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.

Indeed. No one takes Wikipedia seriously. On here it's tantamount to saying you've just made it all up yourself.

Which is entirely possible.

Closer to home, a lot of the information we share on here about which MPs are linked to TRAs and therefore associated with violent men could be considered defamatory.

Are you saying that information is false? That's a requirement for defamation.

We should not be spreading false information. Neither should politicians.

What happens if those women are actually extremist? (Not referring to anyone specifically). Do we have to keep quiet about that because they are GC or is there a certain threshold at which it's acceptable to say "they are GC and extremist".

The threshold is to say things that are true. Truth is an absolute defence. Stick with that and you won't have any problems.

If you start lying about people - or repeating others' lies - because you think they're extremist, and hence lies are justified, then you will have problems.

Thank you for the new thread, wims.

Ms Alsalem notes that such smear campaigns against women “are deeply troubling, as they are intended to instil fear in them, shame them into silence, and incite violence and hatred against them. