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.

@NotBadConsidering

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

You wrote "responsible for the entire Tickle vs Giggle mess". I'd have thought that the man, Rory Tickle, should bear at least some of the blame, shouldn't he?

Pauline Hanson has some views which I don’t agree with. Well, I don’t often agree with her when you get to the details of what she proposes. But, I do believe her bill should have been debated at the very least. Because bills can be amended if they need to be, so a bill should be debated and considered regardless of who introduces it.

Loads of people have views I disagree with. One of them is the UK Prime Minister.

But refusing to take forward a notion that recognises half of a country's population because they are scared of being thought of as baddies is utterly pathetic. But as we know it's not really about that. It is about the higher up agendas.

I think some people who believe that Australian politics is identical or even close to be identical to the UK have a rather superficial understanding of Australian politics.

I think if Mother Theresa herself brought this notion to them they'd have shunned it.

I think that the rejection of allowing the bill to be read was not democratic.

@AlisonDonut

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?

Perhaps you should do some reading. Pauline Hanson is a racist, xenophobic bigot. Her party (OneNation) runs on those platforms, with a bit of climate skepticism and freedom of speech thrown in. There is no mention of women's rights anywhere.

Some PH quotes to amuse you:

“We have a disease, we vaccinate ourselves against it. Islam is a disease. We need to vaccinate ourselves against that."

“It’s my favourite topic. Ref-u-gees. You’re not going to tell me you’re a refugee are you, James?”
“No. Aboriginal”
“Really? I wouldn’t of picked it. It’s good to see that you’re actually, you know. Taking up this and working”

"I do not believe that the colour of one’s skin determines whether you are disadvantaged."

"I'm Indigenous, I was born here. This is as much my land as any Aboriginal that was born the same date and time as I am."

And I looked for a copy of Hanson’s bill when it was rejected. I haven’t seen a copy.

As far as I have been able to ascertain it was to revert back to sex being prioritised over gender in the Anti-discrimation act. If anyone has a link to the proposed bill, please could they link it.

It is surprising to think that a bill might be rejected based on who presented it. If I have heard right though, I think another party is now taking up the challenge and may seek to introduce something similar.

So let’s see.

But it would be great to see the bill Hanson proposed and compare to what gets proposed next.

I don't care.

I'd sooner someone was open and honest so that the people that vote for them can make their own minds up [rather than be nannied by you] than people who lie and then do the opposite when they get into power [FYI see The Labour Party UK].

Hope that helps.

I would have thought the same, but the talking points over night are identical. "Labo(u)r hate women! The greens ignore women! Only the right can be trusted to keep women safe!"

Very strange, like a weird global phenomenon.

Also interesting the posters commenting on this thread are the same, and apparently have in depth knowledge of both political landscapes. I'm surprised that there are that many people who are confident in the nuance of both the UK and Aus systems. I think I've seen a couple talk in depth about the Canadian system too.

Only from the very superficial perspective of the point you are making.

Oh my gosh. That's horrible

Really? You find it unusual that people can move between countries?

Fuck. How about that, eh?

@Helleofabore

I think that the rejection of allowing the bill to be read was not democratic.

I would have agreed on first thought, but reading through the Hansard extract - less so. Hanson/Roberts were are interested in formenting trans hate as a primary aim, not women's rights.

No, I find it unusual that certain posters can claim with certainty to be experts on all those systems, whilst also promoting a "superficial" (to use your word) analysis of those systems.

The expectation of deference to their knowledge is also interesting.

@AlisonDonut

I don't care.

I didn't expect you would.

And that may be the case. I don’t believe that it can be argued that Pauline Hanson has been silent on the negative impacts on female people for some years now. It puts in perspective that every woman should have a right to know about the issues and be able to actively campaign for what they believe their needs are. Even the ones who you share little in common with politically.

You can argue her motivation. And it may be different from Roberts’ motivation too. However, I don’t believe that should have been the motivation for blocking the bill from being read. Or it being treated as a serious bill.

@CassieMaddox

The expectation of deference to their knowledge is also interesting.

It is indeed!

I don’t claim to be an expert. That is another bizarre claim from you. But then, maybe it is an absolutist thing to say.

It's not a claim. It's an observation based on posts overnight and posters responses. Some but not all of those posts are yours.

My observation is that when people characterise others perspectives as "superficial" they are implying they have superior knowledge that should be deferred to.

In any case its a bit odd as I was actually pointing out the analysis of others on the thread

This for example 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? is almost verbatim what posters said about any left leaning feminists in the run up to the GE. It is striking.

I think people have a right to elect whoever they want.

That's democracy isn't it?

Meh. Hopefully people will be bored with the anti-Left outrage by the next thread and we can actually discuss what's being said in the trial.

I hope so. It's like everyone's under a spell where they repeat the same phrases over and over, utterly convinced they're right in their opinion.