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.

Just because you like her and her policies?

I have no idea what her policies are. I don't care what her policies are. You are like a 12 year old who gets any posts you don't like deleted whilst spending years building up a database using multiple user names calling one woman a nazi.

You really are a sad sack.

“And that's impossible when posters like you come back with "so you think women should be called Nazis and Bigots for attending an event".”

Talking of strawman!

Yeah? Nah!

I asked you whether it should be supported that a female politician or woman who wanted to attend an event should allow herself to be silenced and not attend the event by abusive activists who declare that just attending an event means they can continue to abuse her by mischaracterising her political alignment. Because that is a very effective silencing tactic to be used by activists and by weak political party leadership.

You have implied at the very least, I think stronger, that you agree with the Pesutto team and Moira Deeming should have known she would be abusively labeled as a Nazi (even without the NSN turning up) so she should not have attended. Is this correct?

“*Just because you like her and her policies?”

“I have no idea what her policies are. I don't care what her policies are.”

It has become this tribal refrain being used again and again.

“You are like a 12 year old who gets any posts you don't like deleted whilst spending years building up a database using multiple user names calling one woman a nazi.”

The tactic does come across as being absolutist. It is the old feeble ‘if you are not 100% in support of me, you must be 100% against me’.

When the reality is that some of us agree on some things some women say, and disagree on others, but will defend the right for that woman to speak how she wants if she is not harming someone. If Moira Deeming was actively campaigning to remove abortion rights in Australia or Victoria, it would be a completely different discussion. But she is not and has said that she won’t.

I believe this the the ‘second incident’ just for reader’s reference.

Those speeches are both really good!

With respect to your first para, not necessarily. Ownership of a reputational damage risk will sit with the organisation involved not the police.

The risk of Nazis being at the event was the polices to manage, yes.

In recent decades, I’ve seen Bush-derangement syndrome, Obama-derangement syndrome, Clinton-derangement syndrome, and Trump-derangement syndrome in American politics.

In the UK, I’ve seen people be equally paranoid and absolutist about Blair and Johnson and Brexit and Covid. As people get more tribal about their politics, and see their politics as an extension of their personal identity, they become unable to recognise or accept nuance.

On Mumsnet, I’ve now experienced Kellie-Jay Keen-derangement syndrome and JK Rowling-derangement syndrome. It’s fascinating 🤔

It's an interesting concept that you've pulled out of thin air. Honestly. Politicians can hold whatever views they like. I reserve the right to criticise them when I disagree (e.g. on abortion). That's healthy democracy.

😂😂😂😂

That is so beyond ridiculous it is hilarious 😂
Building up a database, whatever 😂

This thread shows why I report people. Bullying and name calling off the scale. The opposite of "free speech" and "objective analysis".

Isn't it?

Maybe it is the forced voting in Australia where if you resorted to only ever voting for a party that fit your nominated 'x%' on the ideal scale, you would probably never cast a legit vote. Which would be counter productive considering that since everyone has to turn up, there is more chance that you will get a representative that you oppose the most and you wasted your vote deliberately. And because it is not first past the post, this is just another aspect to consider. I found it made me a much more engaged voter.

I'm not reporting anyone so everyone can see the absolute ridiculousness.

All I want to do is to discuss the ins and outs of the case. A thread where the only perspective is "he defamed her" isn't really a discussion about a trial.

I asked you whether it should be supported that a female politician or woman who wanted to attend an event should allow herself to be silenced and not attend the event by abusive activists who declare that just attending an event means they can continue to abuse her by mischaracterising her political alignment. Because that is a very effective silencing tactic to be used by activists and by weak political party leadership.
I agree it's silencing and women shouldn't be exposed to it. I agree it unacceptably curtains women in the public eye and it's bullying tactics.

You have implied at the very least, I think stronger, that you agree with the Pesutto team and Moira Deeming should have known she would be abusively labeled as a Nazi Yes I do agree with this. It was a foreseeable outcome she was warned about so it's a bit odd she then was surprised when it happened. Even more odd her approach appears to be "I had no idea"

so she should not have attended. Is this correct? No. I think it was apparent to her that the decision to attend would have reputational consequences for her organisation. There's a whole lot of complexity there around employment and organisational requirements that are largely irrelevant but in a nutshell I think she could have foreseen that her attendance and the resulting reputational risk would be unacceptable to the party and she could have done more to mitigate that (such as, spoken to them about how to manage different scenarios in advance).

None of that (to me) is about gender, it's about political controversy. And to get to the point of the trial, I still can't see how he defamed her. Which is completely irrelevant to whether or not what happened to her on SM was OK. It's not.

It's not a black/white situation. It can be true that Pesutto didn't defame her and that she was treated badly.

I'm not 100% sure why I'm answering though as no doubt it will not lead to anything positive for me

So Shroedingers "she's being picked on for being GC" vs "I don't know or care what her policies are"

Not fully logical

On Mumsnet, I’ve now experienced Kellie-Jay Keen-derangement syndrome and JK Rowling-derangement syndrome. It’s fascinating

I know!

Yeah me too! KJK derangement syndrome definitely a thing. Like Trump derangement syndrome. Interesting to watch.

Just to clarify for any lurkers, this is what "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is. It's a tongue in check description used by right wing commentators of people who hate Trump. The use of it for other people such as JKR is applied to people who hate JKR, not people who like her.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-derangement-syndrome-20161226-story.html

"In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact. Life resembles a dark fairy tale in which the villain – Trump – is an amalgam of all the worst tyrants in history, past and present, while the heroes –Trump’s critics – are akin to the resistance fighters of World War II."

So if we apply it to KJK we can say that the socfem crowd have "KJK Derangement Syndrome". Not only do they hate her but they hate follow her too, like people who really hate Trump.

Makes a change.

Also proves that posts that were removed on the other thread were down to your reports so thread police was an accurate description. You called me a bully for calling you that on the other thread. You also said that Mumnet don’t take down posts because they’re asked to which is clearly misrepresenting the truth given the number of deletions on that thread and the lack in this thread because you are ‘not reporting anyone’ 🙄

Derangement is very apt whether it be KJK or Trump, thanks for clarifying the meaning Eresh as I would have assumed the opposite.

Well if every member of a party had to agree on everything then the role of the whip would be redundant I suppose.

There would also have to be a manifesto for everything with no deviation from said manifesto, but from the first few weeks of Labour in power here we can see that’s not really how things work can’t we?

Oh here we go again about the ‘opposite of free speech’ from the poster who…. Check notes …. constantly critically scrutinises the women who want to provide a platform for women to have free speech
whilst refraining from judgment of the men who seek to remove that platform.

Having posts that you don’t agree with removed, which you now admit is your normal modus operandi, also runs contrary to any normal interpretation of free speech.

You are making this up or must have me confused with someone else.

Oh Cassie, you don't just criticise Moria Deeming (a politician you can't vote for) for holding that personal view which she has repeatedly stated she will not make a political view you use it as a stick to beat her with, you have form for it.

You have implied at the very least, I think stronger, that you agree with the Pesutto team and Moira Deeming should have known she would be abusively labeled as a Nazi Yes I do agree with this. It was a foreseeable outcome she was warned about so it's a bit odd she then was surprised when it happened. Even more odd her approach appears to be "I had no idea"

Ah the She asked for it defence.