KJK suing Australian Liberals for defamation

And I point out that billabong has made all these claims based on what definition of ‘association’?

Yes, there is always a risk with a case like this. But the holes in factual truth in that dossier will render it lacking in credibility. They are already arguing from probably false evidence.

If Australia’s leading defamation law expert is representing Moira, why would anyone expect that KJK isn’t going to be benefit from that person’s advice either directly or indirectly? Based on a similar case standing? Considering the first part of Moira’s case depends on KJK being the one who ‘associates’ with someone?

I hope that she does but I still think that it is very risky to take the gamble. I think that the core difference at stake in the debate here is between those who trust the system and those who don't and generally I don't. You are focusing on the law and others are focusing on 'the system'.

No. I am not the ‘judge’.

I am also saying to Billabong that they have no examples from Australian law to back up any of her claims. I am saying there is a difference and that you cannot suppose that for defamation cases that any UK or USA case will be relevant.

If Australia’s leading defamation law expert is representing Moira, why would anyone expect that KJK isn’t going to be benefit from that person’s advice either directly or indirectly? Based on a similar case standing? Considering the first part of Moira’s case depends on KJK being the one who ‘associates’ with someone?

Celebs are untouchable in the USA 🇺🇸. Not so in Oz. So it won't help or hinder the case.

Barbie - and Ken - do look a bit Aryan come to think of it. Is this why people have made a quantum leap from ' this is a daft meme ' to ' she must hate Jewish people ' ?

Genuinely puzzled. After all she didn't invent the Nazi Barbie insult. Another knee jerk smear that would play better in the good ol' USA I think. Still , good luck to the Australian Liberal Party. They obviously pay little attention to Scottish politics.

Yeah, it’s long been known by we Black people that the justice system is corrupt. Those in power win. Truth isn’t what wins.

You are still talking about legal precedence being set for Australian law. You might be an expert on some things, but you haven’t seemed to have done the research into what is truth and what is false.

It is Australian Law that has to be considered. And Australian law differs between the UK law and the USA law. And this is a political party who did not look further than Wikipedia.

I am very happy to go through each and every accusation in that dossier. But if you were that worried, you would have done this yourself. Threads about it are very easy to find here. In fact, some of the accusations I have sent transcripts and links showing false hoods to Australia to be sent to relevant people back when Moira was being investigated. If I turned in a ‘dossier’ that was based on such falsehoods and lack of solid evidence at uni for an analytical report, my lecturer would have failed me. That ‘dossier’ was that fucking poorly evidenced.

We need you to be the judge then.

I think what BBGirl and Corgi are effectively saying is that there is a wide gap between law, courts, judges and justice and libel/defamation suites are always risky.

Honestly. If you are unsure, ask for the links and the transcripts and the analysis.

Where are you getting your information and legal analysis from? You have yet to produce one example of an Australian case that is relevant. So where are you drawing your analysis from?

You shape much of your posts as accusations. Not as questions.

And fuck, you are on a board where most of the posters on this thread and plenty who are not think that KJK has views and actions that that we don’t always agree with wholly but we still need to make sure that if she is being accused of something, it had better be the fucking truth and not just some lazy reporting and not just a bad faith regurgitation of something that is easily provable.

I am very happy to go through each and every accusation in that dossier. But if you were that worried, you would have done this yourself. Threads about it are very easy to find here. In fact, some of the accusations I have sent transcripts and links showing false hoods to Australia to be sent to relevant people back when Moira was being investigated. If I turned in a ‘dossier’ that was based on such falsehoods and lack of solid evidence at uni for an analytical report, my lecturer would have failed me. That ‘dossier’ was that fucking poorly evidenced.

I’ve just fully read all your questions and I have no answers, I am no expert on the Australian court system. I do know misogyny, racism and xenophobia though.

I know that in a justice system that what happens is that evidence is looked at and two sides tell a story. KJK will say yes she has been in the company of far right and neo nazi activists and yes she’s done an anti-Semitic Barbie joke but she is not associated with far right groups or neo nazi activists, that she there is no evidence she hold these views and here is why she happened to innocently end up in their company. Pesutto will tell his story and show I don’t know associations and links FBI style, I’m imagining the worst because I’m worried. And then the court will decide whose story best fits the evidence and how much it even gives the appearance of an association from a layman perspective as in a member of the public, or someone who doesn’t personally know KJK.

When it is he said, she said…how often do you think “Justice” sides with the truth vs what he said? How much misogyny would you say is in the justice system? When it is what a citizen politician said vs what a visiting foreigner said, how often do you think “Justice” sides with the truth vs power?

