Trans board director Luna Choo has moved censure motions against Mardi Gras co-chairs Mits Delisle and Kathy Pavlich.
The motions were seconded by Damien Nguyen. Both Choo and Nguyen are involved with Pride in Protest.
There are now four censure motions before the board, all lodged within the past week.
The dispute stems from the board’s decision last week not to implement several non-binding motions passed by members at the 2025 AGM. One of those motions, relating to trans rights, has become the focal point of the controversy.
The board stated the motion “sought to impose creative direction on parade participants in a way that is inconsistent with our established application process.”
Pride in Protest described the decision as anti-trans, accusing the Mardi Gras board of transphobia.
It was subsequently claimed that the board had locked Choo and Nguyen out of their official Mardi Gras email accounts following emails that expressed support for the trans rights motion.
In emails seen by Gay Sydney Daily, Nguyen used his official Mardi Gras email account to support the motion, stating: “I cannot speak on behalf of the board, and so this response is made in an individual capacity.”
Gay Sydney Daily saw no evidence that this email resulted in Nguyen being locked out of his account.
A Mardi Gras spokesperson said, “Any suggestion that access to official Mardi Gras email accounts may be restricted on the basis of views on trans rights is completely false.”
However, the situation prompted Delisle and Pavlich to file censure motions against both Choo and Nguyen.
In a statement, the co-chairs said the decision was based on the use of official board email accounts to campaign against board decisions.
“These email accounts exist solely to support directors in carrying out their governance responsibilities,” Delisle said.
“Using them for campaigning or advocacy against the organisation crossed a clear governance boundary.
“That boundary applies to all directors, regardless of who they are or what cause they support. Upholding it is about protecting the integrity of the organisation, not silencing anyone.”
The censure motion against Choo sparked further controversy after the formal notice used incorrect pronouns, referring to her as he/him rather than her correct pronouns of she/they.
The motions against Nguyen and Choo are identical.
Choo said the treatment was demeaning but consistent with her experience on the board.
“Having been on the board for less than two months, I have been called a man, locked out of my emails, chastised for communicating with members on the issue of transgender rights, and now threatened with censure,” she said.
“Despite the co-chairs’ degrading treatment, I will never give up my commitment to members’ decision on trans justice and equality.”
The co-chairs have since apologised. Delisle said the apology was made directly to Choo.
“We sincerely apologise for the misgendering of Luna Choo in an internal document,” Delisle said. “We have apologised directly to her, corrected the record, and correct pronouns or gender-neutral language will be used going forward.”
Despite the apology, Choo has proceeded with the censure motions against the co-chairs. Under the organisation’s rules, any director may move a censure motion at any time.
