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 wonder if anyone apart from me is actually following the trial? It doesn't appear anyone else is bothering.

CassieMaddox

"I'm not Australian and have limited knowledge (as I said upthread). I follow this one because of KJKs involvement."

Yeah. I think everyone's up to speed on that one, tbh

Well that explains a hell of a lot. What a plonker. Yet another word having its common meaning changed 🙄

Would I still vote Labour if they had MPs who thought that? Yes. I'm sure they do have MPs who think that. Would I vote for my Labour candidate if they thought that? Probably, unless they were campaigning to remove womens reproductive rights. Would I call said MP a feminist? No.

So your beef with Moira Deeming is what exactly? MD has said she is not and will not campaign to remove women's reproductive rights and yet earlier you said you wouldn't vote for her due to her pro life beliefs but you are now saying you would vote for a Labour MP if they too were pro-life but said they weren't campaigning on it just like MD has said, for goodness sake be consistent - pick a lane and stick to it. Does MD describe herself as a feminist?

I'd say actually the election shows some posters here's position as they wouldn't even countenance voting for a women who said TWAW even if said woman wasn't campaigning on it.

Has anyone here actually said that?

I mean the idea that a Labour MP believes that TWAW but wouldn’t campaign for it is batshit.

But then most of this is. For the past 20 odd pages being pro life as a personal belief is beyond the pale, now if was a Labour MP it would be acceptable🤣

Mind you maybe I’m being unfair. Labour being unable to do wrong has been a consistent theme.

I have no beef with her, as I said. I think her trial is interesting for several reasons:

1. If a political party chooses to expel someone on the grounds they have damaged the parties reputation, is it reasonable for that person to sue for defamation?
2. is it the responsibility of someone speaking if others misunderstand them?
3. is it defamation if someone shares/repeats information widely available on the Internet e.g. YouTube videos?

Personally I think she's nuts for going to court and should have settled with him, it's going to be very damaging to all of them regardless if she wins. But those are the bigger points I'm interested in.

No, as usual you've misrepresented my position and are arguing with your own misrepresentation 😂

I personally don't think someone who is so pro live they describe abortion in the way Deeming did can claim to be a champion of women's rights. I've said that consistently. I've also consistently said she's entitled to express her opinion.

But carry on amusing yourself arguing with your own assumptions.

It's called democracy, in case anyone is wondering.

I'm sorry but it's absolutely batshit out there

😵‍💫🤪🫣

@Helleofabore

If she was a controversial MP with beliefs on the edge of the party, they would be distancing her from having any influence at all, would they not? Because why the fuck would they give her opportunities to get to become senior one day if they expected her to be expelled because of her 'controversial' views? In the audio, Pesutto even stated that one day she could be up for a ministerial role.

Why would that be mentioned if the team found her beliefs 'on the edge of the party'?

They're attempting to be gentle with her, aren't they? Because they are about to ... expel her for controversial actions. That doesn't occur due to one incident. They mention three in a row. You can block your ears all you like, but it seems Deeming's actions were hurting even the Liberal Party. That takes some doing.

Cassie is the only person on this thread who is coherent and can make an argument without resorting to insult, cursing, assumption or extrapolation. That's likely why all of you respond to her with such vehemence.

Cannot be said enough

I think your accusation of blocking ears is hilariously hypocritical.

Care to link up what the “three in a row” incidents were? I mean, we already have discussed it in depth on the thread but maybe you missed it?

Let’s see … the first incident was her maiden speech. Have you listened to it? Care to point out what you, personally, found to disagree with in it?

The second was her IWD speech where she invited women to come to the rally, partcularly ministers with women in their remit.

The third was this event. Which has been discussed also in depth.

You keep doubling down and yet never once have actually engaged beyond superficial accusations. But that is ok. Because I think we can safely say now that your accusations of extreme is just your own opinion which you have tried to claim is fact.

good oh.

Blimey.

Do you really feel that an online discussion forum needs to allow unevidenced personal opinion to be welcomed and not challenged?

And how very strange that you, personally, snipe and insult and make assumptions too, and it seems that you feel that you are somehow righteous in doing so.

While feeling righteous in your opinion, based on such weak evidence, should be accepted as accurate. You choose to not even clarify your position but fall back to making accusations against others because your misinformation was challenged.

