Dear Peter George,
Re: Request for Delegation – Concerns Regarding Human Rights, Free Speech and the Anti-Discrimination Act
We would like to congratulate you on your success at the recent state election and to wish you well as you assume your seat in the Tasmanian Parliament.
In light of your recent comments on the ABC “There are so many good governments around the world which represent many different points of view, that’s what democracy is all about”, your recent statements supporting freedom of speech and the UN Human Rights Charter, we respectfully request a meeting with you for a delegation of concerned citizens to discuss how Tasmanian anti-discrimination laws undermine basic principles outlined in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Australia is a signatory, by impacting on citizens freedom of speech, freedom of association and basic human rights.
Under the current Liberal government, these fundamental rights have continued to be constrained. A clear and troubling example occurred during the Let Women Speak rally in Hobart, where peaceful participants advocating for women’s rights were subjected to harassment, vilification, and even physical assault. Despite the presence of elected representatives, no meaningful action was taken to protect these women or uphold their right to speak freely in public even after repeated requests to Tasmania Police officers present, to Tasmania Police Headquarters and to the Police Minister Felix Ellis.
We are deeply concerned that such incidents reflect a broader trend in which legitimate political and social speech—particularly when expressed by women, especially lesbians —is increasingly being met with hostility, censorship, and legal threat under the existing Anti-Discrimination framework. We believe this poses a serious risk to democratic debate and the civil liberties of all Tasmanians.
At present, the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act already protects a wide range of attributes, including gender identity, race, age, sex characteristics, disability, political belief, religious belief, and association. However, the interpretation and application of this Act—particularly in the development of “Inclusion and Diversity” policies—have deviated from its original intent. Terms like “safety” and “inclusion” are now frequently weaponised to silence and exclude individuals and groups who hold views aligned with biological reality.
A clear example of this occurred with the cancellation of a Women Speak Tasmania (WST) public forum by the Devonport Library. The forum, titled “Women’s Rights in the Modern World,” was scheduled for 7 April 2025 and intended to foster open discussion about how legislation affects the definition and rights of women. The booking was initially accepted and publicly promoted, but on 19 March, Simon Jones, Acting Director of Libraries Tasmania, informed us the booking had been cancelled. When we asked for clarification, Mr. Jones cited Libraries Tasmania’s Client Diversity and Inclusion Policy and claimed that WST had made public statements that left members of the LGBTQIA+ community feeling unwelcome. We should point out that our forum was to present evidence that we previously presented at a meeting with Attorney General Guy Barnett on 20 January 2025 in our Dossier:
This cancellation was followed by hateful and defamatory comments posted on WST’s public Facebook page—remarks that were not only vile but suspiciously predated our public announcement about the event’s cancellation. One such comment read: “Haha get wrecked losers, your fascist event got cancelled! Good luck finding a venue that accommodates Nazis and delusional attention seekers like yourselves!”
Following this, our attempt to book an alternative venue—the Hive in Ulverstone—was also rejected. In a message from a Hive representative, the refusal was based on concerns about disruptions and safety risks to staff and other patrons. While we acknowledge the responsibility to ensure public safety, it is deeply troubling that peaceful public discourse is being preemptively shut down due to threats or opposition from activist groups.
The enforcement of these policies has effectively resulted in WST being treated as a politically proscribed organisation. We have been barred from accessing government owned public venues to host events that are open to all and designed to foster constructive discussion about legislation that affects women, girls, and broader society. Our perspectives—grounded in material reality and supported by evidence, including our Dossier presented to AG Guy Barnett on 20 January 2025—are being wrongly categorised as “hate speech.” This mislabelling is being used to justify cancellations, stifle debate, and incite hostility against women and men who are critical of sex self-ID laws and their real-world consequences. As Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur for the UN mentioned during her report to the Human Rights Council, “Violence against women and girls is rooted in the material reality of biological sex, which often intersects with other aspects thereby augmenting their vulnerability to violence.”
Recently, The Government has proposed amendments to the Sentencing Act 1997, which seek to introduce additional aggravating factors in sentencing for crimes motivated by discrimination, without first assessing whether the existing Crimes Act and Anti-Discrimination Act adequately serve their purpose.
We would like to bring your attention to the case of Isabella Cepa. Cepa, a Brazilian women’s rights activist, first came under criminal investigation after she made a social media post about Erika Hilton – a male politician who “identifies” as a woman. She was facing a 25 years sentence for the crime of ‘misgendering’ and just became the first person to be recognised as a victim of state persecution for opposing gender ideology and given refugee status in a European country.
In Australia, during a recent Women Will Speak event in Melbourne, women had to liaison with Victoria Police and agreed on a special PASS, a witches hat with a T, on the wrist of women attending the event, to be allowed to go through the barricade.
Contrary to the assertions of Equality Tasmania and other trans rights activists, we maintain that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any democratic and pluralistic society. Expanding censorship will not promote harmony; it will deter open debate by instilling fear of criminal repercussions for expressing dissenting viewpoints.
History shows that many of humanity’s greatest advances in science, medicine, law, and art came from those who challenged the prevailing orthodoxy. Galileo Galilei, condemned and placed under house arrest for asserting that the Earth orbits the Sun, is a prime example. Today, women and men who affirm biological reality are treated as modern-day heretics, punished for defending the sex-based rights of women and children.
Should any government proscribe an organisation simply because it holds political beliefs rooted in biological truth? Is it acceptable that Tasmanian citizens must hold secret meetings to discuss the harmful consequences of flawed legislation? To your knowledge, when has such suppression of democratic discussion ever occurred in Tasmania?
