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.

No, you can speak. But I'm going to defend myself to your repeated nasty insinuations and snide remarks. I've tried reporting in the hope you'd back off; you made comments about "thread monitors". So I'm letting it stand now and trying a different approach.

If you don't want get into head banging conversations you need to stop wilfully misrepresenting me and goading me. If you carry on I will respond.

I'm not shutting you down at all but I would prefer it if you stopped with the snideness because I find it rude and unpleasant.

Agreed it’s certainly got the attention of the misogynists.

And the ‘feminists’ who don’t want the wrong sort of woman speaking.

Honestly Cassie I sometimes wonder about you. You have such a lack of self awareness it’s almost unbelievable. Almost like a parody.

Does it never occur to you that if so many posters query your intention that it might be something about either the way you post or what you post that we all struggle with?

I genuinely think there's a jealousy there.

KJK isn't constantly hamstrung by the desperation to be seen as one of the good guys. I doubt it crosses her mind.

And all the while, she's still promoting women. She's still giving them a platform to talk. Any woman. All women.

Yes. I ask questions. Then I make observations, usually with more questions to clarify if that is a fair observation or whether I have understood. That is how people gain understanding.

I don’t find people asking me to clarify or presenting informative and supported observations to be ‘not nice’. I find it informative and useful so that further discussion and information can be had.

“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".”

I have asked for evidence to support claims. And I have sought clarification when I have not found the references that another poster has found convincing to either say what the poster has claimed it stated or seems to not say anything like what has been claimed. Identifying exact quotes is part of evidence supported discussion is it not?

If a poster has declared that it is only their personal opinion and not based on expert opinion or fact, then that should be made clear. I and others reading post can then just disagree with the opinion.

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

” "you clearly think politicians shouldn't be pro life or religious, you have an agenda".”

Are you saying I have said this? Could you point out where I have said this?

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

You do you. If you want to use that strategy, fill your boots.

You need to consider the context of the conversation gail. Hell feels it was unfair to say Deeming was controversial in the party. I was trying to get her to express her opinion on why Deeming is not controversial.

People can of course be in whatever party they want but it is odd to be in a party and then act in a way that undermines that parties electoral success. It is the parties raison d'etre after all.

Why don't you just come out and say it - you don't like KJK yes, in my opinion shes toxic, harming the GC movement and harming the women who come into contact with her you don't like Moira Deeming Have no opinion on Australian politicians but the case is fascinating. If anything I think she's an unfortunate victim of KJKs toxicity they shouldn't speak they can speak all they like, I have a problem with people sharing a platform with far right extremists and amplifying their messages which is what KJK does it's all their own fault if they get defamed not proven Deeming has been defamed and I have not yet seen evidence she was. Pesutto settled with KJK for saying things that could be misunderstood, also not defamation I don't think (and worse) I dont think TRA agression is acceptable at all they don't fit on your purity scale. purity scales are for 5 year olds and I'm bored of hearing about it. The purity scale on this thread is on the GC side. I'm commenting on a trial - I'm allowed to do so, it's nothing to do with purity. Just be honest for once. I am being. I always am. You just can't take it because you disagree. So who is shutting who down?

No, I'm talking about the thread writ large regarding the pro life stuff, not you specifically.
If you read back you'll see you jumped very quickly to demanding "proof" of Deemings view. This isn't a court and some statements are an opinion and don't need proof. Similarly to your comments to me about softening language by using "in my opinion" you may want to read back and see how quickly the tone changed into demanding proof to back up someone's reasonable opinion. It is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of and if you want to learn about why people hold the views they do, it's an unproductive strategy.

Agreed and ifs hardly like any of the feminists who are constantly trying to badmouth her are even trying to provide an alternative platform.

I can’t imagine how that would work anyway? ‘You can only have the mike if you can prove you’ve never held any ‘controversial’ views’

And then look at the big picture, the only thing that women need to have in common is that we are adult human females facing up to a global threat coming from men trying to invade our words, our spaces , our sports , etc …

So sorry I find the holier than thou ‘feminists’ rather pathetic at this point. They are what is detrimental to the GC cause not KJK. They’re just too blinkered to see it.

No. Because its only on this board. Other people seem fine and happy to engage with me - occasionally (gasp!) I even get compliments. I got one from a Conservative voter on a politics thread yesterday.

I also get a fair amount of "thanks" from lurkers and PMs. So no, I don't think your characterisation is fair. It seems peculiar to a small subset of posters on this board. So that makes me think its not a "me" problem.

🤣 apart from the Socfems. The managerial class. Rosie Duffield. The receptionist and practice manager at her GP. The girls whose mastectomies she posts on her twitter. Lefties generally.

