Tag: LGBT agenda

conversion

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

Published on 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.

non-binary

‘Non-Binary’ Drivers get Cheaper Car Insurance Premiums

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Two of Australia’s largest insurers have confirmed that they charge male drivers hundreds of dollars more than ‘non-binary’ applicants for identical car insurance coverage.

by Kurt Mahlburg at The Daily Declaration.

Insurance giants NRMA and Allianz are offering dramatically cheaper car insurance premiums to Australian drivers who select “non-binary” on application forms.

The revelation first came from a listener, Ben, who contacted 2GB Sydney’s Ben Fordham Live to explain that when he used the same personal and vehicle details and changed only the gender field, he was quoted dramatically different premiums.

“At NRMA, for example, for a male customer, the policy costs $2,700, but for a non-binary customer, it costs only $1,900 — a difference of $800,” the listener wrote in an email to the program.

“At Allianz, it’s similar. For a male customer, the policy costs $2,800. For a non-binary, it costs $2,300 — a difference of $500. Same suburb, same car, same age, same driving history, same excess, same everything.”

The listener, Ben — who happens to share a first name with the show’s host — went on to detail how each insurer justified its pricing policy:

I asked both insurers to explain why gender identity affects a person’s risk profile. NRMA insisted it’s non-discriminatory, then pointed me to their premium and excess guide. Allianz went a step further and told me they couldn’t answer because it was a sensitive topic.

In other words, insurers are charging male customers hundreds more; non-binary customers get the cheapest rate. No data or explanation is provided. One insurer hides behind a document that doesn’t explain it. The other refuses to answer questions entirely.

Both insurers have since confirmed to The Daily Declaration that the cheaper price for ‘non-binary’ customers is intentional.

‘Absolutely Stunned At What I Found’

Ben Fordham noted the startling implications live on air. “I’m certainly shocked to hear about it,” he said, before speaking with the listener during Monday morning’s program.

Ben, 22, explained the process that led to his discovery. “I was just going through doing some quotes the other night in the process of purchasing a new car.”

“I found the box on there and I thought, ‘I’m just gonna give it a tick and see what it comes out with.’ Might be a bit of a joke. And yeah, well, a joke is right. I was absolutely stunned at what I found.”

Fordham clarified: “All of the other details were listed exactly the same?”

“Yes,” the caller confirmed.

Fordham summarised the situation for listeners: “Two of the country’s biggest insurers charging dramatically different car insurance premiums based purely on the gender identity you select. If you tick male, you pay more. If you tick non-binary, you pay less.”

When Fordham asked about female drivers, Ben reported that NRMA’s quote for a female customer came in at around $2,300 — still higher than the non-binary rate.

‘Non-Binary’ Loophole Confirmed by Producers

2GB Sydney confirmed the discrepancy via social media, showing the results when their own producers tested the so-called “non-binary loophole.”

Side-by-side quotes for the same comprehensive car insurance policy revealed a striking difference: $2,725 per year for a male applicant, compared with $1,943 for someone identifying as non-binary — a saving of $782.

The post, headlined “2GB PRODUCERS TEST NON-BINARY LOOPHOLE,” made clear that the only variable affecting the premium was the gender selection.

Monday’s segment closed with Fordham summarising the findings: “Insurers are charging male customers hundreds more. Non-binary customers get the cheapest rate. No data or explanation is provided. One insurer hides behind a document that doesn’t explain it. The other refuses to answer questions because it’s so sensitive. What in the world is going on?”

NRMA and Allianz Confirm ‘Non-Binary’ Discount

The Daily Declaration reached out to both NRMA and Allianz to confirm whether the cheaper premiums for ‘non-binary’ customers were intentional.

“NRMA Insurance recently introduced a non-binary option into the comprehensive car insurance quoting process to enable non-binary customers to be represented and recognised when applying for insurance,” an NRMA Insurance spokesperson confirmed, adding, “It’s important customers provide accurate information when purchasing insurance.”

“We will continue to refine our approach as we gain insight on driver behaviour to ensure policies and premiums are reflected appropriately,” she said.

The reply from Allianz was similar.

