question of process at a single clinic. It raises deeper issues about whether clinicians feel free to exercise independent professional judgment, whether parents are receiving balanced information, and whether Australia’s regulatory environment allows genuine debate about the best interests of vulnerable young people.

At HRLA, we continue to support professionals who speak carefully and conscientiously in contested areas of practice. Protecting freedom of conscience and evidence-based care is essential to maintaining trust in the medical system and safeguarding children’s wellbeing.

The Cairns review should prompt serious reflection across Australia’s health sector. Robust safeguards, transparent oversight, and open clinical debate are not obstacles to good medicine – they are its foundation.

John Steenhof is the Principal Lawyer at Human Rights Law Alliance. This article first appeared at The Daily Declaration and is reproduced here by permission.

The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. It is dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Its vision is to see the revitalisation of our Christian values for the common good.