“Truth is illegal now,” Victorian MP Moira Deeming said this week after another New South Wales court found women’s advocate Kirralie Smith guilty of “vilification” — simply for describing two male-born soccer players as men.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Sharon Freund ruled against Smith in two separate cases brought by Stephanie Blanch and Riley Dennis — both male-born athletes competing in female soccer competitions. In her judgments, Freund declared that Smith’s references to them as “male” or “men” amounted to unlawful vilification under the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act.
Smith now faces the possibility of fines totalling up to $200,000, along with court-ordered apologies and compulsory “re-education” to affirm the idea that men can become women.
The totalitarian ruling essentially means:
Stating biological facts is now treated as a legal offence in NSW.
Women questioning the fairness of male participation in female sport are silenced.
Courts are prioritising subjective feelings over observable truth.
Smith says the outcome is a chilling message to anyone who cares about women’s rights and free speech:
“Women are being forced to accept males in their spaces, services and sport without the ability to object. To object is to be penalised.”
Lyle Shelton of Family First called the rulings “unjust decisions based on unjust laws”, warning that anti-discrimination provisions are being weaponised to shut down debate.
Kirralie Smith, however, remains resolute: “Man-made laws can never trump the laws of nature. No human can change sex.” She posted a video on X calling out Cricket Australia, whose stupid, woke administrators are endorsing male tranvestites joining women’s team.
Family First supporter Kurt Mahlburg reported that two lengthy judgments handed down on Tuesday by Deputy Chief Magistrate Freund focused on a collection of social media posts Smith made in 2023 about Stephanie Blanch and Riley Dennis — two male-born players who compete in female soccer divisions in NSW.
“I am satisfied that the defendant unlawfully vilified the plaintiff… when she referred to the plaintiff as a male or a man,” Freund wrote in one of the rulings.
Smith, who serves as Director and Spokesperson of Binary Australia, may face penalties of up to $200,000 in fines, mandatory apologies, and compulsory re-education to affirm the idea that men can become women.
The decisions follow last week’s separate and ridiculous Court of Appeal ruling that upheld a two-year apprehended violence order (AVO) against Smith for “harassment” after she posted images questioning male participation in women’s sport. That AVO prevents Smith from posting content identifying Blanch, who is also a plaintiff in one of this week’s judgments.
Tuesday’s decisions arose from two separate complaints lodged by Stephanie Blanch and Riley Dennis earlier this year. Blanch, who adopted a female identity in 2016, plays for Wingham FC. Dennis, also trans-identifying, is the top first grade goal scorer in Football NSW’s Women’s League.
“On social media and in emails, Kirralie Smith questioned the fairness of their participation and referred to them as male. One Binary Australia newsletter described Blanch as “a bloke in a frock,” while Smith’s posts highlighted Dennis’s dominant performance, asking why there was a women’s division “if anyone is a woman.”
“The court concluded that these statements had the capacity to incite “severe contempt” or “hatred” under section 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
“The judge ordered Smith and Binary Australia to delete existing content, publish apologies, and create compliance programs to prevent future “vilification.” Failure to comply within two months could result in significant financial penalties,” Mahlburg reported.
Family First National Director Lyle Shelton described the rulings as “a further blow for girls and women’s rights and for freedom of speech.”
“These are unjust decisions based on unjust laws,” Shelton said in a statement. “No one should be able to sue their fellow Australian on the basis of hurt feelings. Australians should be free to engage in debate, even robustly.”
Shelton warned that anti-discrimination provisions across Australia were being used “vexatiously by anti-free speech activists” and pledged that Family First would fight for legislative reform.
“While these laws are often referred to as ‘hate speech laws,’ they are in effect used to silence speech that activists hate,” he said.
“The limits to free speech should be at incitement to violence, not to protect the political positions of those engaged in identity politics by shutting down discussion,” he said.
“Sadly, Liberal and Labor politicians allow the law to be used vexatiously by anti-free speech activists.”
Smith told The Daily Declaration, that the outcome of this week’s cases sent a chilling message to all Australians who cared about truth and fairness.
“It is an extremely disappointing result,” she said. “Women are being forced to accept males in their spaces, services and sport without the ability to object. To object is to be penalised.
“This is not just free speech at risk; it is true speech being penalised because of hurt feelings. How do you measure or standardise feelings? How can feelings be more reliable than facts? Why don’t the feelings of women matter?”
She reaffirmed her stance that “man-made laws can never trump the laws of nature” and that “no human can change sex”. She also pledged to continue the fight for the right to speak truthfully.
Women’s rights campaigner Rachael Wong called the ruling “utterly absurd and deeply concerning for anyone who cares about freedom of speech, truth, and women’s sex-based rights.”
Sall Grover, CEO and founder of the networking app Giggle for Girls, called the ruling ridiculous. “It’s not vilification to call a man a man. It’s the truth,” she wrote. Grover is currently appealing a Federal Court ruling that found her guilty of discrimination for allowing only women to use her women-only platform.
The initial ruling against Grover and the decisions against Smith have set a strong precedent in Australia in which stating biological facts creates a legal liability, even in debates about fairness and safety in female-only spaces.
Notably, the decisions to date have conferred female pronouns for male-born plaintiffs and accepted their gender self-identity as fact, effectively presuming the validity of their claims — and the defendants’ guilt — from the outset.
Magistrate Freund claimed her judgments “did not determine whether male-born players should compete in women’s sport”. But her decision to penalise Smith’s commentary on this question effectively shielded the issue from public scrutiny.
In an email sent on Wednesday, Kirralie Smith told supporters that she would “study the decisions more next week, consult with my legal team and provide more information then”. “As always, your support means the world to me,” she said.
Penalties for the Blanch case will be determined in early November. Proceedings the Dennis matter have been deferred, with a further hearing scheduled for October 27.
Cairns News suggests that the NSW rulings are a clear violation of Smith’s political rights, as referenced in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) which criminalizes interference with political rights and duties under Section 83.4.
Smith’s lawyers should also consider the following cases:
• Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 – recognised implied freedom, struck down ban on political advertising.
• Nationwide News v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 – struck down law restricting criticism of the Industrial Relations Commission.
• Lange v ABC (1997) 189 CLR 520 – clarified implied freedom as limitation on legislative/executive power.
• Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1 – upheld protection of offensive political speech.
• Brown v Tasmania (2017) 261 CLR 328 – struck down anti-protest laws as burdening implied freedom.
Her lawyers also might consider the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Australia in 1980. The ICCPR protects:
• Article 19 – Freedom of expression.
• Article 21 – Right of peaceful assembly.
• Article 22 – Freedom of association.
• Article 25 – Right to take part in public affairs.
The High Court in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 recognised that ratification can create a legitimate expectation of compliance with international obligations.