The Johnny Depp case, to me, is a good case where two courts in two countries presented with the EXACT same evidence and the EXACT same stories (excuse me testimony) came to the opposite ruling- wife beater in U.K. (also in a defamation case) and battered husband in the US. I mean, how does this happen? I think US ruling was misogyny. Sorry but I do.

So while I am no expert in the Australian court system, I dare to say I’m a bit of an expert in misogyny and xenophobia I fear these will negatively affect KJKs chances. Pesutto vs Deeming is a different dynamic because they are both Australian and so there is a bit of political popularity and face saving going on behind the scenes.

I know this isn't going to be popular, but I think KJK is taking a big risk with this libel action. I don't think she's got a particularly strong case, and if she loses it's going to be very bad for her and very bad for the movement in general. Libel actions are always risky, even when they seem open-and-shut - look at that poor man who sued Elon Musk for calling him "pedo boy". Musk won. That was in the US, of course, where the bar for proving libel is high, but it illustrates the pitfalls.

I’m just worried for her Helleofabore. Are we not allowed to be supporters of KJK and be genuinely worried for her and how this will go too? I wish I had your confidence I really do. One of the things I admired of KJK was her disdain for Marxist purity spirals and purity tests and her tenacity in getting the message out to every woman. She has spoken long and often about this and how right wing women are women with rights too.

I wish we knew definitively what specifically in the dossier are the lies? Or is the lie? The OP link admits to so much that it threw me for six tbh.

Remember Johnny Depp? Wife beater in the U.K. but battered husband in the US? The appearance of a thing can all go one way or another just by a nudge of perception or bias or let’s face it rank misogyny in a judge and this isn’t going to be a U.K. court KJK is making her case in. I don’t have the faith you do in the court system and I’m worried for KJK.

It’s a sad day when being worried means we turn on each other and question intentions.

”All of this is perfectly reasonable and innocent of course but as I said, mud can stick and pursuing a defamation case over this dossier, she may win but she’s going to get her name dragged even worse, these people play dirty. We know there is nothing they will not stoop to.”

There seems to be a disconnect here between your posts and your declared intention.

Either way.

”she’s going to get her name dragged even worse”

Please tell us why you think she will suffer worse than she already has?

Do you believe that the Victorian Liberal Party has something more to deliver? What can be worse than what happened in NZ?

What else do you think KJK has done that has not been examined and analysed by people supposedly supporting the same women’s rights and by people who violently oppose her?

The nuance is meaningless.

Honestly, why do you think a Federal Court Judge would consider rumour and falsehoods? And why do you think they will also consider a woman meeting with any Australian citizen with legally held views as being a 'nuanced difference' between 'her bad character' and 'that she associates with bad characters'?

They are not going to set Australian Law precedence based on what you are trying to tell us is somehow against the fucking law. This is not just about 'look at these pictures', this is setting Australian Law precedence based on a wikipedia entry!

"The US Proud Boy link may be problematic too as I understand that after Miami, they stayed in touch and once she was moving West and crowds got violent and she was in fear of her life that was also how she got her private armed security in her US tour via the Proud Boys stepping up. So it’s definitely an association when you are using your association with a Proud Boy to hire an armed security group to work for you."

Interesting.

Show us the proof of that please? That they 'stayed in touch'? Not that the security firm (and I believe it was a registered security firm) didn't contact her and offer their services?

Please show us that Barcenas had anything to do with the security firm. the evidence must be out there as you are here asserting it.

"And associate means keeps company with."

Could you please show how this works in Australian law. Do you have an example?

"you are on friendly terms and you are frequently seen in public together at events with similar aims, working together that sort of thing."

Please can you show the evidence that you feel gives any credibility to Kellie Jay Keen 'associating' with particular people? Or are you simply relying on the dossier.

Which shows absolutely no 'association' even with YOUR definition. It only shows one off interactions and one was denounced after she found out, and one was a selfie with an unknown man (and the dossier by the way was factually false as KJK didn't 'post the selfie' the man posted it

Please drill in and let's see your workings here.

In Australia? They are hate speech that an Australian jurisdiction can admit into a court proceeding for a foreign national where the foreign national was out side the country when they made the joke, however horrible?

Again, please post an example for where this has been allowed.

Really, you seem to be very confident about all this and it doesn't come across as just you being 'anxious' at all. Can you tell us what law experience you have please.

Thank you for the link.

I do remember seeing it either on twitter or from a friend who subscribes to The Australian. I don't subscribe to The Australian. I remember thinking it was a hastily thrown together and presented sheet that a student might put together.

However, whether I did or not, I and others have already discussed in depth every thing mentioned on that dossier. Because it was lifted from wikipedia.

