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.

Bring it up and the line is always "how can you protect womens rights if you can't say what a woman is?" Which is actually not true. No males in Tibet are ever going to freeze to death because they are on their "unclean" period. No males in America are going to die of sepsis because abortion is criminalised. No males in the UK are going to be "pregnant then screwed". It's entirely possible to focus on GC AND feminism, but you wouldn't think so in the current climate.

Oh Cassie where we you on the discussions around Afghanistan, gender apartheid etc.
Women being reduced to non persons.
How dare you suggest that I and other women on this board don't care or don't have a feminist analysis. The silence of women labour MPs has been deafening.

thanks @BoreOfWhabylon I'm very interested in the proceedings and discussion of that.

The side-chat is no doubt interesting to those participating, no issue there for me.

It's entirely possible to focus on GC AND feminism
Totally agree with you Cassie, that's how I live my life, and looking around, I see I'm not alone

As I said, you're welcome to post where you like.

And I'm perfectly at liberty to repeat the reasons you've given. Despite you claiming they're not relevant, I completely disagree. I think they're very relevant.

She didn’t call people paedophiles. It was paedophile apologists. And it wasn’t “people you don’t share an opinion”: it was the creators of Safe Schools who provided links in their documents to forums where predatory men could access children. And then pretended it was fine. Which is certainly what I would call apologist behaviour. Do you think it is inappropriate to challenge their attitude on this?

Simple questions Cassie: was Deeming right to be concerned about Safe Schools given this specific part of the content, regardless of how the issue was raised? Does this aspect of Safe Schools concern you or not?

Microsoft Edge flat out refused to download the PDF kindly linked by @BoreOfWhabylon but Chrome was happy to do the business.