However, now seeing what you consider coherent argument, and coherent thought is a good thing for us all. Thanks for that.

Do you really feel that an online discussion forum needs to allow unevidenced personal opinion to be welcomed
Personally, yes I do. It's a discussion forum for random Internet strangers to share their views..so there is no need for "evidence". It's not a court of law.
I removed the last words because it's possible to be welcoming and challenging.

Didn't read the rest of the post. Appears to be basically confirming messso point

Now I'm pretty sure a while back I got a pasting for bringing up the CPAC link because it was "lies" and KJK had denied it.

Is anyone else at all bothered by her speaking at a conference famed for being for a particular strand of the right wing (the strand that believes in conspiracy theorists and welcomes racists). Or are we going to have collective amnesia that it was "a smear" and now pretend it's all cool and fine, only a weirdo would be interested?

Plus, IDK what Angie Jones was thinking, maybe she doesn't fully know who Liz Truss is 😂

You cannot resist speaking for people can you.

I notice that you have started to use such catastrophising tactics of referring to threads as ‘court rooms’. Just like yesterday, you wrote a post aimed at me where you included accusations aimed at other people but you used the word ‘you’, meaning you aimed it at me.

Why do you believe that people should allow misinformation to be spread about Moira Deeming?

Your debating style is very adversarial and legalistic, with you demanding others answer your questions and giving your judgement on those answers, whilst giving away very little of your own position.

Why do you believe that people should allow misinformation to be spread about Moira Deeming? why do you believe that's what I believe?

CPAC Australia has Nyunggai Warren Mundine as chair. Mundine is an ex Labor Party president.

I believe people have indicated before that perhaps you have little knowledge about Australian politics and that perhaps Australian politics is not as absolutist as you wish to portray it. But then, it seems that everything is tribal to some people and if someone speaks at a conference where another person speaks, then it must be believed that all those speakers believe the same thing and they all share guilt by association.

And Why shouldn’t anyone speak at a conference that Liz Truss was speaking at? Or, do you think people should never hear her discuss her economic theory so they can make informed decisions as to whether it is totally unworkable or whether there is something there that can be useful to know?

Are you so totalitarian and authoritarian that people you don’t agree should never speak at conferences where people can judge the speaker’s points for themselves? And so tribal that you believe that anything organised by people who are centre right is to be reviled?

You didn't get a 'pasting'.

You were informed that they paid for her insurance so that she actually go and hold these events. She announced it live on her you tube channel, which you would know as you are glued to everything she says and everything she does.

And again, why is it bad for a woman to go to any conference when she is going there to spread the message that mutilating, sterilising and castrating kids is bad?

We don't have collective amnesia, we have memories of what actually happened.

Why do I believe that you think misinformation should be allowed to be spread?

I think I have pointed out sufficiently on this thread that statements made by messinabloom could be considered to fall into that categorisation of misinformation. Due to it being repeated over and over and never supported.

In fact, even after I queried whether messinabloom meant that Moira Deeming’s position on women’s rights was what messinabloom was referring to, to be denied by messinabloom, the last few posts refer to the three incidents. And two of those three incidents were speeches directly about women’s and girl’s rights. The third was attending a women’s rights rally.

So, there is also something of a disconnect in what messinabloom has also been accusing Moira Deeming of.

I have attended conferences where SNP ministers were keynote speakers, does that make me a crazed TWAW supporting Scottish Nat?

It is just so fucking immature to think that you can only be in the presence of people who you 100% agree with on everything.

I've been to conferences where people I literally could not stand were speaking.

I've been a speaker at festivals which were held in actual royal grounds, and I'm one of the most anti-royal people you could ever meet. Nobody died or passed out or had conniptions when I opened my mouth!

CPAC Australia seems to be a conference filled with Liberal National Coalition politician speakers.

But apparently, the Liberal party is to be considered crank right wing by some, and by others has no place for cranks and they should be expelled. The dissonance alarm is clanging very loudly this weekend.

However, sometimes, just sometimes, US politics don’t neatly transfer to other countries. And sometimes there is a difference that may or may not get acknowledged.

Considering there is a panel event dedicated to women’s rights that has Sal Grover, and Rachel Wong, I guess then that those women are now to be reviled.