Holly Cullen
LightNews LightNews
banner
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Holly Cullen
@hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
2.1K followers 590 following 1.9K posts
International law academic living on Whadjak Noongar Boodjar, researching feminist strategic litigation in international law. Cats, cooking and crafts. Dockers fan for AFLW/AFL
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3061-9413
Posts Replies Media Videos
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Academic selfie: I love it when a plan comes together (or a three year old necklace perfectly matches a new top) edition:
Woman in sunglasses wearing a red blouse and a black and red necklace that looks like a string of glossy spikes. She also wears red lipstick.
November 5, 2025 at 8:47 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
And here again, the Law Commission notes that the Australian Federal Court reached a different conclusion to the UKSC. The case is under appeal, with hearings last month and judgment reserved.
7.162: There are limited legislative precedents for a statutory definition of sex. As we explained in Chapter 3, of the more than 100 New Zealand statutes or regulations that contain a reference to ‘sex’, none define the term. The term ‘sex’ is not defined in any anti-discrimination statutes in the United Kingdom, Australia or Canada, whether at the federal or sub-national level. The United Kingdom Supreme Court has interpreted the word ‘sex’ in United Kingdom anti-discrimination law to mean “biological sex”, saying this means “the sex of a person at birth”. The interpretation of ‘sex’ adopted by the Court was largely based on statutory indicators that are not present in the New Zealand legislation. The Court was at pains to stress that its decision was one of interpretation, not of policy: (footnote numbers deleted) (text continued from previous screenshot) It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of [the relevant United Kingdom statute]. 7.164: In reaching a different conclusion about the meaning of sex in Australian anti-discrimination law, the Federal Court of Australia in Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) similarly saw the issue before it as one of statutory interpretation and noted that it did not “need to determine the metes and bounds of the meaning of sex”.
September 5, 2025 at 4:19 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
The Law Commission reiterates the comparison later in the report, rejecting the idea that 'a narrow and biologically determined' meaning of sex would resolve the policy issues of anti-discrimination policy:
3.129: This is consistent with the approach in comparable jurisdictions we have analysed. For example, in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, the United Kingdom Supreme Court held that the terms ‘sex’, and ‘man’ and ‘woman’ have a biological meaning in the United Kingdom’s anti-discrimination statute but stressed this was a matter of statutory interpretation, not of policy, stating: It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the words “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of [the relevant United Kingdom statute]. 3.130: In reaching a different conclusion about the meaning of sex in Australian federal anti-discrimination law, the Federal Court of Australia in Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) similarly saw the issue before it as one of statutory interpretation and noted that it did not “need to determine the metes and bounds of the meaning of sex”. (footnote numbers deleted)
September 5, 2025 at 3:56 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Skimming through the NZ Law Commission report on human rights protections for transgender & non-binary people, and people with innate variations of sex characteristics. These two paragraphs compare the somewhat incoherent approach of the UKSC and clearer approach of Aus Fed Ct to defining sex.
3.119: In For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, the United Kingdom Supreme Court considered a presumptive rule in the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (UK) that the gender recorded on a person’s Gender Recognition Certificate is to be treated as their sex. The Court held that this presumption was overcome by statutory indicators in the United Kingdom’s anti-discrimination legislation that the meaning of sex in that statute was “biological”. However, the Court stressed this was a matter of statutory interpretation and that the gender recorded on a person’s Gender Recognition Certificate might be determinative of their sex in other legislative contexts. In other words, the Court acknowledged that sex does not have a single uniform meaning in United Kingdom law. 3.120: The Australian decision of Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) considered the impact of a person having changed how their sex was listed on the register of births in accordance with the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 (Qld). Under the relevant provision, the person’s sex as recorded on the register of births was to be treated definitively as the person’s sex. On that basis, the Federal Court had no difficulty in concluding that the plaintiff was of that sex for the purposes of Commonwealth anti-discrimination law. (footnote numbers deleted from original text)
September 5, 2025 at 3:51 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
It's 9.02. My cat just meowed at me to get into my home office and start working.

Et tu, kitty?
A fluffy ginger cat reclines on a wooden floor, looking up at the camera with intense green eyes
September 5, 2025 at 1:05 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
This is *exactly* what happened in the UK after Brexit - its advocates didn't know what to do with 'victory'. From this article:
theconversation.com/how-the-neol...
Text from linked article: The Cold War: victory or defeat? Slobodian writes interestingly about the 1990s and 2000s, when neoliberals might have been expected to be basking in the glory of having “routed their enemies, won the battle against communism, and conscripted international financial institutions to carry out their world-changing project”. Instead, observes Slobodian, they “seemed to fear the Cold War had been lost”. The Soviet Union had collapsed and communism was defeated, yet “public spending continued to expand even as capitalism became the only surviving economic system”.
August 12, 2025 at 5:49 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
One of the nicer aspects of #phdlife - getting new books in the mail. Thanks to Deakin Faculty of Business and Law for continuing support.
Two books on a desk: one titled The Right to Strike in International Law, and one titled Intersectionality and Human Rights Law.
July 31, 2025 at 5:52 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Minor update/correction: Indonesia, in oral submissions for the Advisory Opinion on Policies & Practices of Israel, used the term derisively:
Screenshot of text: 12. The role of the International Court of Justice is central to safeguarding the so-called “rules-based international order”.
July 28, 2025 at 5:24 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
For the purposes of comparison ...
Photo of actor Paul McGann as the 8th Doctor in Doctor Who. He wears a dandyish 19th century type of outfit, including a paisley silk or satin waistcoat, a velvet frock coat and a cravat with a tie pin.
