Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

In Australia - Moira Deeming defamation trial now on

1000 replies

TheSandgroper · 17/09/2024 07:29

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.

'Are you accusing me of having Nazi links?': Secret recording played at Victorian Liberals defamation trial

A Victorian court hears a recording of a meeting between then-Liberal MP Moira Deeming and senior party figures, including Opposition Leader John Pesutto.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/moira-deeming-john-pesutto-defamation-trial-day-two/104360100

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
AlisonDonut · 22/09/2024 05:18

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 04:47

@NotBadConsidering

A bill to clarify that man and woman refers to biological sex, was introduced to the Senate last week and Labor, the Greens, and a few independents voted to not allow the bill to be even read, let alone debated. This is a very rare occurrence in the Australian Senate. It was an act of active obstruction to not even allow discussion about protecting women’s rights. In what possible world is this a sign that Labor and the Greens are worth bothering with in enacting change?

Ah sorry, the Pauline Hanson amendment. Of course. Perhaps you'd like to have a read of this extract from Hansard. It the concerns Senators have around this amendment.

https://www.aph.gov.au/ParliamentaryBusiness/Hansard/Hansardd_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/28051/&sid=0007

I'll do you a favour this time and summarise the opposition for you.

They said it is transphohic and didn't wanna debate to be had because so much other more important stuff needed to be discussed. They didn't want the abuse to come their way.

Why do you think Not Bad needed to see that extract and what point is it that you are trying to make?

Snowypeaks · 22/09/2024 05:20

Their stated and entirely predictable concerns:
Debating a bill to define sex in the Sex Discrimination Act would be transphobic, harmful, divisive, a concession to far right extremist propaganda.

Preventing the first reading of Hanson's bill is dangerous for democracy and a clear statement that there is a clash between trans "rights" (actually male privileges) and women's rights.

Snowypeaks · 22/09/2024 05:22

AlisonDonut · 22/09/2024 05:18

I'll do you a favour this time and summarise the opposition for you.

They said it is transphohic and didn't wanna debate to be had because so much other more important stuff needed to be discussed. They didn't want the abuse to come their way.

Why do you think Not Bad needed to see that extract and what point is it that you are trying to make?

I had a few seconds of hope that there might be something different or substantive.
But no. Same old same old.

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 07:44

@AlisonDonut

Why do you think Not Bad needed to see that extract and what point is it that you are trying to make?

To know the ideas behind the debate. How much do you know about Pauline Hanson, out of interest?

Datun · 22/09/2024 08:39

Imnobody4 · 21/09/2024 23:14

Statements from Women’s Forum Australia

1.Member of the Victorian Legislative Council Moira Deeming has disgracefully been expelled from the Victorian parliamentary Liberal Party.

Her Crime? Standing up for herself, and for women and girls.

On 18 March 2023, Moira spoke at Kellie-Jay Keen’s Let Women Speak rally in Melbourne, organised to help raise awareness about the harmful impact of allowing biological males who say they’re women to self-identify into female-only spaces, services and sports, and the harms of gender ideology more broadly.

The event was gatecrashed by a group of men from the National Socialist Network who performed the Nazi salute on the steps of Parliament. This was then used by Victorian Liberal Leader John Pesutto to accuse Moira (and other women) of associating with neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathisers in order to swiftly move a motion to expel her from the party.

There not being enough support to expel Moira, who had done nothing wrong, the party voted to suspend her for nine months instead. This was a result that she only accepted because she had been assured that a joint media statement by herself and John Pesutto would be issued to clear her family’s name of Nazi slurs, making it clear that she is not a Nazi sympathiser. However, the joint statement was never made.

Six weeks later, Moira told John Pesutto that if he did not honour the terms of the suspension and publicly declare she was not a Nazi sympathiser, she would be forced to challenge the suspension and bring legal action. He refused, and five other MPs brought a second motion to expel Moira for “bringing discredit” on the party - though as with the original expulsion motion and suspension, the grounds are unclear.