I'm not jealous of her. I recognise the hallmarks of a narcissist when I see them. And narcissists are worth avoiding because they destroy everything around them in pursuit of inflating their own ego.

Anyhow. Does anyone have anything to say about what's been presented so far?

I'm not sure Pesutto will appear. I think his team might decide the risks are greater than the benefits.

“Hell feels it was unfair to say Deeming was controversial in the party. I was trying to get her to express her opinion on why Deeming is not controversial.”

FFS.

This seems a weird mischaracterisation of what I have said on this thread. There is a disconnect here that I am not understanding.

“I was trying to get her to express her opinion on why Deeming is not controversial.”

You haven’t asked me whether Moira Deeming is controversial in my recollection. You have stated that YOU believe she is. And you stated it was your opinion and I think it has been pretty much left at that.

“Hell feels it was unfair to say Deeming was controversial in the party.”

I have spent pages saying that in relation to the Liberal Party membership, the points raised by a different poster have not stood up to even basic scrutiny or reasonable interpretation. The poster made the claim numerous times and tried to support it with links that don’t really support the claims. I have looked back and did not see that poster claim it was their opinion and I read it as a claim to authority. That that poster had knowledge of something I had not picked up.

Not sure why you think that within the Liberal Party of Australia (ie. At federal level) that Moira Deemings beliefs would be considered ‘controversial’ within the party. But I have seen no evidence at all that her beliefs were controversial within the party as you and the other poster have claimed.

I have been clear that her speeches about women and children and their needs seemed to be felt by Victoria Liberal Party leadership team to be negatively impacting their election strategy. That is a rather different claim all together.

But I look forward to some kind of evidence that shows the majority of the party disagrees with any of Moira Deemings views that she is actively campaigning on. I would love to see that polled data or even the federal Liberal Party directive that contradicts Moira Deeming’s campaigns.

So, based on the lack of supporting evidence then absolutely I think it is unfair, and false, to make the claim “Deeming was controversial in the party.”

You need to consider the context of the conversation gail. Hell feels it was unfair to say Deeming was controversial in the party. I was trying to get her to express her opinion on why Deeming is not controversial.

Helle was trying to get clarity on why Deeming was controversial within the party and on whose criteria was she so controversial. Answer came there none. Why would Helle express an opinion as to whether or not Deeming is controversial without the above being answered? You know, evidence to base an assessment or opinion on is usually a pretty basic requirement.

People can of course be in whatever party they want but it is odd to be in a party and then act in a way that undermines that parties electoral success. It is the parties raison d'etre after all.

Parties often portray themselves as 'broad churches' within the overall ethos of a Party, do they not? To take UK politics as an example there are those in both the main parties that hold differing views on the European Union for example. I haven't seen any evidence that Deeming's view on sex realism undermined the Party's electoral success so I won't comment on that.

Why don't you just come out and say it - you don't like KJK yes, in my opinion shes toxic, harming the GC movement and harming the women who come into contact with her

That's a bold statement and I do appreciate your honesty.

you don't like Moira Deeming Have no opinion on Australian politicians but the case is fascinating.

Hmm, really? Apart from continually banging on about her pro-life personal view and insisting that should make her persona non grata.

If anything I think she's an unfortunate victim of KJKs toxicity they shouldn't speak they can speak all they like, I have a problem with people sharing a platform with far right extremists and amplifying their messages which is what KJK does

Oh dear. I am not going to bother asking what far right extremist views KJK amplifies but I think you are sailing very close to the wind in terms of libel stating that about KJK.

it's all their own fault if they get defamed not proven Deeming has been defamed and I have not yet seen evidence she was.

This Court case is presumably going to answer that question.

Pesutto settled with KJK for saying things that could be misunderstood, also not defamation I don't think (and worse)

It was way more than just saying things could be misunderstood.

I dont think TRA agression is acceptable at all

Good to know.

they don't fit on your purity scale. purity scales are for 5 year olds and I'm bored of hearing about it. The purity scale on this thread is on the GC side. I'm commenting on a trial - I'm allowed to do so, it's nothing to do with purity.

No the purity scale is not on the GC side of those on this thread, you are the one insisting that a woman who holds a personal pro-life belief is not pure enough. You brought it into the conversation.

Just be honest for once. I am being. I always am. You just can't take it because you disagree. So who is shutting who down?

I disagree that you are being honest, just my opinion based on your posts across this and many other threads which I understand you believe I am free to hold, right?

No-one is shutting you down. Disagreement with you does not equal shutting down as you yourself have said on this thread.

“If you read back you'll see you jumped very quickly to demanding "proof" of Deemings view.”

I have explained this before. I asked for evidence because any statement made by the federal Liberal Party to this effect would be a significant thing to know. Whether you, personally, don’t agree or agree that it would be is irrelevant to me.

