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.

It's going to be difficult to walk that apology back now, surely.

Yeah. It's interesting. It doesn't to me, because of this:

I also believe that all public figures have a responsibility to denounce such extremism in all its forms. I do not believe that it is appropriate to knowingly associate or share platforms with individuals who hold or express these extremist views. I also believe that there is no room to be blithe or cavalier in the face of Neo-Nazism.

It seems like a compromise, or true settlement.

@TheSandgroper people on Twitter/X have mentioned watching the court proceedings, do you have any idea how you can do that?

It's finished for today. Back tomorrow at 10.30 aus time

Sandgroper

Iirc, Pesutto suspended Deeming, didn't he? Is that the reason for this action? It reminds me a bit of the way GCC reacted to the TA pile-on on Allison Bailey.

Of course it is.

As far as my comments may have been misunderstood as conveying that I believed this to be the case, I apologise for any hurt, distress or harm that has occurred.

The leader of a major party, in a major state, in a major country apologises to you directly in order to avoid going to court to risk losing there. That sounds pretty winning to me.

Whatever Pesutto's side argues, it will be tough to make Deeming responsible for the misapprehensions of randoms on social media if they accept that the Nazis gatecrashed the event. The decision in the case might go any which way, be decided on a technicality.

Agree. These things are often difficult to call but from where I'm standing Moira Deeming has a strong case.

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/court-calendar/daily-court-lists/vic

Court list here. Copy and paste the link into your browser tomorrow for live streaming.

Perfect, thank you! I am a night owl so I might tune in tonight.

Did KJK sue him for saying public figures should denounce extremism?
I thought she brought the case because he said she and Angie Jones were Nazis/Nazi-adjacent and he apologised for that and agreed there was no basis for the accusation.

Do you want to have a conversation about my opinion or do you just want to prove you are right? If the latter I'll pass thanks

Well that seems pretty clear to me! You don’t apologise for nothing after all.

Quite @lifeturnsonadime

I thought she brought the case because he said she and Angie Jones were Nazis/Nazi-adjacent and he apologised for that and agreed there was no basis for the accusation.

She did, and it's quite clear in the letter.

The annoying thing is Victoria is absolutely batshit for gender, and the Labor government is ripe for being kicked out due to the incredible amount of debt it’s accumulated, it’s Australia’s most indebted state. But Pesutto was so busy haranguing women for expressing their views in order to cater to the teal voters, he’s done nothing valuable in terms of returning any form of sanity to the state.

See, I thought we were having a conversation - about each other's opinion on the case, the strength of each party's position, the relevance of Pesutto's settlement with KJK and the significance of his statement. This debate naturally involves questioning each other's opinions, and obviously each of us thinks she is right.
But no worries if you want to pass.

OK.
Well my understanding is the trial and the KJK defamation case were basically similar to a lot of threads on here. Pesutto said LWS/Angie Jones had "associations" or links to Neo Nazis. He didn't say directly any of them were neo nazis.

I think KJK and he settled because it was difficult to prove either way. Associations and links are vague terms.

He had to apologise for using phrases that could cause people to think KJK was a neo nazi. But in his apology he was allowed to express criticism for people "knowingly sharing a platform with or associating with individuals who hold or express these extremists views" and that suggests to me it wasn't clear cut no associations/links existed.

I can't see her apology video now, but it was very conciliatory for someone ordinarily happy for "daring to be honest" and she is studiously quiet on the trial.

Therefore I think both sides compromised. And that's usually not in KJKs nature - she never loses- so she must have calculated the chances are it was going to cost her more than she would win to continue.

I think it's a bit or a reach to say that the statement leaves room to claim that they do have Nazi links/associations.
He said:
I have never believed or intended to assert that Kellie-Jay Keen and Angela Jones are Neo-Nazis. It is also now clear from public statements made by Ms Keen and Ms Jones that they share my belief that Nazism is odious and contemptible.

Why would they have links with groups whose beliefs they consider "odious and contemptible"? It doesn't really make sense.
I think your reading of his statement is being coloured by your own view that KJK has links/associations with the far right or Nazis, evidence of your belief being some of the MN threads which you refer to and which were started by you.

But in his apology he was allowed to express criticism for people "knowingly sharing a platform with or associating with individuals who hold or express these extremists views" and that suggests to me it wasn't clear cut no associations/links existed.

