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.

Yes. It is defamation. There is no argument about that.

Are you trying to tell me that you believe that no Liberal Party MPs and candidates have personal beliefs that do not support abortion for themselves, but that understand that other women have that right and should keep it?

Because that is what the post you quoted here is talking about. I think you are rather unrealistic there considering how until recently the churches were heavily involved in Australian politics.

But besides that, how is her respecting other women’s decisions to have abortions and not campaigning to remove that right in any way as a Liberal Party parliamentary member not her acting within the ideological boundaries of the Liberal Party. It seems you insist that each Parliamentary member must be a replica of the ideal member.

But that is never how Australian politics have worked. Both the main parties have factions that come to power with different views while working roughly in the same economic and government power model.

You keep making things up.

You reference things that are the opposite of your claims.

The only question of her 'views' were your own and false.

The reason we have to keep questioning people that do this is precisely because they will get quoted, requoted, blown out of all proportion and used 5 years down the line to 'prove' that another woman is 'X or Y' when there is zero evidence.

Please stop it. It puts women in actual danger.

The high likelihood of violence from the counter-protesters. In this case, the TRAs.

I was wondering when the deletions would start.
Makes a change that it wasn’t one of my posts.

Oh. Thanks. Yes. They were all expecting the protestors, hence the police did a pretty good job. Except for letting in the Nazis.

Does anyone know what official reason Pesutto/Victorian Libs gave for kicking Deeming out of the party?

Today Deeming said that she thought that the protest was a third strike against her remaining in the Libs. Does anyone know what the first two strikes were?

Yes as I remember the TRAs were apparently punching the police horses at one point.

@Helleofabore

’That’s never how Australian politics have worked’

It’s never how any politics have worked. His is mindful of how Kate Forbes was treated in Scotland for being Christian and having beliefs on abortion. Can’t have women having the wrong beliefs, can we? Men believing that men can be woman is absolutely fine though.

I can’t stand the hypocrisy.

And I am 100% pro choice.

But this idea that members of a political party must have personal views that align on every issue 100% of the time is astonishing. That’s just not realistic (or desirable).

Punching Victorian police horses seems to be quite popular for protestors. One day a horse is going to fight back and stomp on someone, or kick them, or bite. There were anti-war protests about a week ago in Melbourne and the horses were attacked.

I hear you. I vote in the UK right at the moment and I would agree it is similar in that there are variations within the main parties. Or really any parties.

One day a horse is going to fight back and stomp on someone, or kick them, or bite.

I'd have to find my very tiniest violin. 🎻

No. The idea is if you have a high profile job you do due diligence on people you are publicly supporting

Deemings response to that isn't that she did the due diligence and decided to go ahead anyway. It's that she didn't do the due diligence at all.

I think that is an issue for a politician regardless of whether or not you agree with their politics.

And I think pointing out that someone hasn't done due diligence, with examples of what was easily available if they did, is how I would deal with that too.

You misunderstand me.
2 mins on the Internet would show that TRAs would call anyone at a KJK rally a nazi. In fact Deeming commented on posts to that effect before the rally. Therefore she knew it was a possibility and it's strange to me she's trying to blame Pesutto for that bit of it.

As far as I'm aware KJK has not appeared as a guest on any TRA podcasts and been friendly with them.

Expressing an opinion is not "making things up"
2 seconds on Google will show that Moira Deeming is controversial. Just because you like her and her policies doesn't mean they aren't controversial.

Blimey. People seem to struggle to understand the difference between fact and opinion on here, a lot.

Listen to the audio, it explains. It sounds like she got a lot of media coverage following her maiden speech and something on IWD that the party felt she didn't handle well, and that she hadn't made the necessary changes they asked her to.

So the threat of protesters slandering them should shut women up?

I see.

So people’s abusive tactics of wrongly calling women Nazis and bigots should mean that no woman should speak at a women’s rights rally.

Good to know that politicians should never attend any event of any meeting where someone might use such abusive tactics. That is rather limiting their public appearances then.

It's not "hypocrisy" for people to expect the person who is their proxy in government to represent their views. And it's not "hypocrisy" to challenge views one doesn't like.

As a feminist, I would never vote for a pro life politician and I would consider someone expressing pro Life views and getting involved in those campaigns to be harmful to women. In the same way as I'd express my views about politicians campaigning on a TWAW ticket, or endorsing a sex offender for POTUS.

I'm not sure my post was worthy of 'stupid face' emoji, but the unnecessary rudeness aside, the argument is that she wasn't careful enough about being seen with Nazis. On that basis, the due diligence expected would have to have been: finding out whether Nazis would turn up. Whether or not she did the due diligence, the issue is that had she done so, and found out that Nazis had previously turned up, what could she have done?
With knowledge that Nazis have turned up in the past, she could go and hope that the police - being equally aware of the risk - would do their job; or she could not go. Not going would have meant giving up her right to attend a legal public gathering, which I consider a form of silencing.
Therefore the point I am making is that if women are expected to do this, they are effectively being silenced. Which happens to be what TRAs want, what captured govts and organisations like the police want, and also I would think what Nazis want (not being known I don't think for their feminism).

Oh for gods sake. If a Green MP went to a "Just Stop Oil" protest where protestors threw paint on a landmark, I'd expect them to a) get a pasting from the press and social media and b) to have weighed up that could happen and done it anyway, accepting the consequences.

That doesn't say anything about my views on just stop oil, the green MPs or anything else.

You are constructing a false equivalence there.

I do think that you might find yourself happier in an authoritarian regime where anyone who doesn’t hold acceptable (to you) beliefs is reported and publicly shamed.
This is my opinion based on your posts.

I have no doubt you will have this post deleted. Because it’s unacceptable to you which will somewhat prove my point.

It's confused face. A standard MN emoji
I am confused. But not very interested in a fight so you do you and I'll try my best to avoid using emoji that might trigger you in future.

It is hypocrisy to constantly trawl the internet to shame women who believe that women should have the right to speak whilst not doing the equivalent to men who would have them shut up.

It also doesn’t meet my standards for feminism.

It's not "hypocrisy" for people to expect the person who is their proxy in government to represent their views. And it's not "hypocrisy" to challenge views one doesn't like.

How is Moira Deeming not representing the views of her constituents? You take issue with a personal belief she holds a belief she has no intention of acting upon against the democratic wish of those she represents.

I bet there is not a single politician who holds the exact same beliefs as you.

I would also bet that some of Moira Deeming's constituents hold the same personal belief as her.