Prison officer sacked for ‘refusing to use trans prisoners’ pronouns’ | Daily Express

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 trainee prison officer was reportedly sacked for “refusing to use incorrect pronouns” when referring to transgender prisoners. David Toshack, a 51-year-old former soldier, claimed he was dismissed with immediate effect and has taken GEOAmey to an employment tribunal.

Christopher Hutton, an instructor at GEOAmey, a British company specialising in prisoner transport for the Ministry of Justice, said at the tribunal in Edinburgh on Monday (February 2) that Mr Toshack was asked to leave a training session on January 7 last year. The 51-year-old allegedly said he would only use sex-based pronouns. He has denied being “hostile” to colleagues over the disagreement.

Speaking about an incident where officers were moving a transgender prisoner who was known to self-harm, Mr Hutton added: “The prison officer had written down ‘he’. The (person in) custody has seen it…and assaulted the officer.”

He continued: “I understand that Mr Toshack has his personal beliefs, but he has to follow the company policy.”

Source: Prison officer sacked for ‘refusing to use trans prisoners’ pronouns’

The Law Is Clear. The TV Segment Wasn’t. | Kirra Pendergast

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.

There is no ban on children using social media in Australia. That is a media invention, not a legal one. There is no law that criminalises a child for having an account. None.

What has actually happened is quieter, and far more significant. Responsibility has shifted. Slowly, deliberately, and long overdue.

For the first time since social media started appearing approx. 20yrs ago now, the burden is not sitting primarily on children and parents. It is sitting where it should have been all along, with the platforms that design these systems, market them aggressively, and extract profit from them at scale.

The Australian Government did not ban kids. It restricted platforms from accessing kids. That is the entire point.

For more than fifteen years, parents have been told their child is doing something wrong by being online. That they are doing something wrong by allowing it. That under 13 equals illegal, dangerous, irresponsible and bad parenting.

That message did not empower parents. It shamed them.

Australia has not banned children from social media. It has begun restricting platforms from offering unsafe services to children. This is about platform accountability, not child punishment. That is the truth and it matters because this is not a story about disobedient kids or negligent parents. It is a story about powerful companies designing unsafe systems and a media ecosystem that keeps letting them off the hook.

Source: The Law Is Clear. The TV Segment Wasn’t.

Avaaz – Free Betty!

Betty is suffering in solitary confinement simply for wearing a t-shirt the Moroccan authorities didn’t like. She is innocent, and she is sick. Bone cancer has eaten away at her arm, and doctors warn she could lose it any day if she doesn’t get treatment fast. The king could release her with the stroke of a pen — let’s join together to pressure him to act before it’s too late:

This campaign is run in collaboration with the #FreeBetty coalition.

The t-shirt reads “Allah is a lesbian”. Wearing such a t-shirt isn’t even a crime according to international treaties ratified by Morocco.

Source: Avaaz – Free Betty!

Revealed: Australia’s secret Anti-Protest Force for US Department of War – Michael West

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.

Most people won’t be aware that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has established a new command.

Headed by Commissioner Krissy Barrett, our national police force is made up of five regional commands (Northern, Eastern, Central, Southern and Western) and a number of functional commanders dealing variously with crime, fraud and corruption, cyber operations, counter-terrorism and special investigations, and protective security.  No surprises there – the AFP structure is well established and pretty much what you would expect.

But now there’s a new AFP “AUKUS Command”, established with little fanfare and headed by AFP Assistant Commissioner Sandra Booth.

AUKUS Command’s roles are centred on security for the AUKUS nuclear submarine project and interestingly include ‘Public Order Management’, but its mandate is much broader than protecting nuclear submarines.

The AFP’s FOI response came in late and was covered with large swaths of black ink redacting most of the information, but enough has been revealed to show that the Government is boosting its capability to deal with anticipated political protest activities against a much expanded US military and intelligence presence in Australia.

