The Italian Supreme Court ruled against Christian community Breccia di Roma after lower courts affirmed that Evangelical places of worship “can look different” than other denominations.
Continue reading
Basel (25 September 2024) – The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has suspended the threat of criminal charges against parents separated from their daughter for refusing to enable her gender “transition”.
The decision was made following the parents filing an appeal at the court (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht) last week. The parents, with the legal support of ADF International, are appealing a ruling ordering them to facilitate their 16-year-old teenager’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents.
“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child."
The parents, whose identity is being kept anonymous, were separated from their daughter over a year ago by court order after they objected to their child’s “transition”, in a case that has garnered worldwide attention. A video of the parents explaining their harrowing story has been viewed over 66 million times.
Speaking about the appeal, the father said: “Our hope lies now with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child.”
The parents are appealing a July ruling from the highest court in the canton of Geneva, the Court of Justice.
Before the intervention of the Supreme Court, the ruling meant the parents could have been criminally charged if they did not hand over their daughter’s identity documents for her recorded sex to be changed from female to male in the civil registry records, in a legal “sex change”.
A legal “sex change” could lead the daughter down the path of harmful physical interventions of puberty blockers, “cross-sex” hormone drugs, and, ultimately, body-altering surgeries.
Case background
The case centres on parents who responded to the mental health struggles of their daughter, who expressed “gender confusion”, with care and support, including obtaining mental health care for her.
Concerned their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and potentially irreversible decisions, the parents declined puberty blockers and explicitly rejected her school’s attempt to “socially transition” her.
The school disregarded the parents’ wishes, “socially transitioned” the daughter and liaised with the state child welfare agency Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI), in a situation which led to a court ordering that the daughter be separated from her parents.
The daughter now lives in a government shelter and the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state.
Billboard Chris, a father of two who campaigns to defend children from gender ideology, today mentioned this case in a speech he gave at the UN, where he was hosted by ADF International, about the harms of gender ideology on children.
Further case details can be found here.
Appeal filed at Supreme Court
In the appeal filed with the support of ADF International, the parents argue their daughter is not able to discern the implications of a so-called “sex change” under the law, which would make her vulnerable to an array of dangerous physical interventions, including puberty blockers and surgeries.
Furthermore, they argue the long-term health consequences of “transitioning” cannot be fully assessed by a teenager, especially considering the outside influences, including from her school, to which she continues to be subjected.
According to the parents, no psychiatrist or other medical professional has provided a conclusive assessment of their daughter’s ability to understand the consequences of her decisions, which is a fundamental requirement under the law.
Additionally, they highlight that the daughter’s state-appointed lawyer failed to submit any medical certification regarding her capacity to discern the implications of her decision.
The parents believe their daughter’s well-being, both mentally and physically, is in danger as she continues to reside in the government youth shelter.
“Children who experience discomfort with their biological sex deserve to be treated with dignity and need compassionate mental health care, which these parents have gone to great lengths to provide.
“Not only have these parents not had their concerns addressed by the court, but they have also endured a severe violation of their rights as loving parents, with the court transferring authority over their daughter’s medical care from them to the state, in addition to ordering that she reside in a government shelter. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to correct this grave injustice,” commented Dr Felix Boellmann, lead lawyer on the case for ADF International.
The court is expected to take up to six months to reach a decision.
Lower court judgment
The decision in July by the Court of Justice confirmed a lower court’s ruling that the parents must hand over documents to enable their daughter’s “sex change” under the law.
The Court of Justice based its ruling on Article 30b of the Swiss Code Civil, which does not require parental consent when a child capable of discernment is over 16 years of age.
During the trial, the state child welfare agency failed in its duty to raise concerns about the child’s decision-making capacity.
The court held a legal “sex change” could be considered in isolation from other steps to physically “transition”. However, the recent Cass Review in the UK demonstrated there is a clear path from “social transition” to irreversible medical interventions.
Protecting children requires respecting families
The parents’ legal team asserts that the ability to withhold the personal documents required for the daughter’s legal “sex change” is crucial to protect her from further harm posed by so-called “gender affirmative treatment”.
