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.

I'd say that author is doing exactly what I'd characterise as "Trump derangement syndrome" - being so triggered by any criticism that its easier to attack the critic as "deranged" than engage with the point being made.
It's the polarisation of the Internet I guess. Real shame its getting increasingly hard to have conversations.

"Derangement syndrome" has a meaning. You can't just change it to suit your purposes.

That might be why it's getting harder to have conversations, maybe?

This thread shows why I report people.

Ah, so that is why my post pointing out a link between you and posts about KJK was removed.

It is quite obvious when you see it.

“She should have done more to offset her abuse.”

No worries. And of course people opposed to Trump etc also like to say "well acksherly yoooure the deranged ones not us", but that's not what it means.

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"

@CassieMaddox From above, you stated that Deeming was warned that she would be labelled as a Nazi. Who warned her? When?

I mean, I've never started threads about you under multiple user names, like you do to other people.

When you do that, you say it is 'calling people out'.

When we mention that you do it, it is 'beyond ridiculous'.

I’d quite like to go back to the facts of this , does anyone know if Deeming was offered a settlement like KJK was or is that privileged information if she refused (as it would be here?)

Did KJK receive a settlement, has that ever been confirmed?

Pesutto apologised to both KJK and Angie Jones. I posted it earlier on the thread. As to financial settlement, that I don't know.

A settlement doesn’t have to be financial (although sometimes it is) , it can just comprise an apology and retraction of the defamatory statement. The terms are often private. If it is not accepted then the offer of the settlement is often not disclosed.

I have no idea if a financial settlement was offered to KJK , its unlikely unless a financial loss occurred but it’s possible.

Sorry if I’ve caused confusion.

Thanks often such apologies are to prevent a claim. So amount to a settlement of the proposed claim in the event that KJK and Jones proposed legal action.

It is highly unlikely that a unilateral apology will have been given if no threat of a claim arose.

do you have any information about the circumstances that led to those apologies, as it’s unlikely they will have been given randomly , especially in the knowledge of the looming defamation case?

I've had 2 usernames in the last 3 years so that is also a ridiculous thing to say 😂

do you have any information about the circumstances that led to those apologies, as it’s unlikely they will have been given randomly , especially in the knowledge of the looming defamation case?

KJK definitely and I think also Angie Jones initiated legal proceedings against him. He settled with them.

@Helleofabore

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.

There are absolutely many factions that exist within the parties. It is telling though that Deeming didn't seem to fit within any of them - not even the ultra-conservative National Right faction. This faction is led by Dutton.

Of course each Parliament member can't be a replica of each other; the factions demonstrate that. I meant that, broadly, I expect MOP to act within mandates. I don't expect someone elected on a climate change ticket (Greens) to begin disseminating climate change skepticism, for example.

@AlisonDonut

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.

What are you even talking about?

The issue is that as a state MP, the current leader of the state party for the Liberal Party (ie either the Premier or the leader of the opposition) sets the tone for that state’s Liberal Party under the way it works. So, sadly, that is where the power over expulsion sits.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to say ‘she doesn’t even fit the extreme right as either the federal leadership or another state’ because she has been expelled from one state. And Dutton cannot overturn the expulsion. Obviously, if there was a closer relationship between federal and state, pressure could be applied. However, you can see so far from
quotes just how tense the relationship is between Victoria and federal.

Moira Deeming has several federal Liberal MP’s who have been listed as her personal referees. Obviously there are Victorian state Liberal Party MPs on that list as well.

What is also important to note here is that when Pesutto claimed the leadership position, he had a majority of one vote in Victoria state. Therefore, even now his leadership is at risk. And if the leadership changes, then she might fit that faction‘s profile perfectly.

Hence my point about who exactly considers her ‘on the edge’ of Liberal Party values. Currently, the rumours in the party are that Pesutto will be pressured to resign from Opposition Leader if he loses here. It could well be that in the near future that Deeming’s personal beliefs and her political mandates will be seen as fitting the profile of the leadership faction.

It is not uncommon in either of the two major parties to be an active member of the one of the Churches, particularly Catholic. As I said upthread (unless I deleted it) Albanese was very involved with the Catholic church growing up. And it was the Irish trade unionists who were very much a huge part of the early ALP. And let’s not forget Abbot.

All this discussion about Deeming being ‘extreme’ in her views needs to be supported by evidence. And if you personally choose to ask your candidates about all their personal beliefs, that is your prerogative. However, don’t forget that even sitting MP’s can leave the party they were members of when they were elected. Hence my other point that as a voter, I vote for the candidate’s stated priorities, including local initiatives not the party.

