New South Wales police have hit Kirralie Smith with an Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO) on behalf of a trans-activist.
The 51-year-old said police landed the “cease and desist” order at her door on March 31.
They allege the Binary director engaged in the ‘electronic harassment’ of a biological male, who currently plays as a transgender female in the women’s football league.
Carrying the story, feminist news site, Reduxx reported that the AVO relates to Smith highlighting widespread reports the fake female had injured actual female players.
As a consequence of defending those women, Smith was ordered ‘not to discuss or approach’ the ‘protected person.’
This is ‘despite the fact that Smith lives over 200 miles’ from her alleged victim.
In her defence, Smith wrote on Twitter, “I am currently opposing the order. I am 51, with a busted knee, and have never been violent in my life!”
Punishment for any refusal to comply with the AVPO could see Smith arrested, then charged with a criminal offence, such as ‘assault, or malicious damage.’
Penalties for breaching an AVPO include a $5,500 fine, and/or imprisonment for up to two years.
Talking to Reduxx, Kirralie said, if the ‘court decides that the aforementioned “protected persons” AVPO is justified,’ she could be criminally charged.
She’s right. There’s already a precedent.
By way of Division 5, Section 38R, titled, Transgender vilification, Smith potentially faces charges of ‘inciting hatred, showing serious contempt, or ridicule’ for trans-activism, or the biological man, posing as a biological female.
For context, NSW vilification legislation is so clumsy that in a court of law, feelings trump free speech, because the bad law allows subjective experience to trump objective fact.
Blasphemy laws like this benefit LGBT bullies.
As critiqued by lawyers, John Steenhof, and Alexander Millard in an essay for Augusto Zimmermann’s 2023 Connor Court book, Wokeshevism, vilification laws are ideologically grounded in far-left political theory.
The laws are about ‘discourse control,’ which ‘sanctions speech, without requiring any evidence’ that the speech is actually violent, or likely to incite violence.
According to the framework of these so-called “hate speech” laws, truth ‘is no defence.’
By suppressing speech, current vilification laws suppress truth.
These laws ‘do not seek truth.’ Their only concern is protecting the feelings of the protected class.
Noting the Soviet origins of vilification laws, Steenhof and Millard, explained: “Hate-speech prohibition in human rights law owes its existence to a number of states where both criticisms of the prevalent totalitarian ideology, as well as advocacy for democracy, were strictly prohibited.”
Section 38R is why LGBT lawfare activists were able to hit Kirralie Smith with an AVPO for speaking truth to power.
In February, the loaded legislation was weaponised against her when Misogynists at Meta deleted Smith’s official Facebook account after it was flagged for ‘breaching community standards.’
Her crime? Seeking comment from Football Australia about why the organisation has allowed men to compete in a women’s only competition.
Responding to yet another example of the Trans trend, which increasingly denies DNA-defined women a voice, Kirralie replied, “Powerful men shutting down women’s voices – is that stunning & brave?”
Her consistent advocacy for a biological woman’s right to speak is anathema to the fascist LGBT cult’s female pretenders.
Additionally, the same Trans-activist tried to shake down Reduxx.
In a press release, shared online, editor, Anna Slatz said Australia’s eSafety Commissioner contacted them, ‘advising Reduxx to heavily censor or delete an article Slatz had published on April 1 mentioning the “protected person” in Smith’s AVPO.’
Australia’s version of the Ministry of Truth argued the article was “offensive” because it properly described the biological male as a man.
The eSafety blasphemy police went further, telling Twitter, Reduxx was in breach of Australian law.
Twitter then blocked Australians from accessing the article via its platform.
Refusing to adjust or delete the piece, a defiant Slatz said, upon review, she had decided to ‘leave the article up without alteration.’