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court is the last domestic recourse for the parents.
Dr. Boellmann stated: “Safeguarding children from harmful agendas requires respect for the rights of parents. No child should be separated from their loving parents by the state. It is imperative that the Court recognizes, clearly and decisively, that the parents are the primary decisionmakers when it comes to the best interest of the child.
“Now the court needs to step in to defend the wellbeing of this child, and in so doing, all other children in Switzerland. The Court must abide by Switzerland’s international human rights obligations to protect both the child and parental rights.”
Read more about the background of the case here.
A transgender activist in Peru filed a criminal complaint against Olga Izquierdo for discrimination after she took to TikTok to criticize Lima airport signs that opened the women’s restroom to “anyone with a female identity,” prompting investigation by state prosecutors.
Continue reading
DORSET (17th September 2024) – Poole Magistrates’ Court will hear the case of Adam Smith-Connor, the father and army veteran criminally charged for praying silently near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, in a three day trial beginning TODAY – until 19th September.
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council filed the charges on the basis that Smith-Connor was praying within a censored “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying.
Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here.
The defence contends that a mere thought cannot amount to a crime, and authorities must not criminalise citizens for the opinions or beliefs they hold in their minds on any given public street.
"It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."
On the date in question, Smith-Connor prayed silently for approximately three minutes before being approached by police officers. The legal proceedings have continued for almost two years, and the trial is scheduled to take place for three days.
The Council has so far run up legal fees – charged to the public purse – in excess of £34k to prosecute an offence carrying a maximum fine of £1k.
Smith-Connor was issued a fixed penalty notice on 13th December 2022. The notice detailed that he had been “praying for his deceased son” a month earlier on 24th November 2022 near an abortion facility on Orphir Road in Bournemouth where an abortion facility censorship zone or “buffer zone” is in place.
By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more
During their interaction with Smith-Connor, which was captured on video, officers asked the father of two, “what is the nature of your prayer?”
Smith-Connor, who now regrets having paid for an abortion for his ex-girlfriend in the past, was praying about his experience, about the child whom he lost, and for the men and women facing difficult decisions about abortion today. He prayed with his back to the facility to avoid any impression of approaching or engaging with women using the facility.
Smith-Connor’s case has unveiled confusion amongst police officers regarding the permissibility of silent prayer in UK law.
In a filmed encounter with police on another occasion in which Smith-Connor had silently prayed in the same spot, officers had informed him that he was not breaking the law, remarking, “this is England and it’s a public place and you’re entitled to do that.”
“In various other circumstances, the police and the courts have made it clear that silent prayer is not a criminal act. And yet, BCP Council, which has already conceded that presence is not in itself an offence, has introduced a rights-restricting censorship zone, which they now argue extends to a ban on silent prayer,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, supporting Smith-Connor’s defense.
“In permitting the prosecution of silent prayer, we are sailing into dangerous waters regarding human rights protections in the UK. Censorship zones are inherently wrong and engender unhelpful legal confusion regarding the right to free thought. Both domestic and international law have long established freedom of thought as an absolute right that must not ever be interfered with by the state.
“The Telegraph recently reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a crime in their “buffer zones” guidance – to do so would not only be a legal error, it could open up the floodgates to human rights violations similar to those experienced by Adam Smith-Connor,” he continued.
Smith-Connor’s case will mark the third in a series of high-profile cases in which citizens have been tried in court for praying silently in their heads within abortion facility “buffer zones”.
In March 2022, charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and Catholic priest Father Sean Gough, were both found “not guilty” after facing criminal charges for similar actions to Smith-Connor. Read more.
Though being found “not guilty” of breaching the censorship zone or “buffer zone” with her thoughts, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested a second time in March after she prayed silently in the same spot near the abortion facility once again. Six police officers attended the scene. In August 2024, police paid Vaughan-Spruce a settlement of £13,000 for her two unlawful arrests.
Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities.
On 7th March 2023, the UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023. The Labour Government are expected to implement the zones imminently. Last month, the Telegraph reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a criminal activity within the guidance of the new law.
Ahead of the trial, Adam Smith-Connor commented:
“Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime.