Page 1 of 20
[Notes on last part of afternoon session of 25/09/24, John Pesutto on the stand.
This is not a verbatim transcript]
Abbreviations
HH - Justice David O’Callaghan
JP – John Pesutto
MD – Moira Deeming
SC - Sue Chrysanthou SC - Barrister for Applicant, Moira Deeming
MC - Matthew Collins KC - Barrister for John Pesutto
AJ – Angie Jones, LWS Melbourne organiser, left wing women’s right advocate
KJK – Kellie-Jay Keen, host/creator of Let Women Speak
LWS – Let Women Speak
DS – David Southwick Deputy Leader, Liberal Party
MB – Dr Matthew Bach – member of Liberal Party Leadership Team
GC – Georgie Crozier – member of Liberal Party Leadership Team
RPL – Rod Pintos- Chief of StaƯ to John Pesutto
NJ – Nick Johnstone – Media for John Pesutto
LS – Louise Staley – previous Liberal MP
MG – Matthew Guy – previous Leader of Victoria Liberal Parliamentary Party
BB – Brad Batten Liberal member of parliament
RR – Richard Riordan Liberal member of parliament
N – Nazi
NN – Neo Nazi
LP – Liberal Party
SC – Safe Schools
JP: On 18/10/23 MD moved motion on issues around gender reassignment. LP debated
internally and supported it.
Compare rally and motion moved in upper house. 2 diƯerent approaches.
How you do things
Page 2 of 20
SC: LP has basic principal that it wishes its members to have freedoms of association
JP: Well there’s freedom of association under human rights law. But association WITH is
the issue here Your Honour
Of course rally could be association - but something very diƯerent
SC: Did you watch the footage of what my client said at the rally?
JP: I watched footage of MD walking through parliamentary precinct with KJK and the
champagne footage
SC: You referred to her as speaker?
JP: I did
SC: Didn’t you think it important to know what she actually said?
JP: Not reason I moved the motion. Nothing she said was my concern.
SC: You were impugning her for fact she organised and attended
MC: interjection that JP statement did not state that MD spoke at the rally.
Sc took correction that MD wasn’t impugned for speaking at the rally
SC: Wasn’t it relevant to you to know what in fact my client said and done at the rally?
JP: Wouldn’t have impacted
SC: Wouldn’t it have been relevant to inform whether she deserved condemnation by
you?
JP: More concerned re links to KJK and AJ
SC: You spoke about her ‘participation’ in the rally. Wasn’t the nature of the participation
relevant to you?
JP: word salad response - tried to say participation was broad term and referred to
organisation and promotion of rally
SC: Argued para 44 of JP aƯidavit not correct.
JP: Stands by it
SC: Your opinion at para 45 not correct - bad reputation succour - extreme views
[Believe para 45 may by the following allegation by JP which is included in
another aƯidavit released to the court file:
Page 3 of 20
In my opinion, based on my experience as Leader of the Party (which caused me
to mix with and meet a variety of people, including politicians and members of
the broader community), while it was clear some people loved Mrs Deeming and
shared her views on those issues (in my view, a minority), on the whole, in the
circles in which I moved including the more mainstream parts of the community I
was trying to attract to support the Party (in my view, the vast majority), Mrs
Deeming had a bad reputation, particularly for giving succour to hateful and/or
extreme social or political views. I know of no other person with such a bad
reputation who has been allowed into the Party.]
JP: disagreed
SC: Last part of para 45.
JP: Rejected
HH: Is there any example you can point to of MD giving succour to hateful and/or
extreme social or political views?
JP: Your Honour, that’s a general view. Not trying to suggest my assessment of MD
necessarily
HH: Did anyone ever tell you that?
JP: not as you expressed it
HH: not just in those words but along those lines?
JP: can’t recall. This was not a subject that was rare in political LP circles talking about
MD. Conversations about MD always about controversy around her. My assessment
HH: So controversial?
JP: Agreed with HH and expanded with anther mini speech
HH: Why does that mean she gives succour to hateful and/or extreme social or political
views?
JP: Another long answer, something about diƯerent views
HH: Countered
JP: Pretty widespread view in my opinion
SC: I suggest that is not true
JP: reject that
SC: Para 46 - media about MD in lead up to March 23 but you didn’t see her presence a
challenge to winning votes?
Page 4 of 20
JP: overall negative on my view. Circles where MD held in very high regard but my
assessment re broader view…
SC: Safe schools. You understood in 2023 that SS started in 2010 introduced by ALP.
Politicians and community groups and parents that opposed it. Briefly turned into a
federal initiative. Defunded by Turnbull govt in 2016. Taken up by Andrews govt when
Turnbull govt defunded. Not taken up by all states
JP: Doesn’t remember but doesn’t doubt it
SC: On record that members of your parliament who are on record as opposing SS
JP: Correct - but don’t address specific modules within the SS curriculum they oppose
SC: Within the LP not controversial to oppose SS
JP: True, but, proceed understanding sensitivities
SC: Turn to that weekend.
When did you first find out about the Nazi salute being performed on steps of
parliament
JP: I believe it was that afternoon
SC: Do you recall who or how you found out
JP: Not specifically. Almost certainly social media or conversations with colleagues
SC: Look at aƯidavit para 49-50
Is it right you saw the draft press release being drafted by DS and BB and batten and
that’s how you became aware?
JP: It could but I can’t recall
SC: You’ve seen docs discovered that DS & BB were working with your media team on a
press release?
JP: That wouldn’t be unusual
