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.

@lifeturnsonadime

Ok so you don’t think anyone male or female should have the right to talk if they hold beliefs that you disagree with?

is that what you think?

Again! Can you stop doing this?

its not very credible to claim to have gender critical beliefs when you constantly trawl the internet to find things about women who hold GC beliefs that you disagree with.

it is plain to everyone that your dislike of KJK motivates interest in this case , in fact you said so yourself earlier in the thread.

In this thread focus on Deeming appears based on religious and pro life personal beliefs that are not acceptable to you, even though she has said she will not act on those personal beliefs as a politician,

So yet again the bigger picture , that this is, a LWS event in the context of gender ideology causing real harm to females and children in Australia plays second fiddle to the fact that you want to focus on things that are irrelevant to the trial that is the subject of this thread.

So when you say GC women should welcome women of all beliefs into their fold I agree with you . I would take that to mean women like KJK and Deeming who want to prioritise GC beliefs despite holding different beliefs to me. I would be less interested in women who claim to be GC whilst focusing entirely on different things, I would start to doubt they are what they say that they are.

@Helleofabore

Peta Credlin is a lawyer who was an advisor to Tony Abbott. Her law speciality is constitutional law and she was a barrister before starting working as a staffer with Kay Patterson. You can be dismissive as much as you want of her career before she became a political commentator, but it is important that readers know who you are talking about.

She is also married to Brian Loughnane who was, I believe, the Liberal Party federal director for over a decade until around 2016 ish and is a career political strategist.

Not to take away from her own career, but I think that she probably has some insight into how the Liberal Party and Australian politics works.

I know who Peta Credlin is. Thank you for your Wikipedia copy and paste.

I agree.

I can't say that I have watched her all the much but I do know who she is, what her background is and who she is married to (because I also remember some kind of speculation about her relationship).

But... hey! Just a journo! Some random journo.

Stop doing what? Asking questions in a discussion forum?

Honestly beggars belief 🤣

@Codlingmoths

She is most definitely still very well connected, trying to argue anything else is just batshit.

I don't believe I was arguing anything else. I think you're being nit-picky.

I know who she is because I remember reading a lot about her and listening to the news about her when she was Abbot's advisor. I also knew some people who were working in the Liberal Party as staffers of other MPs at the time.

But thanks....

@Helleofabore

But... hey! Just a journo! Some random journo.

I didn't say random journo.

No. But I believe another poster did.

@MessinaBloom

Could you please clarify if these are the specific things that you are referring to in your accusations of her being 'on the edge' of being part of the Liberal Party?

This. Please do this, @MessinaBloom, I've already concluded that you are deliberately avoiding copying and pasting the exact words of text because it doesn't suit your argument, but surprise me. This is something people do when they don't have a strong argument, they point to a source off the page but don't say why exactly they think it makes their case for them. I generally try not to do this.

You know what, no. I won't be copying and pasting at request because you think I should, or you think it's deliberate. I've given the source, the pages, and the column. Have at it.

As for Helleofabore's list of questions, I won't be answering them, either. They'll only be picked apart and followed with another list of questions, so there's no point.

I really would like to engage on this board if wasn't so aggressive. I do find it to be more intellectually engaging than most, but the attacks - usually a number of posters at a time - are just too much.

You see, the thing I really like about this board is exactly the thing you don't like.

When you see people interviewed on the TV, or hear them on the radio, there's never enough drilling down. There's never enough counter argument which then gets addressed, providing another counter argument.

It's all far too shallow, superficial and soundbitey.

And then you get 'that's all we have time for'.

Here, people's arguments are completely exposed. And they are asked to be accountable for them.

Nobody is going to deny it can sometimes be uncomfortable, of course.

But to those reading or lurking, it's absolutely invaluable.

Bang on.

I've given the source, the pages, and the column. Have at it.

Asking you to clarify which words you are using to make accusations isn't an 'attack'.

Women get actually physically attacked after accusations such as this, and people can get jailed these days for 'extreme' views. So if you are making those accusations, you are the one that needs to back it up.

The fact that more than one of us is asking this, can be easily resolved by just either apologising and asking for your accusatory posts to be deleted, or just cutting and pasting the words that you have used to make this accusation with.

@AlisonDonut

Asking you to clarify which words you are using to make accusations isn't an 'attack'.

Women get actually physically attacked after accusations such as this, and people can get jailed these days for 'extreme' views. So if you are making those accusations, you are the one that needs to back it up.

