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.

From the Spectator article:

Associating gender-critical feminists with men who have abhorrent views is a favourite trick of trans activists, and Pesutto’s lawyer did his best to enforce the improbable link with reference to Moira’s views about Victoria’s ‘safe schools’ programs. Deeming has been an outspoken critic of ‘Safe Schools’ type programs, and on cross-examination, made it clear that she wouldn’t easily be tripped up on articulating her motivation for that opposition.

Deeming, and all women’s rights activists on the gender critical side, oppose ideological sex education programs like ‘Safe Schools’ because, in their view, they violate long-standing children safeguarding principles. Failures in safeguarding will make children vulnerable to paedophiles, but this has nothing to do with gay and lesbian people, just bad policy.

I remember the Australian "safe schools" programmes from a while back. They were created by queer theorists and based on queer theory. They were badged as "anti bullying" a tactic also used here, when they were more about gender identity ideology.

Struggling to understand why a woman’s opinion on reproductive rights makes her fair game for allegations of being Nazi aligned by a group of men or why that means that her opinion of women being given the right to speak about matters related to men identifying as women or children being harmed.

Quite.

I just realised I didn’t complete the final sentence so it makes no sense. It should have ended with the words ….is untrustworthy.

No. He thinks the association at a leadership caused unacceptable damage to the organisation so Deeming needed to choose which was more important to her. He was really very clear he respected her view.

I found it a clear demonstration of him setting boundaries to be honest. Not unreasonable at all. A couple of the others were more frustrated but she's not suing them.

I guess a comparator could be owning shares in fossil fuels and wanting to stand as a Green MP. You'd have to choose which is more important.

It shouldn’t have any impact on the defamation case at all. Nor would it have been an issue for her selection for the electorate. The Liberal Party has always had a few candidates that were personally against abortion completely.

She said last year that she was not interested in removing other women’s rights to access abortion though. As she has stated she respects other women’s choices in regards to this and is not as a Victorian MP making this an issue she is platforming, it is not something relevant to her party membership or this case.

No. He thinks the association at a leadership caused unacceptable damage to the organisation so Deeming needed to choose which was more important to her.

This is just an extension of his defamation.

thank you for clarifying, so just a case of a woman being smeared on this thread for her personal beliefs.

always the women who are scrutinised 🙄

Agree.

A better comparison is owning investment properties and wanting to stand as a greens mp. That would be several of them.

A podcast about the rise of the trans movement in Australia. Episode 4 and 5 cover "Safe Schools" and Moira Deeming's opposition to it

x.com/desexingsociety/status/1788753495228862767?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

open.spotify.com/episode/3f89mnA9Dq67otP0vOUTAU?si=VVk7H3DHTrCcaQPLoHvSMA

open.spotify.com/show/4dGEAzzAWsKqSdbpjVWtY7?si=8eKp5zizQvmrCR6c4Dx8lQ

Or being a Green MP and prioritising gender over the environment, with all of the environmental implications of gender ‘healthcare’.

From the Desexing Society podcast episode 4 I linked below.

SF "The other teaching resource Moira found disturbing was produced by the Victorian Department of Education and Training. It contained some role playing activities.:"

MD "One of them asked them to do role play, as if they were a boy who had been forced to give his uncle oral sex the night before."

SF: "Moira sent me this document as well, it's called "Building Respectful Relationships: Stepping Out Against Gender-Based Violence. Some of the role plays involve girls being sexually assaulted and violent fathers bashing mothers. I wonder if anyone stopped to think how they might affect students who had actually experienced those things."

Fuck. That is grim. Really really grim.

I remember Safe Schools. I didn't go too deep in researching about it because it was being well discussed and it didn't impact us at all at the time. But that above, that is fucked up .

It's hard to find critical stuff when you google, but I remember the controversy and I'm not Australian. I guess there were threads here maybe?

I think there were elements similar to the Proud Trust dice game, Moira describes resources where the children were asked what sexual practices they would consider doing and which they wouldn't.

Is that role playing for the children or the educators?

Grim either way but unforgivable if it’s for children.

The children.

Potentially it may have made it on here. It should have.

Horrific.

Re her views on abortion. I don't agree with her as I am not 'pro life' but I can't see what relevance it has here. She does not stand on a 'pro life' ticket and has the right to have private opinions, especially when she has clearly stated that there is no anti-abortion mandate and she respects democracy.
I wish that followers of the trans faith were as open and honest, rather than insisting that everyone must follow their fundamentalist religious approach.

Bloody hell. Smacks of grooming to me.

OK so you aren't interested in waiting to see what a judge thinks before deciding yourself. In which case why follow the trial?

I think I quite clearly said that I was talking about the impact on me as a feminist, not the defamation case And the articles show it was controversial at the time.

Why ask what the controversy is, if you are then going to dismiss the answer or misrepresent it? It doesn't make people want to engage.

OK. So if the Green party decided one of those peoples ownership of property had caused the party reputational damage they couldn't tolerate, and they took action, would you support them or not?

This is what I think the wider implications are. I think the Greens would be within their rights to decide it was incompatible with being in the leadership of the party at that point.

It is interesting to listen to what happened behind the scenes too.

A week or so before Moira gave this moving speech to parliament, inviting Victoria's Minister for Women to attend LWS Melbourne to hear women's concerns:

x.com/moiradeemingmp/status/1634411680498335745?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g