Back

Drag queen case setback: why this fight for free speech continues

Family First Party

Statement from Lyle Shelton

 

After six years of litigation involving multiple court hearings, senior counsel and expert witnesses, the legal battle over blog posts I wrote in 2020 about drag queen story time is still not finished.

 

An appeal tribunal decision handed down this week has set aside a 2023 decision dismissing a vilification complaint against me.

 

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal has found that the original tribunal decision applied the wrong legal test.

 

The matter will now continue into its seventh year with both parties ordered back to court.

 

While disappointing, importantly, this week’s ruling does not make a final finding that I engaged in vilification.

 

There has been no order for compensation, apology, retraction or costs. QCAT is yet to consider whether my good-faith defence applies.

 

Six years of legal proceedings for expressing a view about a matter of public interest shows how easily the legal system can be used to silence people.

 

My concern has always been child protection. I believe children should not be exposed to early sexualisation through sexualised role models and they should not be exposed to role models who promote gender fluid ideology.

 

Below are some of the sexualised and gender-fluid images from the public social media accounts of Australian drag queen role models. Out of a desire to help parents and the public understand DQST, I included these and other images in my 2020 blogs which then became the subject of the vilification complaint against me.

 

 

 

 

 

Writing about my concern for children sparked this extraordinary legal ordeal.

 

The appeal decision also revealed just how uncertain vilification law has become. The tribunal said the original decision had applied the wrong legal test and made findings about homophobia and transphobia that were not supported by evidence.

 

If courts themselves cannot agree on the correct legal standard, how can ordinary Australians possibly know where the legal line is?

 

Australians deserve to know: what does ‘getting it right’ look like?

 

Many Australians watching this case will understandably conclude that speaking out on controversial social issues is simply not worth the risk.

 

That is exactly how freedom of speech is chilled.

 

This case is not just about me. It is about whether Australians are still free to express views about child protection and other contested cultural issues without facing years of litigation.

 

I want to thank John Steenhof, his HRLA team and the lawyers who have generously represented me. I also want to thank those who have donated to my legal defence.

 

Unlike our opponents, we have received no taxpayer support.

 

Next month we remember those who fought and died for our freedoms.

 

Politicians would do well to consider why they preside over flawed laws which mean those freedoms no longer apply.

 

Contact details:

[email protected]