SC: You say at para 50 of your aƯidavit that your media team assisted David and Brad.
That was protocol that media team assist MPs to release press releases
JP: Especially shadow ministers
SC: Not unusual for your media team to draft media releases for MPs
JP: Yes
SC: You wouldn’t see it as unusual for you to sign oƯ on media releases made by MPs
Page 5 of 20
JP: Depends
SC: You agree that MD shouldn’t have issued a press release without your sign oƯ?
JP: I would have thought that if she’d reached out to media team they would have
assisted.
SC: You were able, having become aware of the Nazi salute, to direct your team to work
with her in a release?
JP: As a practical matter I could have but I didn’t speak with the media team
SC: You could have couldn’t you
JP: Of course that could have been done. Mrs Deeming was asked to put out a
statement….
SC: I’ll come back to that
You had a call with Nick Johnstone at 6:30pm on the sat
JP: I can’t recall
SC: you received a text at 6:52 from LS on way to multicultural dinner?
JP: agreed
SC: Were you on your way?
JP: I think I was there
SC: LS not a MP. Lost her seat in 2022?
JP: Yes
SC: [showed text message from L to JP and referred to Para 53 of JP aƯidavit.] The text
was a Link to Apple News item from the Australian. [Photo showed KJK with MD
standing next to her but not named]
Did you actually read the article?
JP: I believe I would have
SC: Was that photo the first time you became aware of MD’s presence at the rally?
JP: I may have been informed by Southwick before that
SC: You responded “this only gets worse… I don’t us why she even wants to be part of
the liberal party”
Page 6 of 20
I’ve gone through things MD thought were important and you’ve agreed they’re not fringe
views and are views held by many people in the LP. Why are you then expressing view
that you don’t know why she wants to be in the LP?
JP: MD chose her path. No other MP doing that. MD didn’t appear to want to be part of a
team. Drawing attention to party. I’m trying to reform the party
HH: asked what the issue is
JP: media posting image showing MP at rally.
MD knew she had multiple pathways for support. … within 3.5 months of being elected
we’re drawn into rally. Victorian Liberal Party there because MD chose to attend.
I reject that proposition
SC: What does that have to do with your statement why does she want to be at the rally
JP: Because if you were concerned with being a member of the LP you wouldn’t attend
the rally.
Or you’d check it with me. I don’t accept the proposition
SC: What did you know about the rally?
HH: what did you know at time you sent the text message
JP: I think I’d spoken to DS and pretty confident I would have seen things float through
social media
SC: Did you interpret that to mean she’d literally attended a NeoNazi rally?
JP: Possibly. No one knew
MD would later dispute it
SC: Are you contending she was at n rally?
JP: No. But…. MD was at a rally and Ns were there too
At that point I didn’t know what to think about depth of her association. Picture of her
being in some way associated. Of course I’d be concerned
SC: And your concern was why does she even want to be part of the LP?
JP: Yes. Not entirety of my opinion.
SC: Did you interpret from LS that she didn’t like MD?
JP: just venting frustrations
SC: LS said you should consider expelling MD for consorting with Ns
Page 7 of 20
JP: was on a number of minds. But couldn’t take much further as didn’t know
SC: At some point between these text messages and your press release 8:40 the next
night did you form a view that MD was consorting with Ns?
JP: I never had that view
SC: Your conversation with DS
Para 53 of your aƯidavit
Goes through order of exchange with DS
Para 55
Is that your recollection of the order in which things occurred?
JP: Yes
SC: Your recollection that discussion occurred after text exchange or were you
discussing before hand?
JP: Believe I had multiple discussions with DS
In terms of para 55. When that conversation was? I can’t take it much further than that
SC: You were both at dinner also GC. You were in some sort of anteroom waiting to give
your speech. Does that help you?
JP: Can’t recall when conversation took place
SC: DS told you he’d spoken to MD?
JP: Yes
SC: And she had to immediately distance herself from rally and NNs who attended
JP: Yes
SC: You agreed
JP: Yes
SC: How was she to distance herself from rally that she had attended?
JP: I didn’t know the facts around KJK and AJ at that point. Distancing from rally
appeared to make sense. Didn’t know much about her involvement.
SC: You could have asked your media team to assist her
JP: I understood from DS that was attended to so no need for me to do anything
SC: Became aware that MD had issued a tweet.
Page 8 of 20
When did you learn about the tweet MD issued
JP: Probably the Sunday
Agrees it was that weekend
SC: Para 56 of your aƯidavit. You received a message from MG.
Had you had any prior corro from MG about MD and rally?
JP: No
SC: So you got that message out of nowhere with him not knowing what you knew or you
not knowing what he knew?
JP: Yes
SC: Was there any discussion with him?
JP: I don’t believe so
SC: What did you believe were his reasons for sending you that text?
JP: I believe he saw the media. I don’t know what prompted him.
SC: It became apparent that LS had been texting others not just you
JP: I’m not aware of that
SC: Look at para 54b “has Staley been onto you…. She’s been onto me big time”
JP: I understood she’d contacted me and DS
SC: Did you subsequently have any conversation with MG?
JP: Don’t believe I did
SC: Further text message with DS. 10:55pm. Para 58.
Media release describing as abomination put out as leader of party.
You Didn’t expect every member of parliament to do a media release. BB did one
because of his role and DS because of his role in Jewish community. And you as leader