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. In the first place, the whole point is that she did not "knowingly share a platform" with the Nazis in this incident. They turned up uninvited and unwanted. (And unchallenged by the police or by the supposedly Antifa crowd.)
But more importantly, his remark simply means that he and perhaps you have a different idea of what free speech means compared to some other people. "Links" would have to be substantive, not just sharing a platform, whatever that means.

There is always a risk of an adverse judgement when you go to court, however strong your case. Not to mention the eye-watering expense. So KJK may have decided on that basis to take the offer of a settlement.

They may have compromised on the exact wording, KJK may have agreed not to lay into Pesutto in public, or on her channel.
But on the meat of the case, the point at issue - that Angie Jones and KJK were Nazis or Nazi sympathisers - the statement is an unequivocal retraction and apology.

I have no doubt it will all come out but until that point anything I say is speculation.

Personally I believe its accurate to describe someone who uses Stewards who attend far right rallies, who retweets far right content and who appears on far right podcasts as having links to extremists. I think that's what the judge is going to have to decide.

The added confusion is he didn't actually say Deeming or any of the others were extremist themselves. So is it not a curb on free speech if people are prevented from identifying and commenting on such associations as "defamatory"?

But on the meat of the case, the point at issue - that Angie Jones and KJK were Nazis or Nazi sympathisers - the statement is an unequivocal retraction and apology.

Exactly, as I said upthread, I can't imagine how he's going to be able to walk that back without risking further legal action. The only argument he has about Moira that would refute her defamation claim is her link to the meeting, Angie Jones, Katherine Deves and KJK. And he's conceded he was wrong to impute the Neo Nazi accusations to Kellie and Angie.

"...I have never believed or intended to assert that Kellie-Jay Keen and Angela Jones are Neo-Nazis. It is also now clear from public statements made by Ms Keen and Ms Jones that they share my belief that Nazism is odious and contemptible.
People engaged in robust public debate do not always have the ability to express themselves perfectly. This is one reason that we should give those we may disagree with some benefit of the doubt.
I recognise that there have been times when my comments could have more clearly differentiated between the organisers of the 18 March 2023 Let Women Speak Rally and the Neo-Nazis who attended the steps of Parliament House on that day.
It has never been my intention to convey that I believed Ms Keen and Ms Jones to be Neo-Nazis, or that they were members of Neo-Nazi groups. As far as my comments may have been misunderstood as conveying that I believed this to be the case, I apologise for any hurt, distress or harm that has occurred..."

CassieMaddox

KJK isn't the subject of this case, so I'm not going to get sidetracked. Tehe relevance of Pesutto's statement is that the settlement was the result of legal action based on the same incident - the Nazis gatecrashing the LWS rally.

What should have happened is this:

[SM fuss from TAs]
Pesutto: What the hell?
[Meeting arranged with Deeming]
Pesutto: What's all this? Did you invite Nazis to the rally?
Deeming: God, no! The bastards just turned up and barged in. We actually thought they were Antifa at first, because of the way they were dressed. Then they did their salutes and chanting. It was horrible.
Pesutto: Oh, I see. Got you.
Joint statement from Pesutto and Deeming released]
"We have no truck with Nazis, they gatecrashed the rally."

THE END.

Instead, Pesutto panicked and suspended, then expelled Deeming unfairly lending credence to the SM claims that she is a Nazi sympathiser/has links to Nazis - hence this action.

If you think that was ever how it was going to go down, you are naive about politics.

This case isn't about that though. It's about if he defamed her, and I can't see where he did at the moment. Refusing to strenuously defend someone in public is not the same as "defamation", imagine the cases if it were.

Here:
It has never been my intention to convey that I believed [redacted, irrelevant to point] to be Neo-Nazis, or that they were members of Neo-Nazi groups. As far as my comments may have been misunderstood as conveying that I believed this to be the case, I apologise for any hurt, distress or harm that has occurred"

Is it up to someone to monitor closely what they say in case someone else "misunderstands"? Can such a misunderstanding result in the person who said the misunderstood statement being taken to court for defamation?

I think its an interesting case from a freedom of speech point of view. But I don't know anywhere close to enough about the Australian defamation laws to know if my opinion on it is reasonable or not.

However it seems to me to set quite a dangerous precedent to freedom of speech if the onus is on people to prevent others misunderstanding their words.

If he'd said "these people are Neo Nazis" I could understand him being sued by them. But he didn't as far as I'm aware.

The judge is already confused as well apparently- asked "what do paedos have to do with trans people?". So goodness knows what they are going to make of it.