Family Fist: It’s back to court next week with no end in sight
Michael Barnett OAM
It’s back to court next week with no end in sight
Next Wednesday, May 27, lawyers for me will again be back in the Queensland Supreme Court in Brisbane in what has become a seven-year legal saga over my criticism of “Drag Queen Story Time” events for children.
The drag queens suing me — Johnny Valkyrie and Dwayne Hill — will ask the Court to quash my application for judicial review before I can even fully argue my case. They are also seeking extraordinary orders that would force me to indemnify them against legal costs regardless of the outcome.
This case has already consumed years of litigation, multiple hearings and enormous emotional and financial strain — all because I spoke up about sexualised drag performers and gender fluid ideology being presented to children in public libraries.
I have never argued that adults cannot live as they choose. But I do believe parents have a right to be alerted when activist ideologies are being promoted to children under the guise of entertainment or education in taxpayer-funded facilities.
That is what this case is really about: freedom of speech.
It is about whether Australians can peacefully express concerns about radical gender ideology and the sexualisation of children without facing years of legal warfare under anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws.
The original complaint against me was lodged in 2020 under Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act.
In 2023, after a three-day hearing, QCAT dismissed the complaint against me.
But the drag queens appealed, and in February this year the QCAT Appeal Tribunal overturned parts of that decision and directed further proceedings.
My judicial review application argues that the Appeal Tribunal made jurisdictional errors. The drag queens are now trying to stop the Supreme Court from even hearing those arguments properly.
This is lawfare with no end in sight.
The whole thing could end tomorrow if the drag queens stopped pursuing me through the courts for exercising freedom of speech.
Instead, they continue to escalate the litigation while seeking protection from costs and even demanding that I carry their financial risk.
Meanwhile, ordinary Australians are watching and learning a chilling lesson: if you speak against radical gender ideology, you may be dragged through years of litigation simply because activists claim offence.
That is why this fight matters far beyond me personally.
Australians should not need to fear bankruptcy or endless court proceedings simply for expressing mainstream views about biology, children and parental rights.
This is also why politicians must act.
It was encouraging this week to see Liberal leader Angus Taylor commit to restoring the definition of woman to the Sex Discrimination Act in the wake of the Giggle v Tickle case ruling that biological men have a right to women’s and girls’ spaces.
Taylor’s move is an important and overdue step.
But it is not enough.
Australia also desperately needs freedom of speech protections.
Taylor should commit the Commonwealth Parliament to overriding the anti-free speech provisions of state anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws.
These flawed laws are being weaponised against citizens like me simply for exercising political speech and public commentary.
No Australian should face seven years of legal punishment for critiquing activist ideology being promoted to children.
Free speech is the foundation of democracy.
That’s what we’ll be fighting for in court again next Wednesday.
But ultimately change will require political action. That’s why I’m running for the NSW Parliament at the next election.