On 12 May, Victorian Liberal MPs voted to expel Moira from the Parliamentary Liberal Party. They also voted to remove Renee Heath as Party Secretary, for her role in the original expulsion minutes, which John Pesutto did not approve of. Again, the grounds for Renee’s demotion are unclear. Both motions passed 19:11. A third motion was also moved by John Pesutto to introduce his own version of the original expulsion minutes, which passed with less support.

Moira has since issued John Pesutto with a defamation concerns notice, as a last resort to clear her name.

What has happened to Moira is gravely unjust. The lies, the lack of due process and the silencing are not only an attack on one woman, but on all the women and girls Moira represents. Moreover, it is an affront to all the Victorians who voted for her.

  1. The expulsion of Moira Deeming from the Victorian parliamentary Liberal Party is baseless and gravely unjust.

Rather than supporting a woman who spoke out to defend the rights and safety of women and girls, you have instead chosen to slander and punish her.

The intimidation and silencing of women who speak out about their sex-based needs and rights has recently been condemned by UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, who specifically rebuked the smearing of women as “Nazis” or “extremists”, and the sanctioning of female politicians by their political parties.

Ms Alsalem notes that such smear campaigns against women “are deeply troubling, as they are intended to instil fear in them, shame them into silence, and incite violence and hatred against them. Such acts severely affect the dignified participation of women and girls in society.”

Bloody hell.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 22/09/2024 08:50

What I'm saying is Deeming was counselled by the Leadership team after the first 2 incidents (this is referred to in the transcript).

Then they're not actually relevant to whatever point you imagine you're making about Deeming's character.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2024 08:50

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 01:59

@Helleofabore

You seem to have a very different understanding of extremism than I do, that is clear. I don’t think CPAC are anything near ‘extreme’. Even by Australian standards. I think there are political groups out there that are extreme. The politicians speaking at CPAC are certainly conservative, but are all the speakers?. But you have also indicated that what I consider rather mainstream conservative beliefs, are extreme.

If some speakers at CPAC are not conservative in belief or politically, can anyone make such absolute generalisations about it ? It would be great to not have to have repetitive threads where Sal Grover and Rachel Wong are not accused of being extremists for appearing at CPAC.

I love this. Feminists agreeing with CPAC! It's amusing the lengths you'll go to avoid agreeing with someone.

CPAC, in its Australian form, has only existed since 2019. It's an export from the US. It's a Trump copy. It's the Heritage Foundation in all but name. Yes, it is far-right conservatism bubbling away here and you seem just fine with it.

I actually take each entity as being separate. Maybe that is the difference between you and me. I look at the Australian entity and I see conservative but not hard right. I look at the US version and believe it to be further to the right.

I have also been exposed personally to much more extreme politics that what you seem to be categorising as extreme. Hence I disagree with some people’s categorisations and I believe they come from that person’s tribal position. Ie. What some people exaggeratedly categorise as ‘extreme’ is missing the fact that large segments of Australia would at least partly agree with the overall point while they might disagree on the motivations, and the details .

I also consider conferences such as this to be democratic. I would watch an ALP and Greens conference just as much as I would watch a CPAC conference. I would even watch The Shooters Party conference if there was a segment that I wanted to hear them speak about.

Not necessarily because I agree. Because I want to hear people discuss their ideas and I will think about their information and work out what difference it makes to my thinking. I want to hear from the original source, even if I don’t agree at all, I don’t agree with most, or I agree with some , whatever.

I also think that there are times when some people have categorised conferences that allowed topics to be discussed that were considered ‘hateful’ to be far right/hard right. And when you start to read further, the topics that they consider hateful is women discussing the impacts of gender identity in the needs of women and children. So, I also take any person’s categorisation of such events being far right / hard right as being up for questioning.