I am very happy for instance to link up transcript of that falsehood about the 'big lie' and how it was reported. Would you like to see it? It wouldn't have taken the researcher any time at all to work out just what was said and that relying on Pink news as a source for anything is not ever going to be a worthwhile endeavour.

I also analysed the video footage of those men who somehow were let into the centre of the cordoned off area for the Melbourne rally. Would you like to know exactly how much time was spent by them antagonising the Vic Socialists before they moved anywhere near the women? I have posted it now on a few threads.

Everything there has been covered repeatedly on threads over the past years here.

Would you like me to post all the links to the threads where it all those accusations have been covered off, maybe you missed them. I am very happy to link it all up as it seems pertinent.

Well like it or not, Anti-Semitic nazi jokes are hate speech under the malicious communications act and are indefensible really. So while kudos to KJK for being truthful, the only smear is taking this and jumping to the conclusion she is a neo-nazi herself. It was still wrong of her to do it, and she’s admitted that, but it similarly it’s not wrong for people to be concerned by it or to wonder about someone who doesn’t know it’s not ok to make Nazi Barbie jokes.

People have literally gone to prison for online Nazi jokes, I’m shocked she has admitted to the Nazi Barbie profile thing. I was sure that was fake.

I don't see that it matters that some people may have been (very questionably) imprisoned for online Nazi jokes.

If you take something that is either obviously a joke, or likely a joke, and then use it as evidence to smear someone, implying that they have neo nazi links, then yeah your behaviour is malicious and negligent.

Except, Pesutto’s statement isn’t saying that she is of bad character, only that she associates with bad characters. Do you not see the nuanced difference?
The difference between being a thief and knowing a thief? The NZ entry review doesn’t bar on the basis of association alone, but it was her associations that brought her character into question.

Billabong girl

...would not the fact that her entry was debated and her character was questioned on the basis of her publicly known associations be a possible defence he could use to say his statement was substantially true?

He could try that, but as she was granted entry, it would fall flat, because if they had found that she was of bad character, or likely to be a threat to public order, she'd have been barred and deported.

@Helleofabore
Has the whole ‘dossier’ been published? Can you link it up please?
My first post on this thread was to the dossier for easy reference. Published afternoon 21 March 2023
here it is again
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Letter-of-Motion-regarding-Moira-Deeming-20-March-2023.pdf

Thought you’d read it, as that is what KJK is saying has defamed her. Bit surprised now that you’ve been posting so confidently on a subject of her having been defamed when you haven’t even read the source material that is the subject of her defamation law suit.

By the way associate merely means to keep company with, it doesn’t mean you have to also be guilty of a crime or guilty of collaborating to push out nazi/far right propaganda as you’ve been saying. A judge isn’t going to make any conclusions as to KJK’s views or political end goals, it’s going to be purely on whether or not Pesutto’s statements were or were not substantially true when he said what he said. If you read the dossier and then her letter she’s admitted that 99% of the stuff happened. So there’s no question that what he said the posts, the comments, the photos they are not faked. That’s true. KJK and her lawyers have admitted it.

So all that is left that might be defamation as in wretchedly false by my guess is the statement is where he says that *Ms Keen was known to be publicly associated with far right-wing extremist groups including neo-Nazi activists. *

And associate means keeps company with. And not, as a pp put it, in a way where Hells Angels show up, gate crash your birthday party, trash your house, threaten you and ride off into the sunset, but in a way where you are on friendly terms and you are frequently seen in public together at events with similar aims, working together that sort of thing. It doesn’t even mean that you are far right or a neo nazi or agree with those views they have yourself, just that you associate with them. He didn’t even say that she knowingly associates with far right and neo Nazis…so her defence of I didn’t know…well hmm…ok…might work for the first two..but what about some of the others.

And what about her now shown to be a months long Barbie Nazi Anti-Semitic joke? As one post in dossier is dated Jun and another Oct. On a public SM web site that’s not going to go well in her favour…you can’t generally get away with doing an anti-Semitic joke for months without becoming publicly associated with those sorts of groups even if you aren’t of that ilk yourself and you’ve done it out of anger and ignorance that it is anti-Semitic.

The US Proud Boy link may be problematic too as I understand that after Miami, they stayed in touch and once she was moving West and crowds got violent and she was in fear of her life that was also how she got her private armed security in her US tour via the Proud Boys stepping up. So it’s definitely an association when you are using your association with a Proud Boy to hire an armed security group to work for you.

All of this is perfectly reasonable and innocent of course but as I said, mud can stick and pursuing a defamation case over this dossier, she may win but she’s going to get her name dragged even worse, these people play dirty. We know there is nothing they will not stoop to.

