I have written previously about litigation involving Kirralie Smith stemming from her comments about a biological male playing in a womens’ football team. In that post I noted the decision in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“NCAT”) in Blanch v Smith [2024] NSWCATAD 20 (22 January 2024). Ms Smith is part of an advocacy organisation, Binary Australia Ltd, which advocates for sex-based rights, especially for women, and sometimes posts about transgender males who have been allowed to compete in women’s sport. Stephanie Blanch was mentioned on the website of Binary and elsewhere online in this context, and then claimed that this amounted to “transgender vilification” under sections 38S(1)(a) and 52 of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1975 (“ADA”). As the judge in the liability proceedings noted below commented at para [3]:
the Plaintiff is a transgender woman. She was born a male and has lived solely as a woman since 2016.
Ms Smith’s case was then transferred for constitutional reasons to the Local Court, where she was subsequently found to have been guilty of vilification. Most recently, in a decision involving Blanch and also in a case mounted by Riley Dennis, Ms Smith was fined and found to be liable for costs. In my view all of these four recent decisions were wrong, and I hope will be overturned on appeal.
Law and Religion Australia 