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.

Thank you! Well done 👏

From the Tribunal Tweets article (although not tweeted by TT)

‘Collins: "Were you not concerned that the Rally had potential to become violent?"
Deeming: "Yes"

Dr Collins: "A violent rally is by definition divisive, is it not?" ‘

This is really disingenuous framing isn’t it? If the LWS attendees are being attacked by violent hooligans, it is not the rally itself which is violent - so not a ‘violent rally’

I think it is clearly dishonest framing. And it is putting the burden on women and girls to shut the fuck up in case a group of outraged males get angry.

Let’s not forget that two of the groups protesting the women directly were ANTIFA and the Victorian Socialist Party.

If not wanting a penis where my daughter is undressing is considered far right then the left have truly lost their way.

@Helleofabore

And this is where I find your attempt to harden the point they are not officially affiliated rather contrary to the point of the discussion. There is an undeniably strong connect between the Liberal Party and the National Party in CPAC.
While CPAC does have past and present politicians from both those parties, it isn't an official organisation attached to either. Simply the fact that it is conservative attracts them, although I do suspect it could have been set up as a non-profit organisation by Pauline Hanson/One Nation.

And this year, would you agree that the majority of the politicians or ex politicians speaking that are Australian, are from those parties? Yes or no?
Sorry, are you asking if the majority are from the Libs and Nats? Yes?

Is it that you believe those parties are not interested in women’s and girl’s rights?
For the purposes of this conference, no. They would only be interested in the sound-bites of the moment. In terms of women and girls, we could get a mention re:men in women's sport.

Outside of the conference, I'm sure they say they are.

Interesting commentary here

https://www.afr.com/politics/liberals-desperately-need-to-end-the-pesutto-deeming-drama-20240922-p5kcgj

This is so, so weird.

So an immediate apology and repost wasn't good enough for either of you? Apologies for my non-perfectness.

It was boring as fuck. The judge and Crysanthou both seem bored too with having to watch the videos but it was important for the legal process.

Personally I found the last video of the day to be the most interesting. It was Peta Credlin interviewing Pesutto on Sky on 20 March 2023. Can’t find it online so far. He admitted that if Deeming associated with KJK who had been interviewed by someone who had interviewed 3 particular neo Nazi/KKK people then that meant that Deeming was interacting with Nazi supporters. Even Credlin pointed out that it was like 10 degrees of separation and a stretch. He stood by it. Also it turns out that he relied on KJK’s Wikipedia page saying that she had been interviewed by/interviewed the 3 particular neo Nazi people but the page was wrong. Guess he didn’t verify the info on Wiki. Made himself look like a dickhead.

For anyone trying to work out the time difference, court starts in 12 hours 50 mins. It’s Monday night here.

To be fair I'm finding Cailin and Cailleach similar enough to have to double check lots. Easy mistake to make, especially when multiple posters are asking a flurry of very similar questions

Oops, meant to quote messina

@Cailleach1

Not quite sure if that means you genuinely think those statements are rational and scientific, if you don’t agree with the view they are anti-Scientific. Or whether you think they are what they are. Anti Science - the Left.

I don't agree with any of those statements.

I associate 'anti-science' with the discrediting of doctors worldwide, the anti-university trend, and a general anti-intellectualism against science and the science and scientific method. These are all hallmarks of the right.

Thanks Cassie - yes, they are similar! That was the issue exactly!

Thanks, I thought it must have been dull. Interesting re: Pesutto. What a mess. The trial still reminds me of the debate on here. Maybe we will end up with a legal definition of the difference between a "purity spiral" and a "reasonable boundary".

One other thing - from what I've read/seen, it looks like Southwick has been more hostile to Deeming than Pesutto. I can't understand why she isn't also suing him? What do you think?

Pay walled. Do you have an archive link at all?

Delurking to offer a perspective, as have been following this most recent part of the discussion from an observer stance (like on many of these threads where this same to and fro happens)

This, from shortshriftandlethal, seems to me to be the key thing that's difficult to perceive, Cassie?:

Nobody here is " defending the far right". They are providing explanations for the state of affairs.

Whereas you see/hear:

...the familiar safe ground of why The Left (TM) Is Responsible For All Evil.