“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”
Smith-Connor’s trial was originally scheduled to take place in November 2023, but was delayed by the Court. At Poole Magistrates’ Court, Smith-Connor delivered an emotional address to supporters – see below.
By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Adam Smith-Connor praying outside Poole Magistrates Court with Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Jeremiah Igunnubole, ADF UK
(12 September 2024) – Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, “Twitter Files” journalist Michael Shellenberger and over 100 international free speech advocates have joined an open letter condemning the suspension of “X” in Brazil in an open letter to the Brazilian congress.
The letter, signed by five US Attorneys General, three members of the UK House of Lords, Daily Wire’s Megan Basham, bestselling author Rod Dreher, podcaster Tammy Peterson, “Babylon Bee” CEO Seth Dillon, X “Spaces” host Mario Nawfal, former US Senator Sam Brownback, and leading academics including Princeton’s Dr. Robert P. George, emphasizes the importance of free speech following a severe censorial crackdown in Brazil.
"Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere."
The letter describes the shutdown of “X”, purchased by Elon Musk in 2022, throughout the country as “a dangerous escalation” of the “troubling trend of global censorship of speech.”
Addressed to the Brazilian Congress, the letter continues:
“There is no quicker path to the demise of democracy than the erosion of free speech.
We urge the Brazilian government to restore the free flow of information, and respect the rights of its citizens to express their views without fear of retribution.”
The initiative was coordinated by legal advocacy group ADF International, which has also written to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights) to demand its urgent intervention against the violation of free speech.
The censorship crisis in Brazil reached a peak on Friday 30th August, when Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts that it had singled out for censorship.
The decision threatened a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800 / almost $9,000) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via a virtual private network (VPN).
The same Justice also has issued an order to freeze the assets of the company Starlink, a satellite internet provider. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, an entirely different company with different shareholders, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.
"If Brazil is allowed to continue in this authoritarian vein, other countries across the West could likely follow in its footsteps."
The letter, demanding the immediate restoration of free speech in Brazil, attracted signatures from sports star and advocate Riley Gaines, journalists Andy Ngo and Melissa Chen, public intellectuals Dr. Peter Boghossian and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, childrens’ rights campaigner Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), and historian David Starkey.
Concluding, the letter reads: “Freedom of expression is not negotiable, nor is it a privilege – it is the cornerstone of every democratic society. We must defend it whenever it is under threat, whether in Brazil or anywhere else in the world.”
Michael Shellenberger, the author and journalist behind “The Twitter Files,” signed the letter, having been targeted for criminal investigation for reporting on the censorship efforts of Brazilian courts.
Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International, which coordinated the open letter, said:
“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Every Brazilian has the fundamental human right to free speech. What Brazilian authorities are doing is directly in violation of both Brazilian and international law, and the global community must hold them accountable.
If Brazil is allowed to continue in this authoritarian vein, other countries across the West could likely follow in its footsteps, imposing draconian orders to silence speech and banning digital meeting places. It is imperative that we use our voices to speak up for free expression while we have still have the freedom to do so.”
Commenting on the censorial clampdown, Shellenberger said:
“I am being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor. Brazil has reached a crisis point where a lone Supreme Court judge could wield his authority to shut down X in the country.
Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere. It’s not only bad policy and bad politics, it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights for authorities to ban the speech of their own citizens. It’s inconceivable that human beings should be censored and silenced by other human beings simply because they disagree with their speech.”
In May, Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, also commented on the censorship taking place:
“The attempts by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to censor and silence the people of Brazil simply cannot stand. Our constitution specifically prohibits all censorship and guarantees the right to freedom of expression; these are not only constitutionally-protected rights, but basic, human rights that should be guaranteed and preserved for all Brazilians. Censorship has no place in a free society, and I implore all who are able to join me in vehemently opposing these kinds of restrictions.”
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Paul Coleman, Michael Shellenberger
11 pastors, ministry leaders with Puerta de la Montaña now safe in Guatemala after being sentenced to millions in fines and 10+ years in prison on sham charges.
