In Australia - Moira Deeming defamation trial now on

[TheSandgroper]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/moira-deeming-john-pesutto-defamation-trial-day-two/104360100

This is from our very TRA ABC. Please note the comment from “Mr Southwick, a Jewish MP re Angie Jones’ tweet”. Well, Angie Jones is as Jewish as they come but they don’t say that.

Also, for, those who don’t know, see Angie on m.youtube.com/@TERFTalkDownUnder, though she hasn’t posted for a while. Some really good interviews.

https://archive.is/BvNiy

Here you are

I I think its completely reasonable to describe KJK as having links to the extreme right. Thats why people get so annoyed with me on here, because I wont be bullied out of saying that.

I know less about Jones but the tweet they talked about was pretty offensive, she has acknowledged that.

I'll be interested in the judges views. I'd prefer to be challenged on my opinion that it's reasonable to say she has links, than random posters saying "you know that's not true" without engaging with the evidence.

Did you read the articles describing her as a controversial politician, or are you just arguing black is white for fun?

If you say so Cassie

Anyway. I'd prefer to discuss the case on this board where people who follow it are likely to be, but I can see it might be more productive elsewhere.

Helpful, thanks

You get damages for defamation not because someone said something untrue, but because other people then believe it and write articles calling you ‘extremist’ and people on chat boards draw others attention to those articles…

I don’t think that article is at all balanced if your overriding purpose is to paint KJK/ LWS as Nazi adjacent & Deeming/ Jones by association 🤷‍♀️

Yes. But I'd argue the social media posts from before the event (and the reams of posts about KJK here and on Twitter) shows that would happen anyway and is not the consequence of any statements pesutto made.

Good points 🤣👍

It lays out the main wins and losses of both sides in the case so far and was a helpful summary I thought. Hence, balanced.

I can imagine for people wedded to their own version of events it would be challenging to read.

The Guardian article?

Or was there others you want to specify? Because the other article you linked called the person she replaced 'controversial' and Katherine Deves used the phrase for Deeming sarcastically there as well.

If you choose to repeat a phrase used by a reporter for The Guardian, fill your boots.

I have not told you that you cannot express any opinion you wish.

Lots of suggestion that women you don’t approve of could have behaved better. Little scrutiny of the actions of the men trying to damage their reputation & a bit of discussion about the length of the case and procedure.

I didn’t find it challenging but I didn’t think it was balanced either .

This article is a blueprint of how to shut down people with views you don't like.
The idea is that MD should have been more 'curious' about who might attend (ie gatecrash) the rally, because of who had attended rallies before.
So basically if a bunch of neo Nazis go to the first rally, you can't apparently have a second rally in case they turn up again. Cos that makes you nazi-adjacent.
That argument, added to the apparent inability of the police to do their job and deal with neo Nazis, might perhaps show an alignment of interests between TRAs, said neo Nazis and the state.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist so I won't say that that alignment is created in a smoke-filled back room. But alignment of interests it certainly is.

No one knew the National Socialist Network would come to the rally. And not one woman attending that rally would have expected the Victorian Police to allow those men into close proximity to the women's rally.

The other major issue about this recorded meeting is that it also proves that Pesutto and the other four people did not give Moira Deeming the dossier before hand. And expected her to just take what was in the dossier and their own interpretations as being correct.

Surely, a better approach would have been to provide her the information beforehand to discuss at the meeting. In this way, it can be described as an ambush.

KJK has a close association transactivist - they turn up at nearly all her rallies.

Yes. The logic is staggering.

See she is a nazi as reams of posts on here say it.

Reams of posts that I instigated. See I was right.

I am as gender critical as they come but…..

@Helleofabore

Sure, you can believe that all you want. However, you don't seem to know much about Australian politics. You call her a 'controversial politician' on the back of her beliefs, which you disagree with. But she has stated clearly that these are personal beliefs and she is not acting on them as an elected politician. She was elected by her constituents who didn't have to look far to find out what her personal views are on topics.

It could be argued whether she is a feminist or not with that view. Have at it. But controversial as a politician? I don't think that having a personal view and not acting on it as a representative member makes her a controversial politician. Obviously, you have a different opinion as an outsider to Australian politics and you are welcome to express it.

I find it difficult to believe that her personal beliefs do not colour her professional life. She joined the Liberal Party, not the Labor Party, for its policy platform. Not everything would be a perfect fit, of course, but in general, members of the Party espouse those policies. In my constituency, I expect the elected member of Parliament - particularly one I voted for - to act within the ideological bounds of that Party. Deeming perhaps was not doing that.

However, the case is defamation, not wrongful dismissal.

Why was my post deleted?

Absolutely no idea!

The state leader of a political party commenting on something holds a hell of a lot more weight with the general community than some social media posts. Of course Pesutto commenting made a difference to how people perceive Deeming.