“At Allianz, we strive to be inclusive in our insurance offerings,” a spokesperson explained. “Due to the small percentage of non-binary individuals, limited data is available to assess risk accurately. Therefore, we currently default to the lower-priced gender option, which is typically, but not always, female.”

“Allianz will continue to refine our approach to policies and premiums to reflect updated information. We trust our customers to provide accurate information when applying for insurance.”

Both NRMA and Allianz place heavy emphasis on LGBTQI+ “inclusion” as part of their corporate identity.

According to NRMA’s website, the company’s SHINE network promotes “gender affirmation leave,” “all-gender bathrooms,” and policies designed to let staff “be their authentic selves,” framing these measures as essential to a “safe, welcoming environment.”

Allianz adopts similar language, describing its Pride network as committed to “furthering the awareness of LGBTQ+ issues” and positioning the company as an “employer of choice for LGBTQ+ applicants.”

Both NRMA and Allianz have achieved Gold Employer status on the Australian Workplace Equality Index (AWEI), a benchmarking program administered by the LGBT activist group ACON, which receives funding from both federal and state governments.

by Kurt Mahlburg.

Kurt Mahlburg is a husband to Angie, a father, a freelance writer, and a familiar Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He is the Senior Editor and a regular columnist at The Daily Declaration. More of his writings can be found at Mercator, Intellectual Takeout, The Spectator Australia, The American Spectator and Caldron Pool.

The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. We are dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and we provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. 

pushing back

Pro-Life states pushing back at UN

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

An increasing number of pro-life governments are pushing back against radical abortion and gender ideology at the UN General Assembly.

Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

More governments than ever voted for eliminating controversial language related to abortion and LGBT issues in the ongoing UN General Assembly.

In the Third Committee of the General Assembly, forty-eight governments voted in favour of removing “sexual and reproductive health” language from a resolution on children. Seventy governments voted to remove “sexual orientation and gender identity” from a resolution on persons with disabilities.

A close call

In both cases the amendments to remove the controversial terms failed, but the votes were closer than it was imagined possible. While seventy-four governments voted to retain the language on sexual orientation, they won by a mere four votes. Many of the governments that voted in favor of the homosexual and transgender agenda did so only because of pressure from the European Union. Over fifty states abstained or failed to cast a vote.

The close vote is a wakeup call for the European Union and progressive governments that promote abortion and gender ideology in UN policy. The vote demonstrated a realistic path to rollback abortion and gender ideology from UN policy altogether, something few thought possible during the first Trump administration.

Pushing back from Africa to Europe

Dozens of delegations made statements complaining of the attempt to corrupt children through explicit UN-style sex education and the promotion of abortion and contraception for children without parental consent.

Speaking on behalf of a group of African governments, Nigeria complained that proposals related to the importance of the family were not included in the final draft, despite being based on the obligations of all members states under binding international treaties.

A delegate from Burkina Faso —speaking for Burundi, Cameroon, and Mali — said the use of the term sexual and reproductive health “cannot be interpreted as giving children access to drugs and medical treatment without parental consent.” She said the term must only refer to health services that are “legal and approved by competent authorities” in each nation. She emphasized the “inalienable and central role” of parents in the education of children.

Argentina’s delegate said parents had the “primary responsibility” to protect children and that the State could “support, but never replace” the family. He emphasized that protecting the family is a “structural principle of human rights law, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and that it is part of respect for the principle of subsidiarity.

The delegate of Denmark speaking on behalf of all the nations that are part of the European Union attacked the amendment to protect children from sexualization as “harmful to the substance of the resolution” and urged nations to keep “sexual orientation and gender identity” in the resolution on persons with disabilities. Earlier in the day, he had also attacked developing nations in Africa and Asia for refusing to recognize homosexual unions as families in a resolution about the family. “Families are living dynamic entities” and “various forms of the family exist” he said.

The amendments that led to the debate were proposed by Burundi and Egypt, respectively. The Egyptian amendment to delete the homosexual and gender identity language was on behalf of the 54 member states of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation.

The sexual left among UN member states and UN bureaucrats are increasingly furious about traditional governments pushing back on abortion and LGBT issues. They have invented a new term — anti-rights — for those governments and NGOs that oppose their agenda.

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.