Sorry about the edit. My browser edition on my phone kept glitching and switching to edit mode. Then it posted itself while I was still typing, so I edited it.

Pretending that you have no idea how making unsubstantiated claims about a woman's 'extreme' views can be used whilst on thread about a court case that used unsubstantiated claims about a woman's extreme views that put her and other women in actual danger of violent men is quite a take.

But completely expected.

What is significant also is that all this sparpling about her being ‘on the edge’ of the Liberal Party as you put it, and ‘controversial’ as another poster put it, is in part irrelevant.

It was Moira Deeming’s active campaigning for the rights of women and children to be prioritised and to raise awareness of the issues women and children face that has obviously been a concern of that leadership team at that time. This is shown in that meeting.

It can be argued that the opening statement from Pesutto, that they supported these issues, in that meeting was false. Because when the discussion moved onto the ‘two incidents’ mentioned upthread, those incidents were the first speech and the IWD speech, Crozier, the mentor, kept repeating about how she had tried and tried and tried to advise Deeming to tread carefully around those issues. Ie. A direct contradiction to Pesutto saying ‘we support your views on women’s rights’.

To be clear, some of the team may personally support the views, but they don’t politically at this time. And by attempting to tell Moira Deeming that this was strategically inconvenient to them, they are actively contradicting all the other statements saying they ‘support’ her.

The issue was that Moira Deeming’s personal interest area was inconvenient timing wise for the overall Leadership team’s strategy for winning the next election. Again, the meeting was very focused on this. It was all about how Moira’s speeches were very inconvenient to the team’s strategy.

The issue for Pesutto, who is seen as rather left leaning compared to the other states and federally, was not her other personal views on other issues. These remain vague accusations by messinabloom who has tried to claim these extreme positions but didn’t list what they were. Or her being a ‘controversial politician’ because of her personal views on abortion which have been clearly stated as being personal views that she then respects and fully supports women’s right to choose for themselves as an elected member.

And it can be shown that her stance on abortion has not even been an issue for the leadership team. Because Deeming was being mentored by Crozier, an ex midwife by the way, and had been given the role of whip. Deeming was selected and had been given active roles in the party while that leadership team was fully aware of her other personal views that she had BEFORE pre-selection.

So, all this discussion about her other views can be only considered as poster’s personal opinions about Moira Deeming. Or the opinions of reporters such as from the Guardian. And those opinions are absolutely great to express.

However, they need to clarified that they are personal opinions of posters and reporters who are expressing their own personal and moral judgements. And that those personal opinions are not the opinions of leadership of either entity of the state or federal Liberal Party.

“Deeming was selected and had been given active roles in the party while that leadership team was fully aware of her other personal views that she had BEFORE pre-selection.”

And was given these opportunities as a very freshly elected member of state parliament, it needs to be noted.

“Of course each Parliament member can't be a replica of each other; the factions demonstrate that. I meant that, broadly, I expect MOP to act within mandates. I don't expect someone elected on a climate change ticket (Greens) to begin disseminating climate change skepticism, for example.”

And cycling back to this, and your claims about Moira Deeming. Can you now list what beliefs you, personally, believe that she has that puts her on the edge of party.

By which I am referring to this post

“Those are some of the reasons Deeming was 'on the edge', so to speak. She was already operating barely within the confines of her party rules.”

Do you believe that Moira Deeming was acting within her mandate?

What are these beliefs that you believe put her on the ‘edge’ of the Liberal Party?

Because you referred to the meeting notes which don’t give the clarity that you seem to think they should. I am not the only one asking you to list or copy and paste where you think she deviates so I assume I am not the only one confused.

Are you confusing the Victorian Liberal Party Leadership election strategies for their policies and beliefs? Or was there something else in that meeting that was supporting and clarifying what you have been trying to say.

Because that meeting was a mess of inconsistencies and contradictions. If you had said that Moira Deeming was acting contrary to the Victorian Opposition Leadership team’s election strategic plan, yes. Plainly from that meeting she is. But of course, that strategic plan is not guidance to the personal beliefs that are acceptable in elected members of the Liberal Party.

For people who are interested in what is actually being said in court, there are some people live tweeting.
This person on thread reader - the interpretation likely to be biased as you'll see but the main events are being tweeted.

Doesn't look like it's going well for Deeming. The data "expert witness" in particular looks like a shitshow

https://threadreaderapp.com/user/crazyjane13