top of page

Schedule 8: Amendment of Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Section 3 – Definitions: ‘Gender History’ and ‘Out a Person’ Definitions

Overview

​

The proposed amendments in Schedule 8 are deeply alarming and propose to introduce:
 

  1. Outing a Person as Domestic Abuse: Extending ‘outing’ to relationships beyond domestic ones is a dangerous overreach.

  2. AVOs for Threats of Outing: Silencing women who express legitimate concerns about their safety or their partner’s dangerous behaviours.

  3. Protections for Sex Workers: Including sex work as a protected attribute in harassment protections distracts from genuine domestic abuse cases.

  4. Weaponising Legal Definitions: The proposed changes could allow manipulative behaviour in interpersonal disputes, primarily affecting women and children.

​

Recommendations:

​

  1. Withdraw the Proposed Amendments: Remove Schedule 8 to prevent the exacerbation of power imbalances and the silencing of women.

  2. Remove Specific References: Eliminate all references to “gender history,” “out a person,” “variation of sex characteristics,” and “sex work” from the legislation.

​​

Amending the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 to Include Disclosing Gender History as Domestic Abuse: Penalising Those Who Speak Out About Men Who Identify as Women

​

  • This provision allows an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) or apprehended personal violence order (APVO) to be issued to prevent the disclosure of a person’s ‘gender’ history.

  • The proposed amendments could result in women who raise concerns about trans-identified males in female-only sports, spaces, and services being issued an ADVO, and imprisoned and/or fined if they do not comply. This could also have a chilling effect on women speaking about their sex-based needs and rights.

 

NSW Attorney General’s Suggestions a Gross Incursion on Civil Liberties and an Alarming Concern for the Rights of the NSW Public

​

In the NSW Labor Government's submission to the Equality Bill Committee, the Attorney General suggested that defining outing as abuse under section 5 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 might not be adequate because it does not cover a wide enough scope. As an alternative, the Attorney General recommended defining outing as a form of intimidation under section 7, which would cover broader contexts such as co-workers or friends. This is deeply concerning and a gross infringement on the civil liberties of the NSW population.

​

Outing a Person

​

Extending the definition of ‘outing’ to include domestic AND non-domestic relationships is a dangerous overreach.

 

Example: A woman discovers her husband is engaging in fetishist behaviours such as cross-dressing and occasionally identifying as a 4-year-old girl, which he purports is part of his new “gender identity”. His wife seeks help and counsel from a friend. She may be in breach of the legislation merely by speaking about her husband’s fetish.

​

Example: A woman discovers her husband is engaging in fetishist behaviours such as cross-dressing and occasionally identifying as a 4-year-old girl, which he purports is part of his new “gender identity”. During their subsequent custody dispute, the wife cannot raise the issue as a child safeguarding concern as she may be liable for “outing” her husband.

​

Example: A co-worker discovers his colleague at a Child Care Centre is a Zoophile, which he considers part of his ‘gender identity’. The colleague may be criminally liable for intimidation if he discloses this to anyone.

​

Example: A woman whose husband engages in extramarital affairs and contracts HIV could be forced into silence, preventing her from discussing her partner’s risky behaviours with anyone, leaving her isolated and powerless.

​

Weaponisation of Provisions

​

In practice, the proposed amendments will shield people engaged in harmful behaviours under the guise of protecting their ‘identity,’ creating significant personal and public safety risks. The amendments allow men to weaponise their behaviour to silence women, maintaining control and preventing them from speaking out about behaviours that directly impact their family’s well-being and safety.

​

Weaponising Legal Definitions 

​

This amendment proposes adding definitions that obscure clarity and weaponise personal identity traits. By defining "gender history" as the sex recorded at birth being different from the sex the person identifies with, and "out a person" to mean disclosing someone’s sexual orientation or gender history without consent, the amendments introduce a mechanism ripe for misuse. For instance, as illustrated above in a custody dispute, revealing a parent's gender identity history relevant to a child's environment or well-being could become a punishable offense. This stifles free speech and complicates the protection of children’s best interests, effectively handing over a tool for men to legally silence women who voice concerns about family dynamics influenced by gender identity issues. 

 

Protections for Sex Workers 

Including sex work as a protected attribute in harassment protections distracts from the real dangers these amendments pose. This broadened protection could be exploited, redirecting focus from genuine domestic abuse cases to peripheral issues, diluting the effectiveness of domestic violence protections. Alex Greenwich’s proposal to “protect” sex workers contradicts his proposal to exploit and risk the safety of sex workers in schedule 18.

​

Amendment to Section 6A – Meaning of ‘Domestic Abuse’ and Section 35 Amendment 

​

Adding an example of coercive behaviour as threatening to 'out' someone fundamentally alters the dynamics of what can be considered abusive in domestic settings. This could easily be weaponised by individuals, typically men, to claim coercion in situations where a partner may be legitimately seeking help or advice about the partner’s recent decision to claim a gender identity.

​

This provision silences legitimate support avenues for spouses, children, and families, further embedding male-dominated power structures within families by prioritising the protection of an individual’s gender identity over the collective safety and psychological well-being of the family.

​

Dangerous Amendments Threaten Women’s Rights and Public Liberties

​

The proposed amendments under Schedule 8 of the Equality Bill are dangerous and a gross incursion on the rights, safety and freedom of women and the civil liberties of the wider public.

​

Promoting these amendments under the guise of addressing inequalities and protecting diverse identities is disingenuous. These amendments prioritise the interests of men, thereby exacerbating existing power imbalances. By broadening the definitions and protections in ways that can shield individuals from legitimate scrutiny and discussion of their behaviour—especially behaviours that impact the well-being of children and partners.

​

These amendments risk making women the likely losers in a system that should protect them. These amendments should be withdrawn to ensure the safety and rights of all individuals are adequately protected.

​

Recommendations

​

  1. Withdraw the Proposed Amendments: Remove Schedule 8 to prevent the exacerbation of power imbalances and the silencing of women.

  2. Remove Specific References: Eliminate all references to “gender history,” “out a person,” “variation of sex characteristics,” and “sex work” from the legislation.


Take Action Now
 

© 2024 by Active Watchful Waiting

  • Linkedin
  • X
  • Youtube
bottom of page