Author: FLC Admin

Lawsuits over transgender medicine for minors could be huge | The Economist

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Two recent pieces of news suggest that doctors who prescribe irreversible transition procedures to adolescents should take the legal threat seriously. The first was an award of $2m to a single patient in New York on January 30th.

In December 2019, at the age of 16, Ms Varian underwent a double mastectomy. Far from improving, her mental health grew worse. By 2022 she had decided to detransition. The following year she filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit against both her psychologist and her surgeon. It was the first such lawsuit by a detransitioner to come before an American jury. “I was 16 and I was really, really mentally ill, obviously,” Ms Varian told the court, according to the Free Press. The jury awarded her $1.6m for past and future pain and $400,000 for future medical costs.

The second warning came on February 3rd, when the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) came out against gender-related surgery for patients under 19. In a statement, it cited “limitations in study quality, consistency and follow-up, alongside emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms”.

All this echoes warnings issued in some European countries.

Source: Lawsuits over transgender medicine for minors could be huge

Liberal’s paid $500,000 to Josh Frydenberg’s sexual assault victim which set benchmark for Brittany Higgins’ $2.4 million – Kangaroo Court of Australia

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

When the Scott Morrison government paid Josh Frydenberg’s sexual assault victim Rachelle Miller $500,000, to silence her 5 weeks before the 21st of May 2022 federal election, that set the benchmark for the government to pay Brittany Higgins $2.4 million in December 2022 for being raped by Bruce Lehrmann at parliament house.

It must be noted that Brittany Higgins received $1.9 million after costs and spent an estimated $1 million or more on legal fees defending a defamation case by Linda Reynolds. So, it is possible Rachelle Miller ended up with more.

Source: Liberal’s paid $500,000 to Josh Frydenberg’s sexual assault victim which set benchmark for Brittany Higgins’ $2.4 million – Kangaroo Court of Australia

Banning transgender women from lesbian group could ‘undermine their dignity’, court hears – ABC News

A Victorian lesbian group is seeking an exemption to the Sex Discrimination Act so it can legally prevent transgender women from attending its events.

The Human Rights Commission told the Federal Court today an exemption could cause harm to transgender women.

What’s next?

A judgement will be handed down later this year.

Source: Banning transgender women from lesbian group could ‘undermine their dignity’, court hears – ABC News

Family Court Chief Justice Will Alstergren in relationship with junior judge Amanda Mansini | The Financial Review

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

The court that deals with family break-ups is dealing with the aftermath of a personal drama of its own, after Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Chief Justice Will Alstergren confirmed he is in a romantic relationship with a fellow Circuit and Family Court judge.
The revelation follows questions from The Australian Financial Review, and the disclosure of the relationship internally to senior judges. The Financial Review understands the relationship is with Amanda Mansini.
In a statement provided to the Financial Review, the court said that “Chief Justice Alstergren confirms that he separated from his wife almost six months ago, and he is in a consensual relationship with another judge”.
“Senior judges of the court were advised at that time, and appropriate steps have been in place since then to avoid any concerns of conflict of interest, such as administrative decisions. The chief justice will also not sit on appeals from a decision of the judge,” the court statement said.
“The chief justice sincerely hopes that his family’s privacy is respected as they navigate this painful and challenging time.”
The court’s judicial workplace conduct policy states that, apart from “pre-existing relationship which has been disclosed to the chief”, “judges should be aware that forming or seeking to form sexual or intimate personal relationships with court employees may be an exploitative personal relationship”.
A court insider, however, said the policy was understood to apply to employees, not to judges, who are statutory office holders.
Alstergren and Mansini have conducted considerable travel together in the past year, including as part of their promotion of the Court Dog Program, which grew out of Mansini’s efforts to introduce therapy dogs into the court system. For some months she has been the public face of the initiative.

Source: Family Court Chief Justice Will Alstergren in relationship with junior judge Amanda Mansini

Lesbian group takes fight to Federal Court in bid to exclude transgender women from events – ABC News

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

A long-running legal battle over whether a lesbian group can exclude transgender women from its events has made its way to the Federal Court.

The Lesbian Action Group (LAG) is appealing a decision by the Human Rights Commission, which ruled it could not legally exclude transgender women.

The case, described as a “clash of rights”, will determine whether the rights of cisgender lesbians come at the expense of trans lesbians.

The Victorian-based LAG says it subscribes to the philosophy of lesbian feminism and does not believe humans can change sex.

It wishes to hold public political and social events exclusively for “lesbian-born females” that would exclude all males irrespective of whether they identify as women.

The LAG was denied a five-year exemption in 2023, when it applied to the Human Rights Commission.

It then lodged an appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal, which found “overt acts of discrimination” should not be allowed and the exemption could have a detrimental impact on trans women.

The group has now appealed to the Federal Court after running a crowdfunding campaign that raised close to $40,000, with donations made by people from around the world.

Today the LAG’s lawyers told the court the group had the freedom to associate in a way that catered to their own needs.

Counsel Leigh Howard said there was “no human right to be invited to the party” and that the exemption should be granted on the same basis that female-only gyms were given exemptions.

Co-counsel Megan Blake said the Sex Discrimination Act should be interpreted in a way that gave biological women priority over trans women.

She said the Human Rights Commission had no issue with heterosexual and homosexual men being excluded from the group and that trans women should likewise be considered biological men.

“[Lesbians] are united by one or more common features … mainly biology,” Dr Blake said.

The commission’s counsel, Celia Winnett, said the object of the act was to protect many people “on an equal footing”.

