Moira Deeming defamation trial - Thread 2 from Australia

[TheSandgroper]

Thread 1 https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5167282-in-australia-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-now-on?page=40&reply=138525746

Tribunal Tweets Substack https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/moira-deeming-v-john-pesutto-a-case?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share. Thanks to @BezMills

Thanks to everyone on thread 1. I am pleased it generated such interest and conversations. I have learnt a lot from many very bright women.

CassieMaddox It was about the fact that the board was almost all trans stuff after being a place for discussion of wider feminist issues (y'know, boring things like rape culture, the gender pay gap, enforced dress codes, women freezing in Tibet because they got banished on their periods).

Being new-ish to MN and FWR, I don't know about all the split boards stuff, but if the intention was to divert 'all trans stuff' to FWR leaving 'boring things like rape culture..' etc behind, that clearly hasn't worked, because FWR has lots of discussions about rape, violence against women, global misogyny, inequality at work, enforced norms of behaviour etc.

'Trans stuff' is so central to the current version of militant misogyny that, and so pervasive - education, the law, safety, medicine, words... - that it's impossible to separate it from wider feminist issues.

The very meaning of the words 'women' and 'girls' in discussions of wider feminist issues has been fundamentally altered by the 'trans stuff', which has appropriated those words to include men.

There is no stormwater run-off for 'trans stuff', it has soaked in too deeply.

I’m not even talking about speakers, Helle. I don’t see what your issue is with OneNation being involved with CPAC. What is it, exactly?

And what’s with the “we get it” and “ we are expected”? Are you speaking for a ghostly collective no one can see?

My issue is getting to the truth behind your claims, messina. It has been the case since the very first claim about Deeming being outside the Liberal Party beliefs.

You make generalised claims and then you don't ever support them with even logic, let alone evidence.

So, let's cut down the toing and froing, does One Nation have something to do with the establishment of CPAC Australia?

If so, please add it to the thread so that we all have a broader evidenced knowledge of the group. If not, then people can draw their own conclusions as to the validity of that claim.

As I keep saying, it is nothing personal at all, it is me trying to work out what is fact and what is not. And I have searched and I cannot find anything. And this is no 'attack' on you, it is a statement of fact that if the information is/was out there, it has either been deleted or it is someone opinion or any other reason it might be.

He had zero interest in his own female MP being injured by the counter protestors, which he dismissed with "if it happened". Lovely guy. This is from a transcript a Twitter user did of the second part of the afternoon session, which I didn't listen to as I'd gone to bed.

SC: You know it was violent

JP: I don't know that

SC: You know that people were arrested

JP: 3 people arrested

SC: And you know they were from the counter protest group

SC: You heard that MD was injured and horses punched?

JP: That's what they said in the video

SC: You had no reason to doubt it? You had access to the video. The women weren't being violent?

JP: That doesn't mean that their comments weren't abusive

SC: Didn't you think it was horrific that a MP was assaulted?

JP: If that happened

SC: You know it was true because people were arrested

JP: People made statements and I acknowledge what was said

SC: Did you investigate those matters?

JP: No

SC: A female member of your party was assaulted on the steps of Parliament

JP: That wasn't brought to my attention

SC: It was on the video

JP: Well no one... my condemnation was to Ns

SC: You never publicly condemned the violence towards the women that day

JP: No

SC: You never publicly condemned the violence which resulted in arrests

SC: You never condemned the actions towards animals

SC: If it was correct those things that happened you agree don't you that it was highly abhorrent conduct on the steps of parliament

JP: Agreed

SC: Having watched the video where she said... you never asked her if she was ok?

JP: It wasn't raised with me for action

SC: asked again

JP: No I didn't ask her

SC: You saw her say it was horrifying

JP: Yes

SC: You saw her say the women didn't know who the men were

JP: I remember that

SC: You saw MD say the police led them away

JP: I believe

SC: You heard a woman say that the women had their backs to the Ns?

JP: I believe would need to check transcript

SC: You heard MD say they were wearing black and had no insignia

JP: yes

SC: And you saw that yourself

JP: hedged a bit then acknowledged but still knew they were Ns. Many other things in video which were troubling. Concede those things put to me

SC: You had no reason to disbelieve what the women said had happened

JP: There was no questioning it was their version. No probing

SC: You were aware there was video footage?

JP: Yes

SC: You could have proved by watching footage of what had occurred

JP: I could have but what most concerned me was conspiracy theory who Ns were and use of air quotes

SC: Women made it very clear in video they didn't know they were Ns

JP: I'm being asked to accept truth of what they said. I'm not saying it wasn't but I didn't have any information to know

SC: So you accepted truth of Wikipedia article but you wouldn't accept as truth these women's statements. (Continued)

x.com/raloralo/status/1838862868264968551?s=12

Yes definitely. All in the transcript I've just posted an extract from.

Trans stuff' is so central to the current version of militant misogyny that, and so pervasive - education, the law, safety, medicine, words... - that it's impossible to separate it from wider feminist issues.

The very meaning of the words 'women' and 'girls' in discussions of wider feminist issues has been fundamentally altered by the 'trans stuff', which has appropriated those words to include men.

There is no stormwater run-off for 'trans stuff', it has soaked in too deeply.

That's what we all said at the time.

Thanks for the C&P Ereshkigal

No worries, @Helleofabore

Indeed.

FWR (as it was called then), was relentlessly targeted precisely because of the trans issue. Women were becoming very much informed, and it was spreading out to other places online and more groups were being set up on the back of it. (Maya Forstater, Man Friday, Posie Parker - in fact almost all the women's groups have a connection to Mumsnet).