Because often the women speaking at those events are not politically aligned with the organisers or the other speakers. And there has been precedence where speaking at the event, or even just turning up to that event, has had women being mislabeled to their detriment.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2024 08:53

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 01:59

@Helleofabore

You seem to have a very different understanding of extremism than I do, that is clear. I don’t think CPAC are anything near ‘extreme’. Even by Australian standards. I think there are political groups out there that are extreme. The politicians speaking at CPAC are certainly conservative, but are all the speakers?. But you have also indicated that what I consider rather mainstream conservative beliefs, are extreme.

If some speakers at CPAC are not conservative in belief or politically, can anyone make such absolute generalisations about it ? It would be great to not have to have repetitive threads where Sal Grover and Rachel Wong are not accused of being extremists for appearing at CPAC.

I love this. Feminists agreeing with CPAC! It's amusing the lengths you'll go to avoid agreeing with someone.

CPAC, in its Australian form, has only existed since 2019. It's an export from the US. It's a Trump copy. It's the Heritage Foundation in all but name. Yes, it is far-right conservatism bubbling away here and you seem just fine with it.

You might remember that my first interaction with you on this thread was to ask for clarification about your claim. Because I was interested in where the claim came from and if something was said from the federal branch of the Liberal Party. I was asking for information. Because I like to see original source content. And these conferences are original source content.

You seem to have taken a personal attack role here in thinking I am personally attacking you to ‘disagree’ with you.

I have no interest in you at all. I was interested in the claims you made though.

So please be assured that my asking questions, seeking clarification is not me having a personal investment in ‘disagreeing’ with you.

It's amusing the lengths you'll go to avoid agreeing with someone.

Yeah? Nah. It has nothing to do with avoiding agreeing with you. You have said this to me before, so maybe my assurance will help you so that you don’t feel that I am avoiding agreeing with you based on something personal.

If I don’t agree with what you claim, it is because I don’t agree with your claim. Nothing personal at all.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2024 09:07

NotBadConsidering · 22/09/2024 02:16

Feminist aren’t “agreeing with CPAC”. They are going to the only group that have any interest or ability in enacting change to protect women’s rights, politically. Why is it never asked by posters like you why the left like Labor and the Greens are so ineffectual and indifferent to protecting women’s rights? (I know why…)

A change to the Sex Discrimination Act won’t come about by anyone other than the Liberals. A protection of children being harmed by medical treatments won’t come about while a Labor Minister is in charge of the Health portfolio, both at state and federal level.

Labor and the Greens won’t even entertain the possibility of a bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act being read, let alone passed. Why do they hate women so much?

I think it is remarkable when Gallagher, the Minister for women, was heavily involved in blocking the first reading of a bill that directly impacts the definition women and girls.

NotBadConsidering · 22/09/2024 09:10

Helleofabore · 22/09/2024 09:07

I think it is remarkable when Gallagher, the Minister for women, was heavily involved in blocking the first reading of a bill that directly impacts the definition women and girls.

Because it’s party policy to vote as directed. That means it was a party policy to vote against the reading of this bill. And people are somehow in doubt the Labor party hates women.

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 09:37

@NotBadConsidering

Because it’s party policy to vote as directed. That means it was a party policy to vote against the reading of this bill. And people are somehow in doubt the Labor party hates women.

The Labor Party has more female representatives than male, particularly in the Australian Senate. We've had a female Labor Prime Minister, but not a Liberal one. This repeated statement of yours is just silly.

My opinion is the primary reason for the rejection of the reading of the bill was because it is a copy of click-bait politics from the US. Pauline Hanson isn't (and remember, this js my opinion) thinking of women here. She's thinking of headlines and being Australia's Trump. That's all it is. Knowledge of her brand of politics is worthwhile here.

NotBadConsidering · 22/09/2024 09:46

The Labor members of the Senate put their dislike of Pauline Hanson and her “click bait politics” over the importance of discussing a bill to help protect women’s rights. Pretending that because Australia has had a female prime minister - who is responsible for the entire Tickle vs Giggle mess - and a number of women in both parliaments somehow signifies they’re on the side of women is equally silly. If they were, why wouldn’t they agree to discuss the bill? Or better yet, introduce a bill to amend the error themselves?

