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.

We are on a feminist board, yet in some people’s views, women’s and girl’s rights campaigners are specifically excluded from the special dispensation that applies to others so those others can speak with anyone they wish without being accused of guilt by association.

You learn something new everyday.

Is it because campaigning for women’s and girl’s rights is not a job at all? Or just not worthy of such special dispensations ?

Has anyone on this thread says Deeming directly supports Trump? I haven't seen it but obviously wasn't posting yesterday.

KJK on the other hand endorsed him as the only person who can save the world. So I think its fair game now to say she supports Trump.

He hasn't had a dinner with Kamala Harris but he had to have one with Trump?

The order that a leader of a country meets other foreign heads of government or heads of state is highly significant.
KS knows that.

KJK isn't the Prime Minister.

KS met with Donald Trump, had dinner, apparently didn't punch him in the face, so by your logic, KS is now aligned with the far right.

That's why we're talking about Trump and KS.

Women are more porous and likely to get infected by bad ideas in close proximity? Empty vessels and all that.

Only if 1) one thinks leading activist movements is equivalent to the job of the Prime Minister of the UK and the POTUS and 2) one thinks that the far right have a strategically important impact on the activism.

Otherwise it's a false equivalence.

Still not sure how this has come up though

Can we have rules clarified? Is there a hierarchy of who is allowed to talk to people without being labelled as “aligned”?

Allowed:

World Leaders/prime ministers etc (Starmer)
Opposition leaders (Pesutto)

————————————————————-
Not Allowed:
Female MPs (Deeming, Duffield, Cates etc)
Women’s rights campaigners (KJK, Angie Jones, Stock, Bindel etc)

————————————————————

Allowed:

Man down the pub

Did I miss anyone?

It really is.

He's just contradicting himself over and over.

We see the same thing on here when people dismantle TWAW arguments.

Take each individual component and they agree with what you're saying, but then say that when you add them all up it means the opposite!

Missed one notbad.

Nazis.

They are allowed to speak to anyone or stand down the street from someone or have a photo taken and they never get accused of being ‘aligned’ with that group or person.

It is a magic dynamic.

Men with their own political party are allowed, but women with their own political party aren't.

Somehow, and I can't quite put my finger on it, it's beginning to look rather binary...

"SKS supports Trump" thread bingo

"He's supported Trump for a long time, this isn't anything new and I don't see a problem"

"I do worry about this. For political movements, figureheads matter, and SKS is a figurehead"

"Displaying clear support for Trump, one of the most vile misogynists there is, both undermines his messages about the importance of labour policy goals and gives fuel to the theory that the UK labour movement is fuelled by shadowy far right organisations."

"Thank you for starting the thread. I’m surprised and disappointed in the replies you’re getting to a polite and non-inflammatory post. I think it’s ok to scrutinise people you intend to vote for. That famous sunlight."

"Each to their own but his right-wing alllegience bothers me less now that he's showing more people who he actually is."

"I used to like and support him, but for a while I’ve had the suspicion that his agenda is actually quite sinister, so I’m not surprised."

Oh Bez 😂

And try as I might, I just can't see this pusutto/deeming debacle happening, if deeming and KJK were men addressing other men about their rights to privacy and dignity.

Not that it would happen, because men don't have any issue with their rights to privacy.

But if they did, no one would give a flying fuck about their rally

I would like to see what Intelwoman comes out with as her Angela Raynor satire character’s excuse for ‘our Kier’.

Apparently ( I haven't heard it) Justin Webb on R4 this morning asked Emily Thornberry about SKS's meeting with Trump and she spun it very positively. He then played a recording of Thornberry slamming Theresa May for meeting with Trump because he's a racist, white supremacist, rapist etc.

They're repeatedly being outed as complete hypocrites.

That’s incredible. Also, I presume that was when he was the actual President of the US.

I personally don't have a problem with SKS meeting Trump. It's realpolitik that he has to be able to deal with Trump, should he prevail in the US election.

(God I hope he doesn't win, please please please)

😂

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00237m3
1 hr and 9 minutes 30 secs in roughly. I'm just about to listen to it

There has to be some continuity and unity of purpose over Ukraine and the Middle East - and Starmer is very much dependent on what the incoming U.S president does or does not do.

I am not sure any poster on the thread does. I would expect most posters who have been saying clearly for two threads that guilt by association is a weak argument and that those who believe these arguments seem to be politically driven to find a way to cause harm on the person being accused, fully understand why Starmer is meeting Trump.

Of course, what is being pointed out is the hypocrisy.

Especially in the face that Pesutto has actively and now fully dismissed women voicing their rejection of being considered anyway aligned with neo-nazi’s.

The very fact that we have seen him, and others, attribute his own personally tailored motivations to other people, sometimes even rejecting those people’s own account of their reasons, shows the kind of person he is. And he, and others, have doubled down and shown this not just a one off. It is a pattern.

And once you see it, it becomes particularly clear.

guilt by association is very on brand for this thread tho, you have to admit

I reckon.

Just to be clear I have no issue with Starmer meeting Trump.

I just wondered what the rules were on alignment and wanted to point out the hypocrisy in the position of certain posters.

My personal view is that it’s very dangerous to suggest that people with opposing political viewpoints should not be able to engage for fear of being deemed ‘aligned with’ or cancelled.

I would replace 'dangerous' with 'stupid' or 'pointless' but generally agree