July 11, 2025 at 4:29 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
You know it's bad when The Australian and the Guardian have similar headlines:
July 10, 2025 at 6:05 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
I have transformed from Super Conferencer back to Academic Everywoman, ready for a 4.5 hour flight home.
July 4, 2025 at 7:09 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
A better photo of Juliette's side of the panel.
July 2, 2025 at 7:56 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
#ANZSIL2025 #CttB A rare live recording of Called to the Bar at the ANZSIL conference. From left: @utsintlaw.bsky.social @drjessiehohmann.bsky.social, @pagingdrpaige.bsky.social, @djag2.bsky.social and @imogenmarjorie.bsky.social. @drnajimagi.bsky.social is at the edge of the shot
July 2, 2025 at 7:47 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Academic Selfie: with the fabulous Adrienne Ringen after the #ANZSIL2025 postgraduate workshop at ANU.
Two women in front of a sign saying Australian National University.
July 1, 2025 at 7:52 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
I will pack for chilly Canberra as soon as Othello stops napping on my knitwear.
A fluffy ginger cat is curled up on top of sweaters and scarves. He looks very comfortable.
June 27, 2025 at 7:41 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
#CrochetAway. Here is the late, great Macbeth, Thane of Cat-Door, inspecting my Hotel of Bees shawl.
A long black cat sleeps on a crocheted shawl which is pinned to blocking mats.
June 7, 2025 at 2:16 PM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Sunset, Cable Beach, Broome (last month).
Golden sunset over a sandy beach. The whole picture is suffused with orange light.
May 22, 2025 at 9:29 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Probably under Article 63 ICJ Statute, possibly under Article 62 (see screenshot) - although as always I defer to @drnajimagi.bsky.social on these matters.
Excerpts of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: Article 62 l. Should a state consider that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case, it may submit a request to the Court to be permitted to intervene. 2 It shall be for the Court to decide upon this request. Article 63 1. Whenever the construction of a convention to which states other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such states forthwith. 2. Every state so notified has the right to intervene in the proceedings; but if it uses this right, the construction given by the judgment will be equally binding upon it.
May 20, 2025 at 10:23 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Few details yet, but:
"U.S. President Donald Trump's administration on Monday said it was probing whether Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review violated civil rights laws when the journal's editors fast-tracked consideration of an article written by a member of a racial minority."
April 29, 2025 at 2:53 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Our cat is happy that we're back from our holiday up north. On the left, this morning he was very clingy with partner; on the right, this afternoon he is supervising me from the sofa in my study.
Ginger fluffy cat sitting on a man's lap, stretching upwards to rub his face on the human's face Ginger fluffy cat curled up on a grey sofa, looking up to the camera.
April 28, 2025 at 6:31 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
I haven't posted a sunset photo in a while - here's today's sunset, Cable Beach, WA.
Sun just over the horizon, very orange, glow reflected on wet sand. Just before sunset - blue sky, glowing yellow sun, traces of clouds.
April 26, 2025 at 10:26 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Quote from the AEC:
Quotation from the Australian Electoral Commission on the complaint about Abbie Chatfield's podcast interviews with Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt: It appears that the invitations to Albanese or Bandt to participate were voluntary. In addition, questions put to both interviewees were sourced from the podcast’s audience. There is no evidence that either Albanese or Bandt had creative control in relation to the questions that were asked. As such, the AEC is not satisfied that the episodes of Ms Chatfield’s podcasts on 21 February 2025 and 11 March 2025 could be considered to be paid advertising or to be communicated by or on behalf of a candidate or party. This content does not require an authorisation. The AEC is making the outcome of this review public out of fairness to Ms Chatfield given the media coverage of the issue to date.
April 3, 2025 at 5:02 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
This is an example of why I am sceptical about the value of 'truth in political advertising' laws - there would be loads of frivolous complaints like this one. The need to respond to complaints would hit minor parties and independent candidates particularly hard:
Screenshot of Guardian Australia politics live blog from 3 April 2025 Headline: AEC says Abbie Chatfield podcasts did not breach electoral rules, by Henry Belot. Text: The Australian Electoral Commission has cleared podcast host Abbie Chatfield of any wrongdoing and said a review of her content has found it “does not require an authorisation statement”. Liberal senators had raised concerns about some of the podcaster’s podcasts and material shared on social media, questioning whether it should have been classed as electoral material, which would require an official authorisation statement. Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt have both appeared on Chatfield’s podcast in recent weeks. Clips of the interviews were shared on both politician’s social media accounts. Chatfield has separately encouraged her followers to put the Liberal party last on ballot papers. In a statement, an AEC spokesperson said that while the podcasts “could be viewed as being made for purpose of influencing how someone casts their vote, there is no evidence that there was a monetary benefit for the podcaster as a result of either Albanese or Bandt being invited onto the show”.
April 3, 2025 at 4:59 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
And McGowan backs his successor's remarks (screenshot from Guardian liveblog):
Text from screenshot: "WA Today reports that the former premier Mark McGowan held an impromptu doorstop straight afterwards, and backed the comment as 'entirely accurate'. How politically correct are you? I just think answer the question honestly. He is."
March 4, 2025 at 3:17 AM
hollycullenfreo.bsky.social
Othello, cooling down on a hot day by stretching out on our bamboo flooring.
A floofy ginger cat reclines on a bamboo floor. His head is up and he is looking towards the camera.
February 19, 2025 at 12:06 AM