Nuclear protestors not tolerated

Although anti-nuclear protests focused on visiting US Navy nuclear powered submarines have so far been small in scale, the AFP has likely been alerted to the possibilities of larger scale water-borne protest by the “Rising Tide” environmental actions at Australia’s largest coal export terminal at Newcastle. 

Protest groups involved in those activities have already been subject to close scrutiny by the AFP and New South Wales Police.

But wait, there’s more, much more

But it turns out that protecting nuclear submarines is only part of the AUKUS Command’s responsibilities.

Major upgrades are taking place at a number of other Australian Defence Force facilities to accommodate an expanded US military presence in Northern and Western Australia.

Significant works have also been underway at Australian intelligence facilities, including a major perimeter security upgrade and installation of new satellite dishes at the ASD’s Shoal Bay Receiving Station, nineteen kilometres north-east of Darwin. 

As the US defence and intelligence footprint expands, it’s likely that the AUKUS Command’s security and “public order management” responsibilities will be quite wide-ranging.

Source: Revealed: Australia’s secret Anti-Protest Force for US Department of War – Michael West

OHCHR | Call for input to thematic report to HRC62: Violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women

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.

Background

The Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE SOGI), Mr. Graeme Reid, is preparing a thematic report on violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women worldwide, to be presented to the 62nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2026. This investigation seeks to understand the distinct and intersecting forms of violence and discrimination that LBQ women face across diverse contexts globally.

Source: OHCHR | Call for input to thematic report to HRC62: Violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women

Major Step Forward on Gun Safety After Bondi Tragedy – Gun Control 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.

20 January 2026

Gun Control Australia welcomes the passage of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Act 2026 and commends the Albanese Government, with Greens support, for acting decisively to strengthen Australia’s gun laws in the wake of the Bondi mass shooting.

This legislation represents a significant step forward in protecting our communities. It establishes a national firearms buyback scheme – an approach with a proven record of reducing the number of high-risk firearms in circulation and preventing future tragedies.

The reforms also strengthen firearms background checking by enabling assessments to draw on defined national intelligence inputs, closing critical gaps that have existed across jurisdictions. In addition, the legislation strengthens oversight of firearm and related component imports and exports at Australia’s borders.

We particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to establishing a National Firearms Safety Council, as proposed by Greens Senators Larissa Waters and David Shoebridge. The Council will provide independent, evidence-based oversight to ensure firearm laws and regulations consistently prioritise public safety across Australia.

These reforms align with long-standing community expectations, reinforced yet again by the horror of the Bondi gun massacre. Australia is home to more than four million privately owned firearms, many of them stored insecurely in suburban homes. Around 2,000 guns are reported lost or stolen each year, roughly one every four hours.

By reducing the number of firearms in the community and strengthening national safeguards, this legislation will help make Australia safer. While there is more work to do, today marks an important and historic step toward preventing gun violence and protecting lives.

Source: Major Step Forward on Gun Safety After Bondi Tragedy – Gun Control Australia

Australia’s dangerous new hate speech bill | Andrew Doyle

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.

In the wake of the Bondi Beach terror attack, the government has responded in the predictable way.

Restrictions on freedom of speech are often perceived as the magical solution to society’s ills.

The Australian government is now following the same predictable pattern. It has published a draft of its new ‘Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill’ as a response to the antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach last month.

[T]he threats to liberty in the new Bill are severe, and all law-abiding Australian citizens should be very concerned. At the centre of the Bill is a new ‘racial vilification offence’ inserted into the Criminal Code. This will mean that a person commits an offence if they engage in public conduct ‘with the intention of promoting or inciting hatred of another person or a group of persons’.

As with all such laws, ‘hatred’ is not satisfactorily defined, leaving it wide open to exploitation.

Laws against inciting violence are justifiable, because violence impinges directly on the human rights of others. But laws against inciting negative human emotions veer directly into the territory of the Thought Police.

This Bill makes clear that nobody actually needs to be harmed for someone to have committed a crime.

