Recently Liberal Senator Claire Chandler was in the news for her anti-trans bill seeking to boot people she doesn’t like out of sport. She is indeed one of the biggest anti-trans campaigners in the Senate.
Late last year, Chandler published a post about Australian bureaucracies being ‘captured’ by the ‘gender industry’ on a blog called ’11th hour’, run by an American campaigner called Jennifer Bilek. More about her in a moment.
In her own words, Chandler railed about “A dangerous agenda which erodes the rights of women and girls is being sold to bureaucrats by a lobby group and slipped into public policy under the guise of ‘diversity and inclusion’. ”
But who really has the dangerous agenda? Bilek’s 11th Hour, where Chandler seems content to hang out, is quite the half-bakery.
Anti-fascist Christa Peterson did a dive into Bilek last year on Twitter but the summary is basically this:
Jennifer Bilek is a David Icke-endorsing conspiracy theorist who comes out a particularly nasty American ecofascist tradition. The GC movement now widely believes that there is suspicious and nefarious funding behind the trans movement.
A very influential figure in this is said Bilek, who wrote the very popular Federalist piece in 2018 and at this point has just done a ton of the ‘research’ GC people cite.
Basically all the big ‘gender critical’ people follow her. Bilek is well embedded in the movement, not some random person on the fringe.
The ‘incisive investigations’ that GC people are so impressed by argue that trans people are a psy-op to ready us to put Google in our heads and feed our bodies to the machine. This is Bilek’s whole thing. It’s in the Federalist piece, it’s in everything.
You don’t have to dig very deeply to find rhetoric that is as extreme as it is loopy.
Bilek is obsessed with the idea that trans rights movements have shady billionaire funding. But most disturbingly, Bilek began explicitly endorsing anti-Semitic theories about, in her words, ‘the Jewish aspect’ of all this.
She doesn’t hide it, it’s right there.
So why is an Australian senator publishing anti-trans pieces on a platform run by an explicit anti-Semite?
Chandler’s piece there came out well after Bilek’s anti-Semitism became common knowledge.
The article Claire Chandler wrote is still up, but an archived version is here in case it gets deleted: https://archive.ph/s3DBX
Tasmanians should be very vary of a Senator who, while tasked with representing us, prefers to spend her time entertaining the perverse, inane, discriminatory and racist tropes of the American far-right.
Hat tip to Tom Westmoreland for picking up on this.
Juliette Rosenthal is a Tasmanian-born former federal public servant who worked in the area of policy development and analysis. She returned to Tasmania after retiring and is patiently learning how to grow olives.
Adam Burling
March 3, 2022 at 10:59
Great to have Senator Chandler exposed for the horrific ideology she promotes. Her maiden speech started out attacking environmentalists, perhaps because of the mentoring she had from Senator Abetz. There was obviously some moment that there was a decision from Senator Chandler to focus on attacking trans people as a way of boosting profile nationally.
One thing I would flag is that I don’t believe that Jennifer Bilek should be described as coming from eco-fascist tradition. I think for one that takes away from her obvious main game of hating on trans people but I don’t see it as her ideological base. She has appeared on DGR podcast but I don’t see her promoting eco-fascist ideas anywhere else. Happy to be proven wrong.
Keep up the good work. Senator Chandler needs the bright public spotlight put on her views. She is heavily embedded in the Liberal party so she is by no ways a fringe element.
Geoff Holloway
March 3, 2022 at 13:15
I think some people need to read this compilation from 10 Australian experts …
https://www.academia.edu/50919679/AUSTRALIAN_PERSPECTIVES_ON_TRANSGENDERING_CHILDREN_and_ADOLESCENTS_POLICY_and_PRACTICE_IMPLICATIONS
Jean Hillier
March 3, 2022 at 13:41
What is dangerous is allowing biological males in female sport and female spaces.
A third category is long overdue, and many trans and gender-diverse people agree.
Chief Editor TT
March 3, 2022 at 16:52
As was pointed out last week by speakers at that media conference, not a single bona fide sporting organisation in Tasmania has said it is a problem.
Gina Louise
March 3, 2022 at 13:50
Bilek has done some good work chasing down the flow of money being made. I don’t agree with all her politics but I do appreciate her efforts on this issue. Chandler is a Liberal. I have never voted Liberal in my life, but she is absolutely correct to assert the right of females to single sex sport.
So you see, grown-ups can agree on some things even when they come from different paths.
Isla MacGregor
March 3, 2022 at 21:11
No single bona fide sports organisation wants to end up in an inquisition at the kangaroo court at Unequal Opportunity Tasmania for not conforming to the new state religion.
Men do not have a right to redefine what a woman is for their own personal gain and to justify their rage at women.
Chief Editor TT
March 3, 2022 at 21:44
The point of the article is the company Chandler keeps. Any more totally off topic comments will be deleted.
Shelley Eden
March 4, 2022 at 10:19
The author of this piece should write a retraction for accusing the Senator that by quoting Jennifer Bilek, who your writer calls an anti-Semite with no reason or proof of such a claim, because nowhere does Bilek even mention these companies, individual billionaires or wealthy investors’ religions.
Including the names of a number of rich business owners and large companies who have invested in the business of USA gender clinics, medical apparatus and accompanying medication, and now trans surgery training colleges, are fascinating facts of recent history.
The public is interested in how, and who, is leading the investment into a new kind of lifelong medical management industry. Nowhere have I seen any investor’s religion in any stories on this matter, much covered on the Web, and also in the mainstream press.
Bilek and others are covering the incredible steep rise over the past decade in the number of gender clinics and government policy changes which support the business models of those clinics. It’s of genuine interest to look at the success of this rise through effective lobbying, large amounts of financial donations to initially both left and right of USA governments, and the closeness to politicians, for example Obama, the Clintons and Bush etc.
