A proposal that the Victorian Liberal Party’s state council was asked to debate a motion calling for the law to be changed to ensure doctors “can offer counselling out of same-sex attraction”, and that “parents and young people are all given full information about the psychological harms of social, medical and surgical gender transitioning”.1
The motion was drafted by the Menzies-Warrandyte Young Liberal branch of the Victorian party, linked to right wing religious nutter, MP Kevin Andrews, was apparently the source of the request. Other motions to be debated include re-insertion of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ into the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act to replace ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’.1This will allow discrimination against gay and transgender people again, to the delight of the religious. It is the standard reactionary attitude of Liberals (in this case the Geelong branch) to reality, especially when it has anything to do with sex.
This proposed motion has embarrassed many ‘progressive’ Liberals (if that is not an oxymoron), and Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman has stated “These are the types of policies you would expect to find in the dark recesses of the 19th century or in the forums of the Australian Conservatives party, not in the modern Liberal Party”2. He must be talking about a Liberal Party with which I am unfamiliar, as this sort of stuff has been never far from the surface in the ‘modern’ Liberal Party, particularly its right wing religious nutters. Former Liberal, Senator Cory Bernardi3 and Senator Eric Abetz4 have spouted such egregious drivel in recent times.
Victorian Liberal president, Michael Kroger, has intervened to prevent the ‘gay conversion’ motion being debated5. Despite this, it seems likely that the religious nutters are in the ascendant in the Victorian Liberal Party, which seems appropriate, as their views are often victorian.
Now, Health Minister Greg Hunt has gone even further off the rails, unpleasantly arguing with Radio National’s Patricia Karvelas on this topic, seemingly believing that it is solely a matter of free speech6. Maybe he should have argued with Michael Kroger instead. After all, it was the latter who shut this stunt down.