Laws against ‘hate speech’ have no place on the statute books. They are an affront to our basic human rights, and a sure sign that a government has turned authoritarian. They have the effect of chilling mainstream views as well as controversial ones, depending on who is in power at any given time and where the Overton Window happens to be situated. The vagueness of the language is particularly troubling in a country like Australia, where even to acknowledge that sex is binary and immutable is often characterised as ‘hatred’ by members of the political and media class.

The Australian government wants to jail people not for their actions, but for how their words might make other people feel. If this strikes you as harmless, you might want to brush up on your history.

Source: Australia’s dangerous new hate speech bill

OHCHR | Call for input to the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls to the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly on violence against older women

Violence against older women remains significantly underreported and poorly documented, often due to social stigma, digital and physical exclusion, dependency on perpetrators for care or resources, and inadequate access to justice and support services.

The Special Rapporteur would like to receive input to examine the forms and manifestations of violence experienced by older women, particularly those that they suffer on the basis of their age and sex, the relevant laws and gaps in legislation, and the best practices that could adequately address their challenges. The submissions will inform recommendations for States and other stakeholders on how to combat violence against older women and what legal, policy, and institutional measures are consistent with international human rights law obligations.

Source: OHCHR | Call for input to the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls to the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly on violence against older women

Lesbian Caucus Input to the UN on Violence and Discrimination Against ‘LBQ Women’ (IE SOGI Report to HRC62) | WDI USA

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 United Nations has solicited input on violence and discrimination against ‘LBQ women.’ Inclusion of the Q (queer) is no doubt intended to signal that input is welcome not only from women (including heterosexual women), but also from men who claim a lesbian, bisexual, or ‘queer’ identity. On January 4, 2026 the WDI USA Lesbian Caucus submitted the following statement in response.


Women’s Declaration International (WDI) is a global organization of volunteer women dedicated to promoting the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights (the Declaration). The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus, the lesbian team for the US chapter, created the Lesbian Bill Of Rights (LBOR). The LBOR defines lesbians, lists specific areas of discrimination that harm lesbians, and lists rights that lesbians need to remedy the discriminatory harms.

At the heart of both the Declaration and the LBOR is allegiance to the reality of sex as a material fact of reproductive biology. The ideology of “gender identity” harms lesbians by forced teaming (as in the acronym SOGI) lesbians, who are defined by their female sex, with heterosexual men who claim to be women, with gay men, with bisexual people of both sexes, and – under the “queer” umbrella – with anyone at all, including those who oppose lesbians’ sex-based rights.

If your committee actually aims to alleviate violence and discrimination against lesbians, it will need to address first and foremost the harms of gender identity ideology and stop erasing lesbians and erasing sex itself through the magic word “trans.” Here is a partial list of such harms:

  • Men are being housed in women’s prison cells, where they predictably terrorize and rape incarcerated women. The same is true in women’s domestic violence shelters.
  • Men are destroying women’s and girls’ sports.
  • Men are making women’s public restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and showers both terrifying and dangerous to women and girls.
  • Young lesbians are being subjected to a new form of conversion therapy (being told they might be men with bodies that can be cut up to appear more masculine while destroying sexual and reproductive function).
  • Men have been given the right in many laws and policies to invade every public lesbian gathering place, destroying lesbian community and culture.
  • Lesbians who are sex realists are labeled “TERFs” and “transphobes” and singled out for threats and persecution privately and publicly.

Until the UN stops promoting the lies of gender identity ideology, it will continue to be an agent of the violence and discrimination currently faced by lesbians.

Source: Lesbian Caucus Input to the UN on Violence and Discrimination Against ‘LBQ Women’ (IE SOGI Report to HRC62) | WDI USA

OHCHR | Call for input to thematic report to HRC62: Violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women

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 Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (IE SOGI), Mr. Graeme Reid, is preparing a thematic report on violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women worldwide, to be presented to the 62nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2026. This investigation seeks to understand the distinct and intersecting forms of violence and discrimination that LBQ women face across diverse contexts globally.

Source: OHCHR | Call for input to thematic report to HRC62: Violence and discrimination experienced by lesbian, bisexual, and queer (LBQ) women