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.

Let's go the other way.
Do you think what she says is acceptable to all in the Liberal Party? Do you think most Liberals thought she shouldn't have been expelled? Do you think journalists reporting on the controversy are being deliberately misleading?

Personally I don't think her previous career has any bearing on whether she was an appropriate person for Deeming to be "mentored" by in relation to this case. She's a journalist now, which generates a risk to credibility.

Deeming has quite poor judgement at best.

And for this to work, Messinabloom would have to answer the questions I asked on the previous page.

Because, I have pointed out that some 'beliefs' that the poster has stated as being outside the Liberal Party's acceptable beliefs have been right in line with a past Liberal party Prime Minister and is in line with the current Australian Opposition Leader.

So, your question requires the very clarification that I have sought.

It reminds me a bit of the Hancock/Oakshott debacle to be honest. Huge error of judgement.

No I am asking your opinion. Mess is irrelevant to it. Maybe answer someone else's questions for a change

What part of my opinion is relevant here.

I am not a member of the Liberal Party. Why should my opinion about whether she is too extreme matter to this discussion? Hence why I have pushed to find out whether the views of the poster involved have been supported in any way.

"Do you think most Liberals thought she shouldn't have been expelled?"
I do not have enough information to make an informed opinion about this. Do you? Does anyone?

And if they do, please link it to the thread.

"Do you think journalists reporting on the controversy are being deliberately misleading?"
Considering most journalists seem to now be opinion led reporters, I would consider this to be highly likely. Hence attempting to check original source content to ensure that we are getting the full context.

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.

Of course. I fully accept that you're not prepared to do so as is your prerogative and therefore I believe you can't back up your smears against Deeming. Have a good day.

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.

Indeed. If people can't explain and back up their arguments I give no credibility to them.

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.. Bollocks. I have interests that I follow same as anyone else. Similar to your deep interest in the nuance of the Equality Act/GRA. Following an interest =/= trawling the Internet

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. bollocks. I'm aware of the case because I follow what KJK is up to. I follow a lot of court cases and a lot of GC court cases because I find the different perspectives fascinating.
This line again is like a TRA saying "it's plain to everyone your interest in GC issues is because you are a bigot". It's ridiculous hyperbole. "Everyone" is nonsense. Humans aren't a hive mind.

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 bollocks. Other posters claimed that any controversy around MD was because she is GC. I pointed out some other controversial opinions she has. Being openly pro-life is controversial. That's just a fact. She can have what ever beliefs she likes, in a free society I have the right to criticise them.

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.
Bollocks. I'm pretty much the only person who's even raised anything about the trial on the thread. I'm happy to discuss what's being said in the trial, in fact I've said several times I want to. Noone else seems to be interested.

Stop presenting your erroneous opinions and assumptions as facts and it'll be a much nicer thread for everyone.

Interesting. So you are saying people can't express an opinion unless they are an expert? And you are happy to castigate criticise mess and myself for saying she's controversial, yet not comfortable to say she's not controversial.

You didn’t ask me if I thought she was controversial.

You didn’t ask me if I thought she was controversial.

All women who believe in biological sex and speak out about it in politics, government etc are "controversial" I would say. Rosie Duffield is controversial.

You could say that. And I would agree that in the current political climate any politician who is vocal about women’s rights might well be described as controversial by any person who thought that was something the politician should not be doing. Controversial is a judgemental term and it is entirely subjective.

YY, I agree.

Context Cassie, this is about a Let Women Speak event and the fact that some people don’t like them to go ahead. So some people are trying to imply that the event organisers are aligned with Nazis.

You can deny this all you like but we can and do join the dots.

🙄

“So you are saying people can't express an opinion unless they are an expert?”

No where have I said this.

You accused me of several things recently, one of them was straw manning when I was not. However, this is you building a strawman right here.

In numerous posts I have said personal opinions are perfectly appropriate to express. It is sometimes customary to show it is just your opinion by writing things like ‘in my opinion’, or even ‘I think’ or ‘I believe’. When a personal opinion is questioned as to what it is based on and clarity is sought, it is also up to the opinion holder to declare it is a personal opinion only or to post links to support it.

Links were provided but they did not support the claim. Nor did the claim work logically with what has been discussed or with previous knowlesge of posters on the thread. So further clarification was sought.

Your assumptions are not my problem.

I'm asking questions in the same way you do of others, then repeating back my observations in the same way you do of others. Not nice to be on the receiving end of, is it?

The strategy on the thread has been "prove exactly why you think she's controversial including exact lines of documents, links and sources" followed by "you clearly think politicians shouldn't be pro life or religious, you have an agenda".

A better strategy might be "yes Deeming could be seen as controversial because XYZ but I believe that's unfair because of ABC reason".

Quite. It's probably better all round if you just stop.

Let women speak -

oh no not that one 🙄🤣.

I have to say, it was a genius move to call it let women speak.

Do you think what she says is acceptable to all in the Liberal Party?

Is anything every single politician says acceptable to all politicians within their party and all the members of that Party?

Your constant contradicting of yourself and moving of goalposts on this thread is truly epic.

Why don't you just come out and say it - you don't like KJK, you don't like Moira Deeming, they shouldn't speak, it's all their own fault if they get defamed (and worse), they don't fit on your purity scale. Just be honest for once.

😂
Lovely

Yes I'd say my position has remained consistent. Not sure that's a bad thing. I would hope there is room for a plurality of views in the GC tent.

The sheer irony of this comment from you Cassie if off the scale.