of party.
So you had as leaders in the party publicly condemned the appearance of Nazis on
steps of parliament.
SC: The text from MG was a group message
JP: agreed
Page 9 of 20
SC: Text re discussion with GC, MG, temp of room. Purpose was to see if you had
support to expel my client
JP: No.
SC: At that point you hadn’t seen the video of the four women
JP: No
SC: And you didn’t have info about KJK
JP: No
SC: You didn’t know from MD her version?
And you didn’t know anything about AJ at all?
JP: No
SC: So at that point you were considering expulsion simply based on that photo
JP: Long answer - need to be very concerned - no one close to making a decision
SC: Sunday 19/3. You sent Text to RPL re 5pm meeting with MD
You were on a call with RPL and DS. Do you remember?
JP: I’ll take it if in aƯidavit
SC: Not in aƯidavit
Suggest you were joined into call sometime after 10
JP: Probably right
SC: Do you recall RPL advised you to slow down not take any action precipitously
JP: Can’t recall
SC: Do you recall RPL advised you had to gather all the relevant factors?
JP: Yes but
SC: RPL advised you any action had to be measured and justified
JP: Process where range of diƯerent factors we had to take into consideration. Process
informed by media and media discourse over that weekend
SC: Do you remember RPL advised you not to take any action on Sunday exempt gather
advice but you didn’t follow that advice did you?
Page 10 of 20
JP: Ultimately I gathered as much info as I could and then urgency to act. Ultimately,
I’m the one that has to make the decision. I regarded RPL very highly. I considered
delaying matters.
SC: It’s right isn’t it that after he gave you that advice you said words to the eƯect that
you wanted to act straight away that day
JP: Can’t recall. Concerned about ??? Conscious that while delay can have appeal can
come at a great cost. Great cost. I was concerned about when reflecting on all the
available that day. Delay carried great risk. Dynamics across media. Social media. Very
strong. In my experience in a matter like this if you delay and open yourself up to not
taking the issue seriously broadside after broadside launched against the party on
accusations that you haven’t acted against Ns that can come at a great cost.
SC: You called NJ?
JP: don’t recall but confident probably did
SC: 11am spoke to GC and asked her to arrange meeting
JP: Yes
SC: Were you aware that MD had 4 children?
JP: I believe so
SC: Did you think inappropriate to require her to come in at 5pm on a Sunday?
JP: It was urgent
SC: Did you think it was appropriate to tell md you were considering taking action before
she came so she could bring a person to support her or advise her?
JP: I thought it was appropriate to proceed as I did.
It was an urgent matter
All members of parliament
Times when exigency require prompt attention
SC: You know she wasn’t given any notice she was facing accusations
JP: That was purpose for meeting
SC: You knew that. You know she didn’t know that.
JP: I don’t know what GC told her. We had to start somewhere
SC: Didn’t you think she should know what she was walking into that evening?
JP: I expected GC would tell MD what purpose and nature of meeting was
Page 11 of 20
SC: I suggest it was improper of you to not assume that MD was informed about nature
of meeting and possible repercussions
JP: I reject that proposition
SC: You then went to lunch at RR’s
JP: Yes
SC: And oh way you drafted press release do you remember doing that
JP: Yes
SC: You were pre-empting what you wanted the outcome of that meeting to be?
JP: I knew I’d have to make a decision in circumstances I considered and urgent
[Draft press release on screen. HH asked for it to be scrolled to next page]
SC: Going back to 2 paras about MD in middle of draft release. Based on what you knew
of MD you didn’t think did she that she was involved in organising actions of Ns?
JP: I had no way of knowing.
This was a thought I had about one possible outcome of the day
SC: I’m suggesting that you drafted the statement that MS assured you she hadn’t been
involved in organisation or actions of Ns was because of your knowledge of MD and you
didn’t think she was
JP: That’s not right.
I was thinking about this because we had to make a decision by the end of the day and I
knew it would be a decision with enormous consequence.
Message I drafted as a possible outcome thinking about scenarios and outcomes that
would protect the party
All the activity that goes into potential disciplinary action
I had no view…
HH: Are jumping forward to where you say she resigned?
JP: This was simply what would that look like. Hypothetical. Ideally. How it would be
aƯected.
SC: Your interactions with my client from time to time prior to 18/3/23 led you to believe
highly unlikely she was involved with Ns?
JP: I didn’t know
Page 12 of 20
HH: is your evidence that as you were driving to Colac you thought it was still possible
that MD had been involved in the organisation or actions of the Ns?
JP: No. I didn’t know what the facts were
What this statement is, is me thinking what would an ideal outcome be
This is prior to having discussions with her
HH: your ideal action was she wasn’t involved with the Ns but nonetheless resigned?
JP: Yes. One option. Wouldn’t have these problems in the future. Colleagues concerned
about as this going to keep happening. I hoped that would happen
HH: is this going to keep happening. What did you think this was?
JP: Constant controversy happening around MD
SC: Mr Pesutto, nothing my client had said or done which led you to believe she could
be a secret N sympathiser?
JP: I hadn’t seen anything to that eƯect
SC: Reason you wrote these is that you were confident when you spoke to her you’d be
told she didn’t have associations with Ns