Continue reading
WASHINGTON, DC (2 September 2024) – In light of the unfolding censorship crisis in Brazil, legal advocacy organization ADF International has called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to urgently intervene to protect freedom of speech.
“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas."
On Friday, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts which it had singled out for censorship.
The decision imposes a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800 / almost $9,000) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via a virtual private network (VPN).
The same Justice has also issued an order to freeze the assets of the company Starlink, a satellite internet provider. The company is a subsidiary of SpaceX, an entirely different company in which Elon Musk is a minority shareholder, following X’s refusal to comply with the censorship orders.
On Monday 2 September, the Brazilian Supreme Court upheld the decision to ban “X” nationwide, further suspending the right to free speech online.
Appealing to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to uphold freedom of expression, lawyers from free speech-supporting legal advocacy group ADF International petitioned the body – which has jurisdiction over Brazil under the American Convention on Human Rights– to intervene in the “dire” situation:
“The blocking of X in the country is symptomatic of an endemic problem…it has dragged on for more than six years and has caused real damage to Brazilian democracy, producing a chilling effect on the majority of the population who, according to recent surveys, are afraid to express their opinions in public.”
Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention.
The orders to censor online content are based on a pretext of combatting disinformation and fake news. Based on this pretext, the state has targeted conservative voices for censorship, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained a message contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.
"Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere.
Other targeted speech included repudiations of the Nicaraguan government’s suppression of religious freedom and the concern it could happen in Brazil, and criticism of Lula’s promotion of sexually explicit content in school curricula.
Various journalists and public figures including journalist, Paulo Figueiredo, and bestselling American author, Michael Shellenberger, have already been targeted with secret criminal investigations for reporting on the authoritarian drift of the Brazilian courts and their censorship efforts.
Tomás Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Legal Advocacy for Latin America, stated:
“The state of censorship in Brazil is severe and worsening to an extreme degree, positioning the country as among the worst for restrictions on speech in the Americas. Intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is key because without free speech, all human rights are jeopardized. We are particularly concerned that the Brazilian state is targeting Christian expression, including pro-life views and other faith-based speech.”
Michael Shellenberger, founder of Public, author, and professor, stated:
“I am being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor. Brazil has reached a crisis point where a lone Supreme Court judge could wield his authority to shut down X in the country.
Under the guise of promoting democracy, and despite growing backlash from home and abroad, Brazilian authorities have created the most oppressive culture of censorship in the western hemisphere. It’s not only bad policy and bad politics, it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights for authorities to ban the speech of their own citizens. It’s inconceivable that human beings should be censored and silenced by other human beings simply because they disagree with their speech. As the situation continues to deteriorate, my hope is that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will intervene rapidly in defense of the right of all to speak freely in Brazil”.
Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil, said:
“The attempts by Judge Alexandre de Moraes to censor and silence the people of Brazil simply cannot stand. Our constitution specifically prohibits all censorship and guarantees the right to freedom of expression; these are not only constitutionally-protected rights, but basic, human rights that should be guaranteed and preserved for all Brazilians. Censorship has no place in a free society, and I implore all who are able to join me in vehemently opposing these kinds of restrictions.”
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Michael Shellenberger; Tomás Henriquez
SYDNEY (23 August 2024) – The Federal Court of Australia has ruled in Roxanne Tickle v. Giggle for Girls (“Tickle v. Giggle”) that “Roxanne Tickle,” a biological male who identifies as a woman, experienced unlawful discrimination when prevented from joining female-only networking app “Giggle.”
The court found that Tickle experienced “indirect discrimination,” ordering $10,000 AUD in compensation and the covering of legal costs for Tickle.
Tickle sued on the basis that, being “legally permitted to identify as female” and having had his birth certificate amended, he should be permitted into spaces reserved for biological women. The defence maintained that women have a right to single-sex spaces, both online and offline.
“In ruling that Tickle, a biological male, was a victim of discrimination when prevented from joining a woman’s app, the court has delivered an egregiously flawed judgment that removes protections for women."
The Court rejected Giggle’s defence that Tickle was not unlawfully discriminated against, but instead disqualified from joining the app due to his male sex.