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 09:50

@Helleofabore

I also think that there are times when some people have categorised conferences that allowed topics to be discussed that were considered ‘hateful’ to be far right/hard right. And when you start to read further, the topics that they consider hateful is women discussing the impacts of gender identity in the needs of women and children. So, I also take any person’s categorisation of such events being far right / hard right as being up for questioning.

Because often the women speaking at those events are not politically aligned with the organisers or the other speakers. And there has been precedence where speaking at the event, or even just turning up to that event, has had women being mislabeled to their detriment.

Okay, but obviously women have spoken at far-right/hard-right conferences in full knowledge of that, or the conference has offered the speaking spot on purpose to attract that sector of audience. What are your thoughts on those situations, particularly the second?

Who are the people you are discussing in the first paragraph above?

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 09:53

NotBadConsidering · 22/09/2024 09:46

The Labor members of the Senate put their dislike of Pauline Hanson and her “click bait politics” over the importance of discussing a bill to help protect women’s rights. Pretending that because Australia has had a female prime minister - who is responsible for the entire Tickle vs Giggle mess - and a number of women in both parliaments somehow signifies they’re on the side of women is equally silly. If they were, why wouldn’t they agree to discuss the bill? Or better yet, introduce a bill to amend the error themselves?

I don't think you read what I wrote. And Julia Gillard is not responsible for Tickle vs Giggle.

Cailin66 · 22/09/2024 09:56

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 09:37

@NotBadConsidering

Because it’s party policy to vote as directed. That means it was a party policy to vote against the reading of this bill. And people are somehow in doubt the Labor party hates women.

The Labor Party has more female representatives than male, particularly in the Australian Senate. We've had a female Labor Prime Minister, but not a Liberal one. This repeated statement of yours is just silly.

My opinion is the primary reason for the rejection of the reading of the bill was because it is a copy of click-bait politics from the US. Pauline Hanson isn't (and remember, this js my opinion) thinking of women here. She's thinking of headlines and being Australia's Trump. That's all it is. Knowledge of her brand of politics is worthwhile here.

You don't think expelling a woman, for standing up for women demonstrates hatred of women and their rights.

Cailin66 · 22/09/2024 10:08

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 09:53

I don't think you read what I wrote. And Julia Gillard is not responsible for Tickle vs Giggle.

Do you think the leader of the Liberal Party John Pesutto having had to already apologies to one women* for smearing her as 'nazi' and 'extremist' would make some of us this side of the world think that Pesutto's got a bit of a woman issue. The women hatefully labeled by him are known for standing up for women's rights.

*(Kellie-Jay Keen/Posie Parker )

NotBadConsidering · 22/09/2024 10:10

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 09:53

I don't think you read what I wrote. And Julia Gillard is not responsible for Tickle vs Giggle.

I did read what you wrote. And the Sex Discrimination Act was amended in 2013 to include gender identity when Gillard was prime minister.

CassieMaddox · 22/09/2024 11:19

Yep. His defence is she had decided she was going to sue him very quickly, so therefore anything he said would not be received well.
I'm not a lawyer but surely if she had decided she was suing before he made the statements she says are defamatory that's relevant.

CassieMaddox · 22/09/2024 11:21

Really interesting to read a thread about Aus politics that is basically identical (apart from the spelling of Labor) to threads about UK politics. The criticism is the same. I'd have thought the countries were so different the context would also be different.

CassieMaddox · 22/09/2024 11:26

Cailin66 · 22/09/2024 10:08

Do you think the leader of the Liberal Party John Pesutto having had to already apologies to one women* for smearing her as 'nazi' and 'extremist' would make some of us this side of the world think that Pesutto's got a bit of a woman issue. The women hatefully labeled by him are known for standing up for women's rights.