JP: No your honour. I hadn’t sat down with my staƯ so I didn’t know
SC: So you hadn’t heard from your staƯ about KJK or AJ
JP: I’m not sure I may have
SC: I want to suggest you didn’t know anything about them until 4:30
JP: Can’t recall. Maybe.
Might have seen things on social media
SC: Nothing in your aƯidavit about looking at materials on social media during that time.
Do you agree?
JP: That may well be the case your honour
SC: You were of the view that even if MD had nothing to do with the organisation of the N
protest she should still resign
JP: It was one solution your honour. Seemed to me MD wanted to focus on certain
matters. Maybe LP not best place for her
SC: - so not about the Ns
Page 13 of 20
JP: - rejected
If member focus only on issues…. And drawing for at least the second time in a month
the party into controversy
SC: So you were going to use the fact that the Ns turned up as a pretext to get my client
to resign?
JP: No
SC: Now at that point did you have any understanding about what the LWS rally was
about?
JP: Yes
SC: Did you understand at that point that LWS was an open mike event for women to
speak?
JP: Believe I had a general understanding that’s what it was
SC: Women’s event
JP: Yes
SC: For women to speak
JP: I didn’t know - advertised to the world
No idea bout content
I didn’t know who was speaking
SC: It was called let women speak. Didn’t that give you a hint?
JP: Yes
SC: And at that time you knew all the Nazis were men?
JP: I presume so
SC: So you didn’t think the LWS were working in collaboration with the Ns did you?
JP: I didn’t have any facts to assert that. I wasn’t in a position to determine. I didn’t know
SC: The lunch was for about 200 people. Mostly LP?
JP: Community but lots of Libs
SC: Suggest didn’t hear anyone raise MD
JP: I didn’t hear anyone raise MD
SC: Was GC at that event also?
Page 14 of 20
JP: Yes
SC You say in the aƯidavit that you didn’t have a firm view about the meeting suggest not
true that you didn’t care what MD said to you, you’d already decided what you wanted.
Next thing. Arrived straight from lunch to oƯice. Bit of a drive.
JP: At 4 or 4:30 spoke variously with RPL, NJ and leadership team. May have been other
staƯ members can’t recall
SC: Was it during these conversations that you became aware of my client’s tweet from
the night before?
JP: Is that the police tweet?
SC: The horrible N tweet with an angry emoji
JP: I can’t recall
SC: Was the tweet a discussion at the meeting?
JP: It probably was but I can’t recall
SC: Bottom of p16 of aƯidavit para 70. Go over page. Describe topics at meeting. RPL
taking you thru what he learned and MD’s response.
JP: Might have been the tweet
SC: Could it also have been the video?
JP: It may have.
SC: Did you watch the whole thing
JP: Yes. May have been in the car but I can’t recall
SC: Then you say other organisers including KHK AND AJ. Is that their response or about
them?
JP: I believe it was about them.
SC: Barbie doll image. Suggest you were told about it not shown till following day.
JP: Believe I was shown that day.
SC: You agree you didn’t see that day the pride Gestapo image.
JP: Can’t say. It’s not in the recording. I can’t be sure
SC: And AJ’s tweet
We’re you shown it was it read out to you?
Page 15 of 20
JP: Can’t recall but it was a key issue
SC: We’re you shown the tweet alone or the context
JP: Think it was just the tweet
SC: Did you ask for the context?
JP: Don’t recall but it wouldn’t have made any diƯerence
SC: So you interpreted based on the words of that tweet to be a slur against lgbti
community.
JP: Yes
SC: Why?
JP: Stands on its own
OƯensive. Anyone who wants to draw on links between MD and AJ would be able to
point to that tweet. The tweet stood on its own.
SC: Do you agree that reading it on its own it’s a slur against paedophiles
JP: No. It’s clearly against LGBTIQA community
SC: How do you read that
JP: Its obvious. There’s a reason why the Nazis shown up. Coming to trans community to
be vilified as paedophiles. I didn’t want LP anywhere near
SC: So reason you interpreted that way was the sign the Ns were holding?
JP: No. The tweet itself was clearly referring to transgender people
SC: You us the tweet was done after the rally?
JP: Yes
SC: We’re you also shown tweets by AJ where she condemned Ns.
JP: Don’t recall
SC: You know because they’re in material before you that she did?
JP: I’d have to be shown
SC: You said you asked RPL are you confident about this. Is it solid? What were you
referring to? In para 72
JP: Recall that RPL putting together some of the earlier work around KJK. Tweet about
AJ. All of this material.
Page 16 of 20
SC: You think you’d seen the video of the four women explaining what happened
JP: The Champagne video
SC: So having watched it. You saw didn’t you that the women were explaining what they
saw and knew about the men in black on that day.
And you heard them say there were 3 diƯerent groups?
JP: Well that’s what’s in the video
SC: Do you remember knowing on 19/3 that there were multiple groups at parliament on
18/3?
JP: I understood that there were several groups. Understood based on my staƯ that Mr
Sewell had claimed….
SC: I’m just asking you what you knew from the video
JP: That there were multiple groups
SC: That there were people from diƯerent political groups
JP: Yes
SC: You understand that there were the womem
JP: Yes
SC: You understand that there were the TRAs which means Trans Rights Activists
And that Ns were there. You understood that the Ns were protesting against the counter
protestors
JP: Yes but by Sunday afternoon I knew that they had said they were in support
SC: And in your experience is the word of a N to be believed
JP: Depends on what it is
If a Nazi says….
I find it immaterial to question of whether it’s true
SC: There were multiple sources that you could learn from as to why Ns were there