The public is naturally interested in this very niche market industry and business model. There are many different investors who’ve either spearheaded, or later financially supported the business model. Some are themselves late in life transitioners and LGBTQ+ supporters, but not all.
It’s a commercial success after all and scores of companies are now investing in and promoting this USA driven bisiness template and money spinner.
Ben Marshall
March 5, 2022 at 15:03
It’s always useful to see what our politicians vote for and against. This link shows Senator Chandler’s voting record:
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/claire_chandler
In brief, she’s pro-coal, anti-action on climate, anti-transparency in government, anti-public schools, pro-privatisation, anti-environment, against providing adequate support for the unemployed or students, and against the protection of whistleblowers.
Senator Chandler is strongly supported by the religious far Right in the Australian Christian Lobby, and the Family Voice Australia group (formerly Festival of Light).
Shelley Eden
March 5, 2022 at 20:07
Who are the creators of that website? The claims of factual collection of data might mean something if the non Liberal/Coalition reps had exact same questions/subjects to show results from genuine comparison.
What a shame though, because something like this website done properly could be a valuable resource to search for information on all sitting members.
But only if the site owners followed data collection/comparison guidelines of how to collate information collected to each subject and political representative. The Labor/Greens representatives all have totally different subjects/questions and no filtered data, and there should be links from supposed data to each Hansard or public record resource to be credible and citable.
Chief Editor TT
March 6, 2022 at 11:29
This recent blog post from Open Australia Foundation, which own that site, sheds some light on some of the difficulties.
—
Voting records are now divided into nine different categories:
Voted consistently for
Voted almost always for
Voted generally for
Voted a mixture of for and against
Voted generally against
Voted almost always against
Voted consistently against
We can’t say anything concrete about how they voted on
The newest of these categories is the last one, “We can’t say anything concrete about how they voted on”. It will be used for those cases where an MP or senator has only voted once on a policy and that vote didn’t have any particular significance.
This new category is part of our response to recent feedback we’ve received from concerned citizens and staff members of elected representatives about how the voting record is presented on our site.
What’s wrong with the current voting record?
While They Vote For You has always tried to ensure its content is as accurate as possible, current voting practice in our parliament makes this difficult.
Today in parliament, most votes occur ‘on the voices,’ which is when our representatives yell ‘Aye!’ or ‘No!’ and the loudest side wins. These types of votes are not recorded in any detail, so we have no way of knowing who was in the room at the time or how they voted.
The only officially recorded votes in our parliament are divisions. When a division takes place, our representatives walk to one side of the room or the other (each side represents either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’) and their names are taken down, leaving us with a record of who was present, who was absent, and how each present representative voted.
Divisions are only called under particular circumstances and are much rarer in the House of Representatives than the Senate because most MPs belong to one of the two major parties, which rarely call for them.
Because They Vote For You gets its data from the official record, the only votes that appear on our site are divisions.
Why is this a huge problem?
As we’ve discussed before, having only data from divisions on They Vote For You means that we are only seeing part of the story of how our representatives vote – and a smaller part at that.
Our parliament could do something about this situation but has so far chosen not to. For example, they could introduce electronic voting so that all votes are quickly and efficiently recorded, but a committee that investigated this possibility in 2016 concluded that it was unnecessary.
If the incomplete official voting record concerns you, we encourage you to contact your representative and let them know.
What does this mean for us?
Having an incomplete voting record makes our task on They Vote For You much harder, particularly as not all divisions are created equal. Many divisions are purely symbolic – they express a view, but don’t actually make any legal changes.
After the recent blaze of public interest in our site, we received several emails from concerned citizens and staff members of elected representatives who believe our current approach to weighing divisions can be improved. And we agreed with them.
While our site already allowed for votes to be weighted differently, with ‘strong’ divisions (Yes (strong)/No (strong)) and ‘normal’ ones (Yes/No), these labels were not being applied consistently across all policies. Further, all policies were showing up on representatives’ voting records, even when that representative had only participated in only one ‘normal’ division. This skewed their record and made those representatives appear more or less in favour of a policy on the basis of a single ‘normal’ division.
We agreed that this was a problem and set about trying to find a solution.
What changes have we made?
First, we went through all our policies and ensured that the only divisions marked as ‘strong’ were those that propose real action – such as a change to our law – and are directly relevant to the policy.
Then we created a new category on our voting records: “We can’t say anything concrete about how they voted on”. Policies that appear in this category are ones where the representative has only voted in a single ‘normal’ division, and never in a ‘strong’ division.
We hope that these changes will make They Vote For You a more meaningful resource as we continue to hold our representatives accountable.
Ben Marshall
March 6, 2022 at 10:42
Hi Shelley, I agree that it’s important for all sites that claim to aggregate factual data to be transparent, and able to show the data trail to the original source, such as you suggest. The positives of theyvoteforyou.org.au is that you can click on each stated vote for or against something, which links to specifics of the bill (and related others) which adds nuance to a simple for / against stance.
On the partisan bias you imply exists on the site, I compared voting records between Liberal and Labor politicians, and couldn’t find any differences in approach from the site managers to their voting records – it appears to be non-partisan, so I’m unsure what you’re referring to. Cheers.
Simon Warriner
March 7, 2022 at 20:34
I am with you, Gina.
It is however, very instructive to refer from time to time to Voltaire’s observation that those you may not criticise are most often those who rule over you.
Amanda
March 9, 2022 at 19:00
Ha! You want to talk about the company you keep?
Check out why the pink and blue stripes are the feature of the trans flag as this will explain why they are so keen to see safeguarding measures torn down.
Ben Marshall
March 10, 2022 at 11:18
From Wikipedia: