Table of Contents
Once again, Australia’s ‘e-Karen’ has been slapped over the wrist. But the case is far more than just a feel-good story for freedom. It’s a sinister insight into both exactly how much the Long March left have infiltrated our institutions, and how much they simply view themselves as above the law, let alone accountability.
A tweet by a woman who complained about “queer theory” being taught to primary-school children has resulted in defeat for eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in the Federal Court and a blow to her power to censor social media posts.
They put “queer theory” in quote marks as if it doesn’t exist. Yet, Queer Theory is not only a thing, it’s one of the most dominant – and alarmingly disgusting – ideologies to subsume the left in recent decades. I’ve written at length about Queer Theory before, so let’s just say that, if you don’t know about it, you should. Read up on it, and you’ll understand where everything from the violent transgender movement to the left’s paedophilia apologism originates.
When someone uses the term queer instead of gay or LGBTQ-whatever, that should be an immediate red flag. When they’re pushing it on children, the alarms should be ringing loud and clear.
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+ […]
A short video accompanied the post, highlighting the role played by the teacher in charge.
A teacher who, I’d bet good money, is a closet predator.
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.”
Enter the e-Karen.
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.
This is where it gets sinister. The government’s cyber-censor is deliberately subverting the laws of the land and lying through her teeth to online platforms to censor views she simply doesn’t like.
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 had sent what it termed a “complaint alert” via X’s high-priority “Legal Requests Portal”– a channel reserved for law enforcement and government officials submitting valid legal requests.
The alert to X looked and acted like a mandatory order, using the regulator’s official letterhead, and citing Section 7 of the Online Safety Act as the “Legal Basis”.
Giving evidence, an eSafety official agreed that “taking informal or less intrusive action is preferred if it achieves the commissioner’s desired regulatory results”, confirming this was the strategy even when investigators concluded they “could not legally force the removal”.
If that isn’t alarming enough, what comes next is truly shocking.
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.
This woke inquisitor completely exceeded her legal powers, and admitted it, but actually believes she is above accountability. In fact, that by acting beyond the law, she thereby excludes herself from accountability.
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 […]
Ms Baumgarten’s win is the latest in a string of legal setbacks for the commissioner, including a ruling that she could not order X to impose a global ban on footage of the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in Sydney and a ruling that overturned a removal notice against Canadian activist Chris Elston.
From the “Committee of Public Safety” to the “eSafety Commission”, these inquisitors never change their spots.