In the judgment, the court stated “…sex is not confined to being a biological concept referring to whether a person at birth had male or female physical traits, nor confined to being a binary concept, limited to the male or female sex…”
ADF International supported Giggle’s defence on the basis that Australian law must uphold the truth of biological reality and in line with the protections for women enshrined in international human rights law.
At the time of the hearing, Katherine Deves of Alexander Rashidi Lawyers, legal representatives for the Respondent, said: “The stakes are high in this case. Women’s international human rights will be lost if “woman” now includes any male who identifies as such. This decision matters not just in Australia but also to the watching world.”
Sall Grover, CEO of Giggle and respondent in the law suit, also commented at the time of the hearing:
“For decades, women’s movements have fought for the right to have female spaces in society. Yet today, the clock is being wound back.
“I designed my app to give women their own space to network. It is a legal fiction that Tickle is a woman. His birth certificate has been altered from male to female, but he is a biological man, and always will be. A woman’s-only app isn’t about discrimination. It’s about freedom of speech, belief and association.
“We are taking a stand for the safety of all women’s only spaces, but also for basic reality and truth, which the law should reflect.”
Grover has previously said that she would appeal the court’s decision and will fight the case all the way to the High Court of Australia.
Robert Clarke, Director of Advocacy for ADF International, which provided support for the case, reflected on the judgment:
“In ruling that Tickle, a biological male, was a victim of discrimination when prevented from joining a woman’s app, the court has delivered an egregiously flawed judgment that removes protections for women.
“Contrary to what the judge held, sex is never changeable. The judgment is a severe setback for women and girls, failing to uphold the basic truth of biological reality—that men cannot become women. Tickle did not experience unjust discrimination, but was simply disqualified from membership on the Giggle app because he is not a woman.”
The defence had argued that the Australian government acted unconstitutionally in amending the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 to include “gender identity” as a protected characteristic, against the purposes for which the Act was designed, and for which there is no basis in international law.
The Court found that Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act section 5b, which prohibits discrimination on the ground of “gender identity,” is in line with the discrimination provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR makes no reference to “gender identity,” and instead prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
Further, the Court rejected the defence’s argument with regard to the disqualification of Giggle on the basis that Australia was obligated to protect women’s rights, including single-sex spaces, under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
“The judge has read in a faux right to protection on the basis of ‘gender identity’ in international law where none exists. The ICCPR is clear that discrimination is to be prohibited on the basis of sex. There is no mention of ‘gender identity’ in the treaty.
The ruling is not only anti-women and disingenuous, but also it creates a dangerous precedent for conjuring up false rights to the detriment of real rights. Here the real rights in jeopardy are those of women. By ignoring Australia’s obligations under CEDAW to protect women’s rights, the court is positioning Australia in direct violation of its basic human rights obligations toward women,” stated Clarke.
Challenges across Australia
Tickle v. Giggle is one of a number of legal proceedings in Australia challenging protections for women. Chris Elston, “Billboard Chris”, is in a legal battle with Australian authorities alongside “X”, after his tweet challenging gender ideology was censored by the E-Safety Commissioner. ADF International are supporting his case.
Canadian street advocate, Billboard Chris, also awaiting court proceedings in Australia, commented on the judgment:
“The judgment in Tickle v. Giggle turns back the clock on women’s rights and exposes the deep ideological distortions that have permeated our societies and our legal systems. It is a fiction that Tickle is a woman. While his birth certificate may have been altered, no man can ever become a woman.
“Preventing a male from joining a woman’s only app has nothing to do with discrimination. It’s about staying true to biological reality and women’s rights to their own spaces, both online and in real life. I hope further legal steps can be taken to correct this grave injustice and I stand with Sall Grover and the Giggle team.”
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only
Pictured: Sall Grover, Robert Clarke, Chris Elston (“Billboard Chris”), Katherine Deves
Egyptian Christian who has been denied an ID card that correctly stated his religious affiliation for over 10 years wins case allowing him to engage in Christian activities.
Continue reading
Contributor to Facebook group for Christian converts from Islam has been detained in Egypt without trial for over two years.
Continue reading
