Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Lyle Shelton’s 2023 vilification dismissal has been overturned.

A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal (QCAT) ruled against former Member Jeremy Gordon, saying he failed to apply precedents.

Judicial member Nicholas Loos said Gordon had failed to test the case by the perceived reaction of “hypothetical audiences,” as opposed to deciding on actual audience responses.

This hypothetical yardstick, Loos explained, is the “objective standard” for measuring acts of vilification.

Put simply, perceived impact trumps actual intent. No proof of incitement is required.

“Hypothetical Audience” Test Central to Ruling

Under this shadow of the law, Loos, in effect, argued that Gordon made the 2023 decision based on the false assumption that homonormativity was now a thing.

After 6 years in court, my drag queen free speech case just took a shocking turn.

An appeal tribunal overturned my earlier win and now I’m heading back to court for year seven.

No findings against me. But the punishment seems to be the process itself.

This case isn’t just… pic.twitter.com/65VSU2GL2N

— Lyle Shelton (@LyleShelton) March 7, 2026

For Gordon, increased social acceptance of practices associated with Queer theory, such as Pride and Drag Queen performances, likely dulled any potential impact of Shelton’s alleged “hate speech.”

However, Loos argued, Gordon’s “presumption” was wrong.

His ruling failed the antisemitic test, Loo’s said, quoting a Victorian precedent.

If “antisemitic remarks were made to a group of neo-Nazis,” he argued, “it would incite them to hatred, then incite them to act on that emotion.”

It is, Loos added, “absurd and offensive to dismiss the possible effects of those remarks on neo-Nazis.”

This is because, he added, there are no “reasonable” neo-Nazis.

Therefore, it was unreasonable for Gordon to assume that Shelton’s audience was reasonable enough not to be incited against those who identified as LGBTQ+.

The perceived acts of a hypothetical audience trumped Shelton’s or his audience’s actual responses.

Accusing Gordon of “overlaying the objective test with his subjective opinion,” Loos stated that this was one of “several grounds” Gordon erred.

This led to legal errors, which Loos concluded had “tainted Gordon’s 2023 decision.”

Consequently, Loos ruled, Shelton’s 16 January 2020 blog and Facebook remarks containing references to two self-identifying “drag queens” —  Dwayne Hill and Johnny Valkyrie — could be considered vilification.

For Loos, the heart of the vilification allegations is Shelton’s remark about Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew.

The focus here is on a question Shelton posed on his blog, asking,

“Have we learned nothing from creeps like Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew?”

The 2020 blog where this was featured was titled, Why Queeny and Diamond Good-Rim are dangerous role models for children. (See Gordon’s ruling here.)

Shelton then shared this on Facebook, saying,

“Meet the radical sexual expressionists and gender fluid warriors @brisbanecityqld put in front of children. #dragqueensarenotforkids WARNING: Graphic content.”

For this, Shelton has been accused of “implying that the two [self-identifying] drag queens are sexual offenders, child sexual offenders, or similarly dangerous to children.”

Loos, appearing to uphold the plausibility of this claim, in turn, overthrew the dismissal, allowing the appeal.

Seven-Year Legal Battle Continues

Notably, the case has the backing of taxpayer-funded LGBTQ+ legal aid and is supported by ACON-aligned activist organisation Equality Australia.

EA “welcomed the decision.”

Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA) responded to the decision in a press release on Friday, asserting that Loo’s decision raised serious questions about freedom of speech.

QCAT’s ruling, HRLA said, impacts whether “Australians can still speak openly about issues affecting children, families and faith.”

“The real punishment,” Principle HRLA lawyer John Steenhof said, “is not in the final outcome, but in the years of stress, both emotional and financial, that accompany year after year of litigation.”

In other words, “the process is the punishment.”

Loos agreed to hear the appeal in February last year. While saying he understood Shelton’s frustration, the QCAT Member allowed “fresh evidence to be introduced.”

His decision, which favours LGBTQ+ lawfare, reminds Australians that the country’s vilification laws are volatile and easily weaponised.

The appeal outcome drags the Drag Queens’ Feelings vs. Lyle Shelton’s Free Speech battle into its seventh year.