1. What the women said in video that evening
2. What was shown in the video footage of the event

JP: Can’t recall which ones I saw) SC: 3. Video was called LWS and Ns not women Page 17 of 20 JP: true on its face but says nothing about why they’re there SC: Did it not occur to you that the Ns completely distracted from women being there and being heard? JP: mini speech 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 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 knew 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 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. Page 18 of 20 SC: You never publicly condemned the violence that resulted in arrests SC: You never condemned the actions towards animals SC: If it was correct those things had happened you agree don’t you that was highly abhorrent conduct on the steps of parliament JP: Agreed SC: Having watched that 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 said still knew they were Ns Many other things in video that 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 occurred Page 19 of 20 JP: I could have but what concerned me most was conspiracy theory re 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 You know RPL sourced material from wikipedia Dispute. Not wiki SC: But they came from wikipedia. Did you read the links? JP: Yes - would have to check which ones I read SC: You were watching the video but only looking for anything which you could use to lean on my client to resign JP: No. I was worried about exposure to the LP SC: And you say AJ using air quotes exposed the LP? JP: No not just that. Another speech. SC: You understood MD was not aware of them until the few minutes and then they left she had no reason to leave? JP: No. Ns were there. Don’t think it’s responsible to stay. Didn’t want Victorian LP in the middle of that. SC: Were you aware that after the N salute woman after woman stood up and spoke for 50 mins about experience as women? JP: Assume that’s what it was about SC: So in your view a group of men should have stopped women speaking? JP: Of course it shouldn’t. But it was a rally that was going to be centre of abuse violence…. Thought it exposed party. Grave damage SC: Did you think women should stop speaking once attacked by violent counter protestors? JP: No. But MD as MP should have SC: My client was a woman at the rally. Your view my client should stop speaking because of conduct of a bunch or men? Page 20 of 20 JP: MD was there as a member of the Victorian LP. Had to be conscious of what that meant for broader team SC: Mr Pesutto did you not consider it utterly abhorrent that a MP standing up for women should silence herself because of the presence of a group of men engaging in a despicable act? JP: MD had additional responsibilities as an MP. And we were in the middle of what happened on those steps because she was there. We were all there as a party. SC: Did you check over lunch whether you had any communications. JP: No SC: Did you disclose the content of the letter SC: You don’t think you told Mr Kennett? JP: I didn’t provide the letter I already said I shared contents HH: distinction between letter and contents JP: I would have… HH: You would have or you did? JP: I believe I did disclose aspects of it SC: You know he disclosed to media JP: I know now. My colleagues knew that what was being briefed wasn’t fair or right SC: Para 75. Video. Nothing in video that you thought Victorians or most Victoria’s would find abhorrent.