Yes, I recall they did try to get NZ to bar her from entry. This article says they also argued the public safety angle as well as bad character:
https://theconversation.com/does-public-safety-trump-free-speech-history-suggests-there-is-a-case-for-banning-anti-trans-activist-posie-parker-from-nz-202118

As you say, the motion failed and KJK went on to NZ as she is not a bad character and she isn’t a danger to anyone, the only danger was to herself as she took great personal risk in going. As borne out by the fact that she was then assaulted and had to be speedily evacuated from a very terrifying, out of control and dangerous situation.

Again, though in terms of defamation, Pesutto didn’t put in print that KJK is a “bad character” he said she is publicly known to associate with “bad characters.”

The motion that was filed and was debated, in NZ asking to bar her entry failed because “guilt by association” is crap. But, if the public didn’t think she were associating with bad characters, then there wouldn’t have even have been a debate over her entry to NZ right? So when Pesutto put in his dossier that KJK is publicly known to associate with bad characters (far right, including neo Nazis), would not the fact that her entry was debated and her character was questioned on the basis of her publicly known associations be a possible defence he could use to say his statement was substantially true?

The Pesutto dossier and the motion to bar entry to NZ were roughly simultaneous from all I can see based on media reports- both hitting the news afternoon of 21 March 2023, but if the Dossier were released even hours before the NZ motion were filed I’d expect KJK’s lawyers to present as evidence to counter this potential defence that the NZ motion is part of the reputational damages that then led to her assault in NZ.

The timing is critical.

“That’s why it’s not really comparable though as world leaders have less choice in who they meet and negotiate with. Their meetings are also heavily scripted and witnessed”

Kellie Jay Keen is an activist, a women’s rights campaigner. Her interactions are usually live streamed and are available to all on the internet.

Saying a world leader has less choice is correct, however, they DO have a choice. You are missing the point in any case.

The point is that an activist who is determined to get their message to as many people as possible and not just to those they consider ‘worthy’ of their message, or those politically aligned with themselves. They will appear on media they don’t agree with, they will attend conferences as panelists where they are opposed to the organisers of the conference, or attend to listen to the speakers at the conference even those they abhor. And if they hold open mic rallies, they will abide by their own rules if they are also free speech advocates, and let even people who have opinions they don’t like speak.

A politician may also do this as they are effectively campaigning, similar to an activist, and will attend public meetings where other people speaking have opposing views, some of who have abhorrent views to some people (maybe even many people).

It doesn’t mean in any reasonable person’s view that they are ‘associated’ with that person.

You seem to be minimising Kellie Jay’s public activist / facilitator role which the Judges will be very well aware of. No doubt the team defending her will start to bring out numbers of speakers who are not ‘far right’ and make mention of some of their names. Names that seem to be continually forgotten in the rush to associate her with a few people believed to have these far right alignments.

And I say ‘far right’ but despite asking repeatedly for a list of what makes a political party ‘far right’ and proof that individual people are ‘far right’, there never has been that evidence provided.

I sure hope that is one of the things that KJK’s defense team get out there. Because we all too often see those, generally, repeating the accusations of who is ‘far right’ as not having proof the people they are labelling as ‘far right’ are ‘far right’ at all. And far out that is a whole heap of ‘far rights’!

“The dossier does have the catch all of “far right groups” so they’d probably be trawling for her association with Tommy Robinson and anyone questionable from her US tour to defend their case. They can sling tons and tons of mud in the hopes that enough will stick.”

The* *judges will look at how many rallies Kellie Jay Keen has held, the nature of the events, the wide range of people that speak at the events. By the way, you seem very focused on amplifying people from approaching ‘far left’s’ view of who is ‘far right’ as well. Have you noticed that?

Is there any proof of a connection with Robinson?

What ‘association’ do you speak about? The two people who filmed and uploaded the Brighton event from some group no one has heard about until people used it as a tool to build a fake ‘association’? One of them apparently knew Robinson, does Kellie Jay?

There has been not one mention of that group since either. And to put it in context, the rallies are also recorded and uploaded by a wide range of people for different purposes. What connection do the two people who did this at Brighton have to all the other people doing it?

Who is ‘questionable’ from her US tour? Apart from Barcenas, anyone else? How many speakers has she had from the far left? Do you think the federal court judge will look at those speakers too? If they consider just how many speakers she has had from the wide range of political views, what conclusion do you expect a Federal Court judge to draw?

How about that Kellie Jay Keen holds open mic rallies where anyone who is female can speak, even trans rights activists? And that occasionally a person who has right wing views speaks but is usually it is people speaking where their political views are not even mentioned.

It would be a very biased judge to put their career on the line over making such conclusions while the all other very public interactions Kellie Jay Keen has is not with extremists.

Has the whole ‘dossier’ been published? Can you link it up please?