I'm not making this personal to you Cassie, only want to use this exchange to highlight what I think is an issue in politics right now. Because it's not unique to you- it's playing out on a wider scale.

I don't know how we can ever move out of this untenable polarisation, (which is not in the interests of anyone in any position), if any objective, bigger picture exploration of how things have come to this place is perceived as siding with, or excusing a particular side of the conflict.

To me, it's like an adult intervening in an argument between children, by trying to find what happened and one child/group saying "It's not fair! You always take his side! You like him more". Just because the adult recognises that there are usually multiple factors that have brought the conflict to a head.

I would love to see (be involved in) a mature and nuanced debate/exploration of what's currently happening, but it always seems to get stuck in the mire of black and white thinking and the specifics of positions. Rather than the wider lens of the political landscape as a whole. Even on other platforms and in different publications it seems very rare and hard to find.

I think the fact that people aren't getting practice in doing it (discussing broadly), because they don't even feel free/comfortable about broaching disagreement in their friendship and family/work groups helps.
In many cases, as we know, this hesitance is justified, and in others it would actually be OK and the culture has just given us that impression (which is damaging enough). I know this because I've experienced both!

One antidote to polarisation is curiosity, I think.

It is hard to remain entrenched in a position while being curious.

I would also like to see, as part of broader debate, more curiosity. Asking questions about someone's viewpoint- not as a gotcha- as is frequently the case, but from a genuine desire to try to understand what life experiences etc have brought someone to where they are. Alot more understanding could come from here. And I have seen some great exchanges on this board that do this.

While my DC was studying politics A'level for example, I was fascinated by how they looked at how the various thought leaders came to their political stance out of their personal experiences- of regimes, war, in response to previous extremes etc.

This is why Orwell is so interesting.

So, also, to bring that curiosity to the question of why we are where we are now- rather than looking at things as static and simplistic would be more productive I think.

FWR, as a rare open zone where people from varying positions congregate, (and why I'm here) is an oasis and often fulfills the potential for this, from my point of view. If not consistently, certainly compared to anywhere else I know of.

I know you, and others, have expressed a perception of FWR as becoming more of an echo chamber Cassie.

There's probably nothing I can say to change your mind on this. Although, it seems somewhat countered to me, by the fact that so many do engage with you (and others you feel 'on side' with), in a willing and properly engaged way. (Shortshriftanslethal is a good example- though I could feel her understandable frustration at being mis-interpreted)
This kind of discussion strikes me as a rare situation.
Are you on any other forums that do this kind of discussion, from varied positions better? I'd be genuinely to know!)

Finding it hard ro formulate all my thoughts here well. Only to add that I'm not strongly politically aligned. (Liberal left on the compass. Labour generally), but my main interest in all this comes from a perspective of how human psychology and relational and social dynamics work.

Moved to write this after so many frustrated internal responses to so many threads like this, that I needed to express my thoughts.

Caveat: I'm aware the thread has probably moved on massively since I started typing this and will probably come out as a complete non-sequiteur!

I remember that interview when it came out.

At the time, it was reported via msm that Pesutto relied on a dossier/file put together by TransActivists, and mainly “evidenced” by Wikipedia excerpts. As widely known, any Wiki entry regarding KJK and any other women’s rights campaigners is pure fiction, constantly edited by TRAs. Pesutto was ridiculed for failing to do due diligence and relying solely on TRAs and wiki…

If I remember correctly, this was even directly addressed by KJK in an interview where she openly said anytime someone removed the false or distorted allegations from the Wikipedia page, the activists put it all back up pretty much immediately.

I can see what you are saying. From my position the hamster wheel starts in 2 ways:

1. an assertion "the left" are responsible for gender ideology, and a requirement posters denounce the left before they are worth conversing with . I don't believe it is true that gender ideology is a construct of "the left" - I see politicians across the political landscape who support it, and those who oppose it. As a gender critical feminist who is politically engaged and centre left positioned this requirement to discuss it in terms of "a problem of the left" is frustrating.
2. a denial that what are clearly very right wing views are very right wing views. It is impossible to reach common ground if people cannot accept when their perspective is a very right wing one and instead frame it as mainstream.