“Similarly to your comments to me about softening language by using "in my opinion" ”

The comments were made generally about communication. I also didn’t even say that it was something that ‘should be’ said. Or even always used. I don’t consider it a ‘softening’ of language. I consider it an accurate signifier of whether it is someone’s opinion or is a fact or is based on someone’s opinion.

Oh dear Cassie. Countering her platforming of literally hundreds and hundreds of women with her disagreement with two?

And narcissists are worth avoiding because they destroy everything around them in pursuit of inflating their own ego.

Rubbish. You don't avoid her. You're 'fascinated' by her.

"I'm fascinated by how people react to her. Really. It's fascinating."

Your interest in social media influences lead you to be 'fascinated' by how people react to KJK.

Your interest in hypocrisy leads you to be 'fascinated' by KJK's husband's company's LGBT policy.

Your interest in defamation cases leads to your continuing interest in the Deeming case, despite it only originally being 'due to KJK's involvement.'

Way to 'avoid a narcissist who destroys everything around them.'

Cassie I simply can't fathom your arguments.

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.

Do you think being 'controversial' is negative? Most progress has been made by people who were controversial.
Yes, you have a right to disagree but you are claiming a right to criticise.

Do you accept other people have the same right to criticise your views and opinions and everyone has the same right to express that as you do?

Agreed and ifs hardly like any of the feminists who are constantly trying to badmouth her are even trying to provide an alternative platform.

I can’t imagine how that would work anyway? ‘You can only have the mike if you can prove you’ve never held any ‘controversial’ views’

Can you imagine?

Absolutely hamstrung over hosting anything public.

Just in case the wrong sort showed up, filmed it, stood behind them, took a selfie, donated money, gave them their last Rolo.

See, I interpret "on the edge of the Liberal party" to mean "holds views that are outside the norms of the party" aka "holds controversial views within the party"
You and other posters have made very little attempt to understand where people might be coming from and jumped straight to dismissing ("pro life views are only relevant if she's campaigning on them") or legalistic ("can you quote the precise line that makes you think that?")
Neither of those positions are conducive to an open debate.

Helle was trying to get clarity on why Deeming was controversial within the party and on whose criteria was she so controversial. Answer came there none
Bollocks. Mess and I both answered the question, our answers were dismissed on grounds of posters didn't like the source or didn't agree with our interpretation that certain views were controversial.

Why would Helle express an opinion as to whether or not Deeming is controversial without the above being answered? Because that's how debate works. Person A: I think X because Y and Z. Person B: Well I think A because B and C. Debate is not Person A: I think X because Y and Z. Person B: You are wrong because I don't think your sources/evidence are enough.

Parties often portray themselves as 'broad churches' within the overall ethos of a Party, do they not? To take UK politics as an example there are those in both the main parties that hold differing views on the European Union for example. I haven't seen any evidence that Deeming's view on sex realism undermined the Party's electoral success so I won't comment on that. Yes, but parties have limits. You wouldn't expect Reform to keep a candidate campaigning to reverse Brexit, for example. Regarding electoral success, if you listen to the audio it was exactly the concern that attendance at a rally where Nazis turned up would damage electoral success (which is separate to sex realism). So this is where its frustrating because people "haven't seen" the evidence when it is there. Rather than attack out of hand, read the links provided and it'll be clearer where people come from. Some of the files are very interesting, like the table that summarises the difference in the defendant/complainant position and the audio.

Oh dear. I am not going to bother asking what far right extremist views KJK amplifies but I think you are sailing very close to the wind in terms of libel stating that about KJK. No, I'm not. It's all out there in the public domain. It's in court this week. She goes on podcasts with far right extremists. She's clearly extremely comfortable around them. And by going on those podcasts and shows, she's exposing her audience to those views. Up to her but she can't seriously expect noone to notice or claim libel when they do. One of the reasons I'm following the case is to see what they would do about the "libellous" information as its pivotal to the whole thing.

Defamation- agree about the case but "It was way more than just saying things could be misunderstood." - not the point I was making regarding Pesutto. The point I was making is his apology was qualified and did not walk back from thinking those associations existed. And KJK accepted it, I'm assuming on legal advice. That says something about the claims.

No the purity scale is not on the GC side of those on this thread, you are the one insisting that a woman who holds a personal pro-life belief is not pure enough. You brought it into the conversation. No. I said being pro-life is controversial. That's a fact, not "purity". I also said that as a feminist I don't support actions that harm women and restricting reproductive rights is one of those things. I'm allowed to have my own boundaries and opinions about people; that is not an expression of purity.