Rather than enacting laws that can be weaponised to silence dissent, we must foster a culture of open dialogue and genuine intellectual exchange. These are the foundations of freedom of speech. Suppressing critique breeds resentment and erodes public trust. Public discourse must rise above slurs, slogans, intimidation, and cancellation tactics; it should instead encourage respectful debate and mutual understanding.
Until there is a proper, independent review of the gender law reforms within the Anti-Discrimination Act—including their appalling impacts on free speech and human rights as documented in our Dossier—we urge you to oppose any new hate speech laws. Such laws must not be introduced without statewide public consultations, ensuring open and robust debate on the future of free speech in Tasmania.
“Diversity & Inclusion” policies derived from the AD Act are also having a chilling effect in schools. At Lindisfarne North Primary School, for example, a male student who identifies as female competed in the girls’ category during a recent sports day and won multiple events. Parents rightly expressed concern, including Mr. Rolfe, who wrote to Education Minister Jo Palmer, asking:
“In your role as Minister for Education, can you please advise me what policies Tasmania has in place to protect girls’ rights in sports at school?”
In Minister Palmer’s reply she stated that under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity is unlawful for children under 12. Yet this fails to address the real problem: Tasmanian educational and sporting institutions appear unwilling to apply Section 42 exemptions of the SDA, which exist specifically to preserve fairness and safety in female sports. As a result, girls and women are losing opportunities, and the principle of sex-based categories is being quietly eroded. Further, that parents in particular are too afraid, on behalf of their daughters, to raise the exemption of Section 42 of the SDA for fear of reprisal by ideologically driven extremists.
Further concern arises from legislation soon to be introduced in Parliament—the proposed “Conversion Therapy” Bill. While the phrase traditionally evokes practices like “pray the gay away,” the definition has now been expanded in an Orwellian fashion to include any therapeutic approach that affirms a child’s birth ‘gender’. By equating standard psychological support with conversion therapy, this bill threatens to criminalise care that encourages children to explore their distress rather than immediately affirming a trans identity.
This is deeply misguided. The Cass Review, the most comprehensive investigation into paediatric gender care to date, explicitly recommends a cautious, evidence-based approach, warning against automatic medicalisation and affirmation. It also highlights that many gender-distressed children are likely to grow up to be same-sex attracted. Thus, a model that channels all distressed children toward transition—effectively “transing the gay away”—amounts to a modern form of conversion therapy in itself.
About puberty suppression Reem Alsalem said, “Allowing children access to such procedures not only violates their right to safety, security and freedom from violence, but also disregards their human right to the highest standards of health and goes against their best interest. Children are also not able to provide informed consent for such procedures. In situations in which such procedures have been found to have caused grave and longtime harm, consent would be meaningless for both adults and children.”
In our previous correspondence with the then Health Minister Guy Barnett, we outlined the harms of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, including infertility, cognitive decline, osteoporosis, and depression. These are not minor side effects—they are life-altering harms, particularly when administered to children, many of whom would otherwise grow up healthy and gay.
As you might be aware, The Federal Government recently ordered an inquiry into the gender-affirming medical treatment model (GAMT), the results of the consultation will be presented in 2026. In the meantime Queensland has already taken action by banning the prescription of puberty blockers after it was found that medical providers where giving this contested treatments to minors without their parents consent.
The Tasmanian Gender Service currently operates in accordance with the GAMT model developed by the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) in Melbourne. The GAMTmodel advocates for early social transition, the use of puberty blockers, and, where indicated, progression to cross-sex hormones, often at a very young age. It is a model that has been promoted nationally and adopted by several Australian jurisdictions without NHMRC approval, independent clinical review or broad public consultation.
However, the GAMT model has come under increasing scrutiny both domestically and internationally. Most notably, the credibility of the RCH guidelines was significantly undermined earlier this year following Justice Strum’s Family Court ruling, where concerns were raised about the role of Professor Michelle Telfer, a key architect of the RCH model. Justice Strum found that Professor Telfer, while acting as an expert witness, failed in her duty to the court by not disclosing material that would have undermined her position. Her conduct called into question the neutrality and rigour of the evidence used to support the GAMT. The ruling highlighted the need for greater judicial scepticism and independent scrutiny when courts are asked to rely on clinical guidelines that have significant ethical, psychological, and medical implications for minors.
These developments reflect a growing body of concern that the GAMT model lacks a robust evidence base, particularly when it comes to long-term outcomes. Despite these red flags, the Tasmanian Gender Service has not paused or reviewed its clinical protocols including prescribing the puberty blocker Leuprorelin Acetate now banned in the UK. The continued use of a model now subject to judicial and clinical discrediting raises serious ethical concerns, particularly when minors are involved and when irreversible interventions like puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are being administered. In Tasmania continued adherence to the discredited RCH model places young people at risk of harm and exposes the state to future legal and medical liability.
For the reasons I mentioned above, and in light of your public commitment to hear all points of view, and that you have already met with several members of Equality Tasmania on numerous occasions, we seek a delegation of concerned Tasmanian citizens to better inform you of the issues.
Our delegation will include medico/legal/education professionals as well as parents and representatives of LGB Alliance Australia.
We appreciate your attention to these urgent human rights and public health matters and welcome the opportunity to attend a meeting at your earliest convenience.
Kind Regards,
Dr. Elizabeth Caballero
Retired General Practitioner
Director, Women Speak Tasmania