Yes, I tried too @BezMills but in the end I had to laboriously type up the excerpt I posted earlier in the thread thanks for posting it.

sorry, that the last bit seems to have lost the line breaks, I'll try to fix that up

JP: true on its face but says nothing about why they’re there
SC: Did it not occur to you that the Ns completely distracted from women being there
and being heard?
JP: mini speech
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 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 knew 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 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.
Page 18 of 20
SC: You never publicly condemned the violence that resulted in arrests
SC: You never condemned the actions towards animals
SC: If it was correct those things had happened you agree don’t you that was highly
abhorrent conduct on the steps of parliament
JP: Agreed
SC: Having watched that 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 said still knew they were Ns
Many other things in video that 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 occurred
Page 19 of 20
JP: I could have but what concerned me most was conspiracy theory re 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
You know RPL sourced material from wikipedia
Dispute. Not wiki
SC: But they came from wikipedia. Did you read the links?
JP: Yes - would have to check which ones I read
SC: You were watching the video but only looking for anything which you could use to
lean on my client to resign
JP: No. I was worried about exposure to the LP
SC: And you say AJ using air quotes exposed the LP?
JP: No not just that. Another speech.
SC: You understood MD was not aware of them until the few minutes and then they left
she had no reason to leave?
JP: No. Ns were there. Don’t think it’s responsible to stay. Didn’t want Victorian LP in the
middle of that.
SC: Were you aware that after the N salute woman after woman stood up and spoke for
50 mins about experience as women?
JP: Assume that’s what it was about
SC: So in your view a group of men should have stopped women speaking?
JP: Of course it shouldn’t. But it was a rally that was going to be centre of abuse
violence…. Thought it exposed party. Grave damage
SC: Did you think women should stop speaking once attacked by violent counter
protestors?
JP: No. But MD as MP should have
SC: My client was a woman at the rally. Your view my client should stop speaking
because of conduct of a bunch or men?
Page 20 of 20
JP: MD was there as a member of the Victorian LP. Had to be conscious of what that
meant for broader team
SC: Mr Pesutto did you not consider it utterly abhorrent that a MP standing up for
women should silence herself because of the presence of a group of men engaging in a
despicable act?
JP: MD had additional responsibilities as an MP. And we were in the middle of what
happened on those steps because she was there. We were all there as a party.
SC: Did you check over lunch whether you had any communications.
JP: No
SC: Did you disclose the content of the letter
SC: You don’t think you told Mr Kennett?
JP: I didn’t provide the letter
I already said I shared contents
HH: distinction between letter and contents
JP: I would have…
HH: You would have or you did?
JP: I believe I did disclose aspects of it
SC: You know he disclosed to media
JP: I know now. My colleagues knew that what was being briefed wasn’t fair or right
SC: Para 75. Video. Nothing in video that you thought Victorians or most Victoria’s
would find abhorrent.

Blinkin’ heck. The women speaking were guilty of ‘abuse violence’, even though he hadn’t listened to them. Whose twitter or views did he uncritically accept beyond doubt on that.

Yet he was keeping his powder dry about whether the violent thugs were actually violent, as he hadn’t watched the video and the women who spoke about the physical attacks were merely giving their own version. Which really needed to be corroborated. Not arsed about checking that though, was he?

Women’s rights appears to be ’Abuse violence’ to this man. But actual violence against women … tumbleweed. Well, well, well.

I have an image in my head of how many people who view themselves as ‘progressive’ approach it. Like the good old progressive Puritans, it is ‘burn the witch’ straight away. Or she has to drown for them to accept she may not be guilty. Resign or be expelled. But now, the poor men have been provoked to assault by those women’s words claiming their rights and pointing out the misogynistic bs. Aka ‘abuse violence’.

Can't find a transcript of the morning session, unfortunately. I listened to it and there was some jaw-dropping stuff.

Pesutto is coming over like an absolute arsehole.

SC: So you were going to use the fact that the Ns turned up as a pretext to get my client
to resign?

Bingo.

It's a theme, isn't it. Attack women who are outspoken about this issue, by smearing them.

Can't find a transcript of the morning session, unfortunately. I listened to it and there was some jaw-dropping stuff.

Yes, me too, also I think the ralo ralo transcript is only the second half of the afternoon session.

Considering that currently the Australian Government is running a massive campaign on eliminating male violence against women and girls, and teaching consent to young people and children, I find Pesutto's dismissal of the women's voices very jarring.

Considering that currently the Australian Government is running a massive campaign on eliminating male violence against women and girls, and teaching consent to young people and children, I find Pesutto's dismissal of the women's voices very jarring.