Definition of a purity spiral (from Google)
"A purity spiral is a theory which argues for the existence of a form of groupthink in which it becomes more beneficial to hold certain views than to not hold them, and more extreme views are rewarded while expressing doubt, nuance, or moderation is punished". I'm not the poster rewarding extreme views or punishing people for expressing doubt, nuance or moderation. The opposite in fact. I've stated an opinion outside the norm of the thread and been punished for it. As has mess.

I disagree that you are being honest, just my opinion based on your posts across this and many other threads which I understand you believe I am free to hold, right? See above. You are entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to express it as fact.

If you think I'm dishonest, why waste time asking questions about my opinion?

"See, I interpret "on the edge of the Liberal party" to mean "holds views that are outside the norms of the party" aka "holds controversial views within the party""

"You and other posters have made very little attempt to understand where people might be coming from and jumped straight to dismissing ("pro life views are only relevant if she's campaigning on them") or legalistic ("can you quote the precise line that makes you think that?")"

In YOUR opinion which seems to be not an informed one about the membership profile of the Liberal Party of Australia.

You have posted this to me. Have you missed where I have discussed the views of the past leaders and the current leaders of the party to show that people claiming that it is 'outside the norms of the party' seem to not really have any depth of knowledge or history about the party they are discussing?

Hence, asking for further clarification and some evidence to show that this is actually an informed opinion.

"Neither of those positions are conducive to an open debate."

What is there to debate when the position you, personally, are pushing doesn't seem to be even factually accurate?

There really is something of a disconnect here.

In any case, focusing on the issues that you, personally, mentioned. Can you tell us why, with Moira Deeming's personal opinions on abortion, women and children's rights and covid vaccines and lockdowns fully known and available, why was she selected to run for the Liberal Party?

She did not attempt to hide any of it.

Then her personal opinion on abortion was then countered by her stating clearly that she respects other women's rights to have an abortion and is not interested in removing those rights.

This is also not an issue, because there are currently other Liberal members of Parliament who also do not personally support abortion, but also have stated they are not interested in removing those rights. And if there are others currently serving members in the political party that are known for these views, please tell us how this would then make Moira Deeming holding this very same view 'outside the norms of the party'?

And speaking of debate, pointing out these flaws in the argument is then part of the debate where you then present an argument to counter it.

That is the very nature of debate.

So, shall we start with just going through the logic?

Can you tell us why, with Moira Deeming's personal opinions on abortion, women and children's rights and covid vaccines and lockdowns fully known and available to find on line, why was she selected to run for the Liberal Party if those opinions were not acceptable to the Victorian or the Australian federal executive of the Liberal Party?

"Because that's how debate works. Person A: I think X because Y and Z. Person B: Well I think A because B and C. Debate is not Person A: I think X because Y and Z. Person B: You are wrong because I don't think your sources/evidence are enough."

So, you also have your own definition of debate that you wish everyone to follow to suit your needs? Is that what I am reading?

Your questions are completely irrelevant to the point as to whether she is on the edge of the party or controversial. I have no idea why they selected her (especially when it looks like the previous candidate was expelled for being pro life) and neither do I care, as I'm never going to vote for her or her party.

I came at this because you were giving another poster a hard time for saying something I thought was fairly innocuous, so I had a read about it. That's all.

I'm not in court and you don't have to trip me up. In fact I'm not sure what you get out of it (apart from hoping people will get bored and give up posting I guess).

No. I said being pro-life is controversial. That's a fact, not "purity". I also said that as a feminist I don't support actions that harm women and restricting reproductive rights is one of those things. I'm allowed to have my own boundaries and opinions about people; that is not an expression of purity.

How exactly is Moira Deeming harming women by holding a personal belief that she has no intention of making a political belief?

You are indeed allowed to have your own boundaries and opinions about people but that is not what you want to do, you want more than that.

Whatever. This is where you look disingenuous because you damn well know socfems/managerial class refers to an outlook rather than specific people and you know a lot of women are in that category. Including Rosie Duffield ffs. And all "middle class" women. Anyone who doesn't support Trump etc.

I am fascinated by her. I'm fascinated by how narcissists operate and cults of personality generally. Like, why did so many women want to marry Ted Bundy? Why did so many people think proven liar Boris Johnson would make a good prime minister? Why do people think rich and Oxbridge educated Nigel Farage is a "man of the people"? Why did so many people turn a blind eye to the abuse of Saville and Al Fayed?

How come so many people are so sucked in that they ignore it when someone shows who they are?

I would go absolutely nowhere near her or anyone like that in real life because they wreak havoc to inflate their ego, then discard people when they are no longer useful. I really hope Moira Deeming isn't about to find that out to her cost.

How is it feminist to say a women must not form her own beliefs around abortion and pro life?