“There’s an objective of eliminating discrimination on the basis of gender identity just as much as there is an objective of eliminating sex discrimination,” she said.

Even without the legal exemption, the LAG can still exclude trans women from private gatherings, but LAG spokesperson Nicole Mowbray said public events were necessary in order to attract new members.

“Young and emerging lesbians cannot find their people because we’ve been underground in order to keep [biological] males out of our dating pool and our events,” she said outside court.

“There’s plenty of trans-only events and that’s fine. We would just like to be afforded the same right.”

Australian National University Emerita Professor of Law Margaret Thornton said exemptions were uncommon and generally quite narrow if granted.

Source: Lesbian group takes fight to Federal Court in bid to exclude transgender women from events – ABC News

Police accused of ‘turning blind eye’ as Sharia courts run rife and honour crimes go unpunished | GB News

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Police have been accused of turning a blind eye to the spread of Sharia courts in Britain, as newly released Government figures show less than three per cent of so-called “honour crimes” were successfully prosecuted last year.

The data shows authorities are consistently failing to prosecute and prevent honour-based abuse, which can include offences such as female genital mutilation (FGM), homicide (honour killings) and forced marriage.

Campaigners are warning that the “privatisation of justice” within some Muslim communities through Sharia courts makes it harder for the state to intervene.

They say this has fostered a parallel justice system operating behind closed doors with no state oversight.

Last year, 2,949 honour-related offences were recorded in Britain, but only 95 defendants were prosecuted.

FGM has been illegal in England and Wales for nearly 40 years, however despite the number of reported cases, there have been only three criminal convictions in Britain – the first of which, relating to a three-year-old girl, was secured in 2019.

Meanwhile, some 766 forced marriages were reported to police between 2020 and 2025, but just 118 resulted in prosecution.

Previous investigations have found imams in Britain facilitating underage marriage and polygamy, as well as encouraging women to return to abusive husbands.

Source: Police accused of ‘turning blind eye’ as Sharia courts run rife and honour crimes go unpunished

JK Rowling, Epstein & The Trans Connection: Beyond The Rumours (yes, it gets dark…) | Mr Menno

‘Prince’ Andrew’s arrest is not what you think it is.| Mamamia

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Andrew was taken in for questioning on a possible charge of Misconduct In a Public Office. At the time I’m writing this, details are not available, but UK police have previously confirmed they were investigating allegations Andrew passed on sensitive trade documents to Epstein’s network during his time as the UK’s Special Representative For Trade And Investment.

As the royal reporter Tom Sykes writes: “[Biographer Andrew Lownie] has always insisted that Andrew was more likely to ultimately face retribution for his financial rather than his (alleged) sexual crimes, and it seems that that is exactly what has happened”.

And now as attention swings to the Royal Family, despite Andrew consistently denying all allegations against him, the obvious question is: Why has it taken so very long — the first allegations were made by Virginia Giuffre 10 years ago – for them to stop bankrolling him, essentially lift his royal protection, and let the law step in?

Source: ‘Prince’ Andrew’s arrest is not what you think it is.

Are women more safety-conscious walking alone at night than men? – Deseret News

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

The study, led by Robbie Chaney, a professor of public health at Brigham Young University, and two then-undergraduate students, shows women scan their environment constantly as they walk in the dark. Men pay attention to where they’re walking.

The study, which involved close to 600 college students, was published in the journal Violence and Gender.

Women were significantly more likely to focus on areas where danger could lurk, including unlit areas, potential hiding spots and places where they might be trapped, often off to the side of their path. While Baer said the students were asked about the areas, not why they focused on them, the researchers theorize that safety was a factor in women constantly watching what was near the path, rather than the path itself.

Source: Are women more safety-conscious walking alone at night than men? – Deseret News

eSafety Commissioner’s defeat on ‘queer theory’ | The Australian

All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.

Women’s rights activist ­Celine Baumgarten had posted criticism on X of a “Queer Club” started at a Victorian primary school for eight to 12-year-old children who identified as LGBTQIA+.
Ms Baumgarten, who posts under the username Celine against The Machine and describes herself as bisexual, is a member of the group Gays Against Groomers, which aims to protect children from radical gender ideology.’
“Children should not be learning about sexualities at such a young, impressionable age,” Ms Baumgarten wrote in the post. “This is foul. Leave the kids alone.”
After receiving a complaint that the post had sought to “intimidate and harass” the teacher, the eSafety Commissioner sent a “complaint alert” to X, even though the commissioner’s own investigator had concluded the post did not meet the statutory definition of cyber-abuse ­material because it did not intend to cause serious harm.
X promptly geo-blocked Ms Baumgarten’s post in Australia, although it could still be seen elsewhere in the world, notifying her that it had been withheld because it “violates the law(s) of Australia”.
Ms Baumgarten challenged the notice in the Administrative Review Tribunal, claiming it was simply “censorship of the types of gay people the eSafety Commissioner personally disagrees with”.
The tribunal heard admissions from the commissioner’s staff about the regulator’s use of “informal” alerts when they lacked the statutory power to issue formal notices.
The commissioner attempted to have the case thrown out, ­arguing that because the request was “informal” and technically invalid due to a lack of power, it wasn’t a “decision” the tribunal had jurisdiction to review
On Wednesday the Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously upheld the tribunal’s findings against the commissioner.
The court rejected the commissioner’s argument that she could evade judicial scrutiny by acting outside her statutory powers.
The judges held that a government official cannot purport to exercise power, achieve a coercive result, and then claim immunity from review because they acted outside their power.

Source: eSafety Commissioner’s defeat on ‘queer theory’