This is a pattern that can be observed in many countries with a "progressive" stance. Gives the lie to it.

yes

Highlighting this section:

SC: You responded “this only gets worse… I don’t us why she even wants to be part of
the liberal party”
Page 6 of 20
I’ve gone through things MD thought were important and you’ve agreed they’re not fringe
views and are views held by many people in the LP. Why are you then expressing view
that you don’t know why she wants to be in the LP?
JP: MD chose her path. No other MP doing that. MD didn’t appear to want to be part of a
team. Drawing attention to party. I’m trying to reform the party
HH: asked what the issue is
JP: media posting image showing MP at rally.
MD knew she had multiple pathways for support. … within 3.5 months of being elected
we’re drawn into rally. Victorian Liberal Party there because MD chose to attend.
I reject that proposition
SC: What does that have to do with your statement why does she want to be at the rally
JP: Because if you were concerned with being a member of the LP you wouldn’t attend
the rally.
Or you’d check it with me. I don’t accept the proposition

Just to clean it up (no offense, Bez, I am so glad to have it posted, just want to make it clearer)

SC: You responded “this only gets worse… I don’t us why she even wants to be part of the liberal party”.

I’ve gone through things MD thought were important and you’ve agreed they’re not fringe views and are views held by many people in the LP. Why are you then expressing view that you don’t know why she wants to be in the LP?

JP: MD chose her path. No other MP doing that. MD didn’t appear to want to be part of a team. Drawing attention to party. I’m trying to reform the party

HH: asked what the issue is

JP: media posting image showing MP at rally. MD knew she had multiple pathways for support. … within 3.5 months of being elected we’re drawn into rally. Victorian Liberal Party there because MD chose to attend. I reject that proposition

SC: What does that have to do with your statement why does she want to be at the rally

JP: Because if you were concerned with being a member of the LP you wouldn’t attend the rally. Or you’d check it with me. I don’t accept the proposition

So, again this is confirmation that

a) Moira Deeming did not hold views that were not welcome in the federal mandate of the Liberal Party.

b) That it was Moira Deeming's support of the campaigns to re-establish women and girl's sexed based rights over gender identity that was not supported. And it was not supported officially by the Victorian Liberal Party because they viewed it as a vote loser. By giving the speeches, and attending the rally, it was the ONE issue that Pesutto and his team felt would significantly impact their chances of winning power in Victoria in the next State election.

"I’ve gone through things MD thought were important and you’ve agreed they’re not fringe views and are views held by many people in the LP."

ie. Pesutto did not consider other issues to be unacceptable by the party.

c) This then also shows the falsity in the opening statements of the meeting audio where Pesutto and some of the leadership team state that they support Moira Deeming's views.

Each day it becomes clearer and clearer that this was only about Moira Deeming's views on the impacts of gender identity ideology on women and children. All that discussion about her other views, is sparple. Pesutto himself has stated that her other views are not 'fringe' views!

This was about fighting for women and children's needs when gender identity ideology conflicts.

Exactly. And the Nazis were a handy scapegoat to taint her with.

On a separate note, I wonder if her views really would be a vote loser, especially after his performance.

No one can fail to see his misogyny.

Course, that doesn't mean people won't vote for it

Each day it becomes clearer and clearer that this was only about Moira Deeming's views on the impacts of gender identity ideology on women and children. All that discussion about her other views, is sparple. Pesutto himself has stated that her other views are not 'fringe' views!

This was about fighting for women and children's needs when gender identity ideology conflicts.

Yes, completely agree @Helleofabore at the risk of being called a parrot again. Squawk.

I think safeguarding risks should be identified and challenged; I don't think its appropriate to challenge by using terms like "paedophile apologist" especially if you are an MP who doesn't want to be seen as controversial.

And I still see the stark double standard between "saying KJK is associated with Nazis is defamation" and "saying those authors are paedophile apologists is justified".

Both cases use inflammatory and controversial language.

JP: I could have but what concerned me most was conspiracy theory re 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 find the line that Moira Deeming didn't know the men were Nazis unpersuasive having seen a couple of the videos. Here is a video from S African news

Here's one my livetweeter retweeted this morning - ignore the KJK baiting and look at the men in the following section.

x.com/slackbastard/status/1838801014616469661

It's not credible to me that Deeming/the women at LWS did not know these men were nazis (or to be even slightly generous, far right activists). So I also have no idea why MD and her barrister are going large on that point. Seems odd.

I don't think HQ would think asking people to account for their argument, in very measured terms, is 'hostility'.