On Safe Access Zones
Marcus L’Estrange writes Re. “Christian Lobby funding defence of anti-abortion mother of 13“, yesterday. Overall Sally Whyte’s story was a good coverage of the issue but she missed a key point. Why the need for Safe Access Zones in Victoria at all? At the beginning of 2015, the Victorian ALP Government rightly removed the Coalition’s “move on” laws from the statute book. Rightly so, as the laws were intended really to prevent unions protesting. The laws were seen as an unfair restriction on free speech, with Attorney General, Martin Pakula, proclaiming that: “Victoria doesn’t need Bjelke-Petersen-style laws designed to silence dissent and outlaw peaceful protests.”
At year’s end, a total back flip by Victorian Labor with its MPs denied a free vote and totally under the thumb of Emily’s List. Why not a conscience vote? After all the issue, like 2008, was about abortion on demand and not about a mother’s health. Comment from the police at the time was that the actions outside the clinics over the past two decades have been carried out lawfully when it was acknowledged that the disputes between the abortion business and The Helpers has bubbled on for many years without requiring Police intervention. Not only this, the abortion clinic has refused many suggestions to install CCTV equipment to capture any claimed activity. But no, they didn’t. Why not? Simply put, there was no adverse activity to capture. We have learnt that there is a ‘Safe Street’ camera on the light pole on the opposite, MCG side, of the road from the FC clinic and these images were available to the Victoria Police. Last year The Helpers were denounced in the media by the Lord Mayor, Robert Doyle. He said that we were “vile” and “gaming the system”, insinuating that we would only behave ourselves when Council Officers came down to check on us. Seems he could have checked his camera and shown our claimed misbehaviour to the news. Why didn’t he? Because there is nothing adverse to show. All up an Orwellian law for no real reason.
Simon Hunt writes: The HRLA is specifically based on “Alliance Defending Freedom” from the USA. The ACL flew their senior legal counsel, Jeffrey Ventrella to their April conference. At the time, Shelton said “If this is where it’s going that it’s no longer tolerated that you can hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman then obviously we’re going to need legal representation to protect those freedoms and that’s why we’ve invited ADF to our conference.” The ADF runs most of the anti-LGBTI cases in the USA (the ‘bathroom bills’ etc); assists state & federal lawmakers with drawing up anti-LGBTI legislation; and sends lawyers to other countries (such as Belize) in which homosexuality remains criminalised in order to assist lawmakers attempting to keep things that way.