Google+ Followers

Tuesday, 8 March 2016

Bill Muehlenberg publishes comment calling for the deaths of Early Childhood Australia’s staff

Whilst we're all for freedom of speech, it clearly has limits. We have been warning for a long time that Bill Muehlenberg's extremist views and hate speech are dangerous, and several times they have crossed a line by calling for violence against innocent people.

Nowhere is this more glaringly obvious than in a comment by David Clay that Bill Muehlenberg approved on his post Get Your Hands Off Our Children.

Muehlenberg posted the article on March 6th 2016.

This is David Clay's comment, which he posted at 9am on 6th March:

All comments on Bill Muehlenberg's CultureWatch are vigorously moderated by Muehlenberg and he seldom allows a comment that doesn't agree with his worldview to be posted. The comment by Clay would not have appeared on the article without Muehlenberg's assent and approval.

The comment, which accuses Early Childhood Australia staff of being paedophiles and perpetrating acts of sexual abuse against children, then further calls for them to be put on "death row" - a clear statement that Early Childhood Australia staff should be put to death. This comment goes well beyond freedom of speech and crosses into the dangerous territory of stirring up hate speech and endangering innocent people's lives. It is also clearly libellous.

The comment has since been deleted by Bill Muehlenberg, who clearly realises that it is indefensible and ought to lead to libel action being taken against him, if not criminal investigation for endangering the lives of innocent people, but the damage has already been done in posting it in the first place.

This is not the first time that Muehlenberg has called for violence against innocent people. He calls for armed rebellion for when equal marriage is approved in Australia.

Are the authorities seriously not looking into the actions of Bill Muehlenberg? Or do innocent people need to be defamed and threatened with death before anyone will take note?


  1. Thank you so much for helping share this unpleasant chapter in Bill Muehlenberg's ongoing crusade against same-sex attracted and gender diverse people.

  2. Prehaps Early Childhood development should consider bringing an action agaisnt him in defamation. Certainly Clay's comment would cross the threshold and since he's mentioned the staff of the organisation they're probably a small enough class to have standing to sue.

    What state do you live. If your in Qld or NSW have you considered reporting Mr. Mulenberg to Anti-discrimination Tribunal for vilification.

  3. I'm wondering if it's time somebody from the LGBT community should take a stand against Meulenberg and considered bringing an vilification case against him. I'm convinced some of his material, particularly the material that implies LGBT people are somehow out to harm children, will probably breach the Incite hatred and contempt provisions of the Queensland, NSW, ACT and Tasmanian discrimination acts. Certainly his writings would be in breach of the harassment provision of the Tasmanian act s 17.

    Of course the problem is I think Bill lives in Victoria, which doesn't have vilification protections extending to gender and sexuality and until the NSW Supreme Court returns a verdict in the Burns v Gaynor appeal, it's not clear whether Bill writing in Victoria has actually breached the other state acts.

    1. Julia, it's my understanding that NSW anti-vilification legislation covers content that is viewable in NSW, even if the author is not physically resident there. I live in Victoria.

    2. Hi Michael. The Victorian Legislation definitely applies to content published outside the state as the act States that the sections apply to conduct outside the state.

      However the NSW, Qld and Tas Acts are silent on the question of whether public act covers acts outside the state. My understanding was the Tribunal in NSW said in Burns v Gaynor that an statement written on a computer in Qld could is not a public act for the purpose of the NSW statute. That decision is under appeal and I'm not sure whether a judgement has been returned yet.

    3. Julia, the anti-vilification legislation you referenced is only applicable to race and religion, not LGBTI status. Victoria's a-v legislation doesn't cover this characteristic, whilst NSW's does.

    4. I'm aware of that. I referenced the Victorian Legislation simply to note it's definition of "public act" includes acts outside of the State whereas that's not included in the Qld, NSW or ACT legislation. I live in Queensland. I would pursue him under the Qld legislation, which does apply to both sexuality and gender identity, if I had the funds to do so and the certainty that QCAT would have appropriate jurisdiction.