Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Dragged into a tribunal for defending biological reality, Jasmine Sussex’s case now tests Australia’s boundaries on science, speech, and whether experts can voice concerns without being silenced.

A man transitioned and claims to be a woman.

He then wanted to “breastfeed” his child.

To attempt that, he needed medical intervention and a cocktail of drugs.

Jasmine Sussex – an expert in breastfeeding – publicly raised concerns about the safety and efficacy of this.

For that, she is now being dragged before a Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

She was thrown off social media, expelled by the breastfeeding association, and faced off against the office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

Simply for speaking up for something she believed in.

The case could set the parameters for what counts as “hate speech” and what is considered good faith public discussion and debate in this country.

It also has far-reaching implications for professionals who speak out on subjects they are experts in.

Facing Down Delusion

Suffice to say, Jasmine is not backing down from a fight.

Jasmine told The Australian, “I don’t have a choice in this.”

On the surface, what the fight comes down to is a question of science – the details of what does and doesn’t count as breastmilk.

You can read about some of these details in The Australian:

A vilification complaint levelled by Jennifer Adrian Buckley against former Australian Breastfeeding Association counsellor Jasmine Sussex has taken on a life of its own, morphing into a test of both the science and freedom of speech in the ideological minefield of gender transition.

Ms Sussex has sought to turn the tables on Ms Buckley, 44, by demanding she prove that the substance she expressed was breast milk, consistent with what a mother would produce and nutritious for the infant, now aged 6.

She won’t be cowed by Ms Buckley’s charge that she breached anti-discrimination law, setting in motion five years of lawyers’ letters, abortive conciliation and ­mediation talks and angst, with the cacophony of clashing claims to be tested in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal next year.

Ms Sussex says she won’t be ­silenced, come what may. The case will hinge on her passionately held belief that she was entitled to call out the “delusional queer theory take” on breastfeeding in ­direct and unequivocal language.

Curtailed Speech

But details aside, what matters now is the right of Australians to engage in important discussions of public interest.

As I told The Australian, “It’s not going to be a case that’s going to come to a definitive position on what is right and wrong in those particular issues, but whether we’re allowed to speak about them.”

“It’s important for a good, robust, open political debate that people are able to speak without fear of the law being used to silence their opinion.”

Australians increasingly face legal and professional repercussions for speaking out about what they believe or even things they’re experts in.

To lose that right is to lose free speech.

And that is what we must all fight against.

___

Republished with thanks to the Human Rights Law Alliance. Image courtesy of Adobe.