So Mumsnet advertisers were ferociously targeted to shut it down and Justine had to make ever tighter and stricter rules. She even allowed outside people, ie not members of Mumsnet, to report posts and get them deleted. Hence wanky TRAs on Twitter crowing that they were getting women deleted left, right and centre on here.

It was a horrible knife edge for everyone concerned and it looked as though FWR might go entirely. And indeed, many highly valuable women fell foul of the new rules and were kicked off permanently.

At the same time, some Mumsnet members also wanted to close the board down. Ostensibly because too many threads were about the trans issue. Apparently it wasn't considered that big of a deal to deserve so much attention. And other feminist issues were falling through the cracks. Although, it has to be said, given the previous targeting, there was a lot of cynicism about people's motivation.

And the prediction was that if you hive off gender discussions, it would just become the main board again anyway, because this new, highly dangerous threat to women is one of the main reasons a lot of women were posting in the first place.

And sure enough that's exactly what happened. The 'no trans discussion allowed' feminism board doesn't get much traffic. Certainly the apparently huge number of members who wanted it don't appear to be propping it up.

And here we all are!

Here's her reaction earlier to Pesutto's squirming testimony

https://x.com/angijones/status/1838843738237305031?

What’s the bet that John Pesutto has never watched the Standing for Women official YouTube feed of our rally and he simply took Dan Andrews word for it that it was “hateful and bigoted?”
Seems he listened to everyone except the women who spoke or attended, even vile Nazis.

Angie again

The terms of my defamation settlement mean I am bound by a non-disclosure agreement and a non-disparagement agreement.
So is Mr Pesutto but that doesn’t apply to court.
#DeemingvPesutto

x.com/angijones/status/1838793473702662375?

JP -That doesn’t mean that their [the women’s ] comments weren’t abusive

To me this is the crux of it.

If you believe trans women are women you might well believe it is abusive for women to speak out publicly that they believe that trans women are men.

This is the biased view of the "live tweeting" some posters on this thread are so convinced by

https://x.com/crazyjane13/status/1838795725762666777?

I'm not going to repeat Chrysanthou's questions on this subject. I don't platform transphobia, in any form.
#DeemingvPesutto

Extremely helpful that this tweeter can't even bring themselves to use the words in the court hearing.

If you believe trans women are women you might well believe it is abusive for women to speak out publicly that they believe that trans women are men.

Exactly. And we see that time and again. Bullying, threats and actual violence against women by men being handwaved away simply because we don't share their belief that men can be considered women and we assert our freedom to say this.

Bloody hell Ereshkigalangcleg.

Although his attitude has been perfectly obvious to all the women who've already seen this played out elsewhere numerous times, watching him speak like that is still infuriating.

He doesn't give a flying fuck about women.

And it feels as though the Nazi involvement was actually opportune for him. Something to smear the women with.

All this you knew it was going to happen, you saw it coming, why didn't you stop it.

As Angie Jones says, he can merrily go back on his defamation in court while she is bound by the terms of their legal agreement. If I were a bystander looking at this, I'd consider how slimy and dishonest his behaviour is.

There was no condemnation when a group of women who assembled to speak were set upon by violent thugs. The police horses were set upon by violent thugs. Thugs looking to commmit assault on a peaceful assembly of women. And this man’s problem was the bad, bad women. He seems to have all to easily embraced any dodgy version or characterisation of events. He seems to have made sure he didn’t look anywhere to check what really happened.

This man disgusts me.

Yes, slimy and dishonest came to my mind too.

He seems to have made sure he didn’t look anywhere to check what really happened.

Yes, from the transcript (my bold)

SC: You had no reason to disbelieve what the women said had happened

JP: There was no questioning it was their version. No probing

SC: You were aware there was video footage?

JP: Yes

SC: You could have proved by watching footage of what had occurred

JP: I could have but what most concerned me was conspiracy theory who Ns were and use of air quotes

SC: Women made it very clear in video they didn't know they were Ns

JP: I'm being asked to accept truth of what they said. I'm not saying it wasn't but I didn't have any information to know

SC: So you accepted truth of Wikipedia article but you wouldn't accept as truth these women's statements.

I distinctly recall one of your alter egos talking about intersectionality quite some time ago, and how the most important feminism for you was to do with violence against women. Gender Ideology is not what brought you here in the first instance, unlike most of us, I'd say.

And on the contrary you start threads to critique any woman in the public eye ( KJK, Miriam Cates, Kemi Badenoch, Rosie Duffield,) who understands gender ideology and its damaging impacts, and has this as one of her major priorities - if they don't completely 'align' with you - and seem to take pleasure if they don''t succeed in some way.

Another board was created for women to discuss all of those other issues - at your request - though the fact that the most active and interesting voices still tend to be found here suggests that for most people posting here Gender Ideology and its damaging impacts is the fundamental issue which lies at the root of all of those other issues - and is an issue which unites women and people from all walks of life, all types of experience and background.

It must be emotionally exhausting positioning yourself as counter/against all of the time and having to deal with the weight of heated disgreement you provoke. I'm not sure why you persist? You certainly don't change any minds here if that is indeed your goal.

That struck me too when I read it.

I think it does indicate Pesutto’s beliefs on the topic.

That really does cut to the bones of the issue.

Men, with their complicated and important and vulnerable gender feelings, must come ahead of women.

If you don't agree, then you're a baddie.

“So you accepted truth of Wikipedia article but you wouldn't accept as truth these women's statements.”

Shall we list all the other people that Pesutto will believe above “these women”?

Wikipedia
Neo-nazi men

I am sure we can add to it as more of the transcripts come out.

JP -That doesn’t mean that their [the women’s ] comments weren’t abusive

does he say what comments could be abusive? Or is it just a ... vague suggestion?