When short wrote Nobody here is " defending the far right". They are providing explanations for the state of affairs. theyhad already done both those things. Asserted the rise of far right views was a reasonable reaction to the left (not even the far left, just the left). And asserted a set of views that are very right wing yet denied that to be the case (e.g. saying Meloni was a mainstream politician).

It is frustrating and meanwhile posters seem to think its also fair game to repeatedly make comments about "being tribal"; "playing games"; "bad faith"; "claiming to be GC". Which of course is not conducive to having a debate.

I am a human being, so obviously going to react badly to being spoken to like that.

And yes, in my opinion it's becoming an echo chamber. Views outside the norm for the board aren't being tolerated, let alone welcome.

I'm happy to debate, but only respectfully and I don't think being frustrated in a debate is an excuse for rudeness and claiming others are "bad faith".

Is there anywhere better on the Internet? No, mumsnet is still the best place for an informed debate but certain topics on this board are not.

Just putting in my tuppence against my better judgement.

Good discussions have 3 components:
2 people across table
First give your perspective
Second change places and consider other person's perspective
Third take fly on wall position and consider the interaction.
Cassie, perhaps you could consider continuing by not refering to the, 'far right' it is a disputed definition and makes discussion impossible.

Thanks for answering.

From this I understand you are putting your own interpretation on their motivations here.

Because you choose to believe that the group is uninterested in women’s rights you have decided their motivation is suspect. However, the reality is that even Christian conservatives can support many of the rights that women and children need, as you attempted to dismiss Michelle Pearce’s presence as being counter. They may not support all, but they do support some.

Plus they also have their own concerns which in a democracy is valid to explore because they are not illegal views.

If a group is hosting women speaking about their concerns and highlighting what needs to be done, and women agree to do this even understanding that it might be a waste of their effort, should we think any less of the women doing this?

And why would the group dedicate entire sessions to topics that they fundamentally disagree with but are accused of using to leverage audience participation? This logic doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. So, either they don’t disagree with the topic, or they share the concerns (for whatever motivation they have ) and they want the audience to gain the knowledge.

Have you listened to Michelle Pearce’s videos about how gender identity is impacting children and Australia’s reaction to the Cass report? Can you explain what she has wrong?

Or is it that because of their stance on some issues, that specific group should be denounced? Even though that specific group has publicly stated that they are bipartisan and don’t endorse specific candidates. They are an activation group.

Is the issue that they are a conservative Christian group? Even conservative Christian groups can care very deeply about women’s and girl’s rights. I know of one who used to speak at UN conferences in the 90s & 00s about how to empower women and children out of poverty, how to support their health needs (all their health needs) and how to help trafficked and abused women and girls as well as equitable rights for female people in the work force.

Would you say that that activist was working against women and was not genuinely engaged in fighting for the needs of women?

Again, you wilfully misinterpret, or else simply fail to see that I, and others, are attempting to discuss matters from a macro persepctive; and in order to do that you have to engage with the actual field and substance of disagreement.

When I try to do this you simply position me as " Being supportive of" Meloni, or whoever

As widely known, any Wiki entry regarding KJK and any other women’s rights campaigners is pure fiction, constantly edited by TRAs. Pesutto was ridiculed for failing to do due diligence and relying solely on TRAs and wiki…

And also at the time someone edited Pesutto's own Wikipedia to show how easy it was. I can't remember exactly what they put but it was quite amusing.

I actually tink you have an issue with the actual method of critical analysis, Cassie - because you can't seem to grasp that to understand how and why something occurs is not the exact same thing as being of supportive of that thing.

To move beyond polarisation you have to be willing to move beyond opposition to anything you don't like the sound of. You have to be willing to meet, to engage and to understand the imagined enemy. Only then can you have a true dialogue. It could well be, that you still don't agree on solutions or pathways forward but you can no longer pretend that the 'other' is a complete abomination.

Lots of us have had many years of experience i and around Leftist circles, and have come to understand it from the inside out; and when you can do that you can often be the fiercest critic. You can only really criticise that which you understand.

Yes I obviously am failing to see something. I tend to think if people misunderstand me I haven't been clear, rather than it being "wilful misinterpretation" (good example of the behaviours I'm talking about that make me defensive, thanks for illustrating it).

What is the "macro perspective" that you wish to discuss?