The fact that more than one of us is asking this, can be easily resolved by just either apologising and asking for your accusatory posts to be deleted, or just cutting and pasting the words that you have used to make this accusation with.

It's a court document. My meaning of extreme views - and you know it - is views that did not fit within the confines of her Party. Not extremism. There's a difference.

And yes, it is an attack when multiple people ask for clarification, again and again like toddlers. And it isn't because they can't find the information. You just want the actual words so you can attack me with them.

The fact that more than one of us is asking this, can be easily resolved by just either apologising and asking for your accusatory posts to be deleted

And this shit is just laughable.

Referring to this as I know that these threads can get away and people don't remember what has been posted and why:

On Page 6 of this thread is the two page numbers that have been referred to as being illustrative of the point.

The Fin Review, unfortunately, won't allow me back. However, going back to one of the documents on the court record is illustrative - particularly pages 2 and 6 (third column).

Which was posted in request to clarify these statements:

"She'd likely become a bit extreme even for the Liberal Party" on 18/09/2024 12:55

"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." 18/09/2024 13:20

"What I've said is this: her views are such that they don't fit with the Liberal Party any longer. (These are easy to find, should anyone be interested.) The fact she is a woman isn't a factor here. She went outside the bounds of the party." 18/09/2024 14:11

"Deeming's views (IMO, and perhaps Dutton's) were starting to tip out of the Liberal party's threshold and into, say, One Nation territory." Yesterday 05:29

"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." Today 02:53

I would be happy to post the third column myself, except I don't know whether Messinabloom is referencing the autogenerated page numbers or the hard typed page numbers on the document.

However, I have read through the document now multiple times and I do not see anything in the document to support these claims. And particularly nothing at all about : "pro-life, climate skepticism, Covid skepticism, Trumpism".

As I have posted, after reading this document linked by the poster and listening to the audio, it is clear that the Victorian Liberal Party Leadership team, the attendees of that meeting which include Pesutto, Crozier, Pintos-Lopez, Bach and Southwick have been clear with Moira Deeming that they feel her actions have negatively impacted the Victorian Liberal Party election strategy. I mean, that is unmistakable that they think this.

At least one of them, Crozier, has stated that they have repeatedly discussed Moira Deeming's speeches on the negative impacts of prioritising gender identity above female people's sex based rights and children's needs as being something that negatively impacts that strategy.

Strategy.

Nothing about Moira Deeming's other beliefs or actions being outside the Liberal Party's beliefs. In fact, when you then consider what Moira Deeming has said and written, I would say that the repeated claims above really have no valid basis at all.

It is good for people to see there has been no evidence that directly or even loosely supports these statements above. Because at first, I thought I had missed something significant about the Liberal Party's membership. Hence, I have gone and checked.

You just want the actual words so you can attack me with them.

Asking for you to account for your argument isn't an attack.

It's an opportunity to refute your premise.

oh.

I just read this.

Oh well. Good to know. I see you are complaining about people challenging your claims. Are you saying that challenging claims to work out where the claims are coming from and what they are based on are attacks?

Do you expect to make claims on MN and not have them challenged on a public discussion forum? Or do you think that we should have just accepted your claims that she was extreme for the Liberal Party and that she would have been expelled for these views (which you have only just clarified which ones you had in mind) anyway?

All these posts claiming that they're being attacked.

You'd think it would be quicker just to, you know, copy and paste the bits MessinaBloom is relying on.

"My meaning of extreme views - and you know it - is views that did not fit within the confines of her Party."

And you have provided no evidence at all to support this view so we have to assume this is personal opinion.

Great. It seems you have a very different view of the Liberal Party to other Australians.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 00:15

Moira’s legal team is supervised by Patrick George who has written the textbook for Australian defamation law. I doubt that they would have recommended that she proceed to trial if they didn’t feel she had a good chance of winning.

That's very interesting, thanks.

I didn't say that. They are welcome but I'm not going to ignore or actively support pro life views.
That is irrelevant to them being GC. I can agree on some things and criticise on others.

Ok so you don’t think anyone male or female should have the right to talk if they hold beliefs that you disagree with?
is that what you think?

Unnecessarily hostile and a false dichotomy.
There is a middle option, I'm guessing it would be mess's pick, it is certainly mine.

They can talk. I can disagree. We can agree to disagree. That's how life works.

Disagreement =/= silencing, thinking someone has no right to speak etc. It is quite illuminating that's how you see it.