*(Kellie-Jay Keen/Posie Parker )

That's not what he apologised for.

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.

He has not in any way admitted he smeared or defamed them.

He also said:
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.

Clearly referencing KJK/Jones, clearly still criticising them for sharing a platform.

This is why I don't think the KJK settlement is relevant in the way others do.

CassieMaddox · 22/09/2024 11:30

Cailin66 · 22/09/2024 09:56

You don't think expelling a woman, for standing up for women demonstrates hatred of women and their rights.

I don't think GC women should be exempt from rules on the grounds of their beliefs. They should be judged on precisely the same standards as everyone else.

If a politician repeatedly acts in ways that cause reputational damage to the party, and ignores any offers to help them manage the reputational risk despite that help being identified and offered, then I think being expelled is a foreseeable consequence. It does not matter really what the issue is. It matters that the individual is repeatedly going against their organisation and causing damage.

Helleofabore · 22/09/2024 11:41

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 09:50

@Helleofabore

I also think that there are times when some people have categorised conferences that allowed topics to be discussed that were considered ‘hateful’ to be far right/hard right. And when you start to read further, the topics that they consider hateful is women discussing the impacts of gender identity in the needs of women and children. So, I also take any person’s categorisation of such events being far right / hard right as being up for questioning.

Because often the women speaking at those events are not politically aligned with the organisers or the other speakers. And there has been precedence where speaking at the event, or even just turning up to that event, has had women being mislabeled to their detriment.

Okay, but obviously women have spoken at far-right/hard-right conferences in full knowledge of that, or the conference has offered the speaking spot on purpose to attract that sector of audience. What are your thoughts on those situations, particularly the second?

Who are the people you are discussing in the first paragraph above?

or the conference has offered the speaking spot on purpose to attract that sector of audience

Is this something that I have said? Why is it highlighted?

What are your thoughts on those situations, particularly the second?”

My thoughts? I think events with discussions are events with discussions. If a speaker is invited to speak about something that is not getting much air time on a country’s media, then it can be of interest to invite a speaker or a panel to speak at an event about that topic. Even better if the panel has speakers from opposing sides providing equal time is given to all speakers.

And if a group who is holding the event needs to seek expertise outside their group then isn’t it a good thing for them to invite those outside the group?

To me, there is a tribalism associated with insisting that a group holding an event to expand knowledge about issues that are topical, would mean that experts willing to speak to that group must be aligned to that group.

And if a group is being characterised as being misogynist and anti-feminist, how the fuck would they then expand their knowledge of such topics if they only invited people from within the group? Considering just how little the Australian media has given balanced coverage of the topics of the negative impacts of gender identity to women and children, I think groups seeking to have experts come and discuss the issues is a good thing.

For instance, how much has the UK benefitted from Julie Bindel writing for a wide range of publications?

So what do I think? I think that if a group doesn’t have experts within to speak about a topical issue, then going to experts with direct experience is a good thing. I think all people in the world should be seeking to better understand the issue. And that even if the group has opposing views to you, if you are invited to speak and have a chance to change people’s understanding of an issue. Even if they are politically opposed to you, you should be able to do so without the abusive tactic of being forever labeled as being aligned with that group.

It is an abusive tactic to label someone speaking to a group or on a show as being somehow politically aligned to a political movement they do not support.

AlisonDonut · 22/09/2024 11:42

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 07:44

@AlisonDonut

Why do you think Not Bad needed to see that extract and what point is it that you are trying to make?

To know the ideas behind the debate. How much do you know about Pauline Hanson, out of interest?

Don't tell me, let me guess. She doesn't pass your purity test and is a bad woman and so isn't allowed to put a proposal to anyone?

AlisonDonut · 22/09/2024 11:45

MessinaBloom · 22/09/2024 09:53

I don't think you read what I wrote. And Julia Gillard is not responsible for Tickle vs Giggle.

Well, yes she is. Because she removed 'sex' from the Sex Discrimination act.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread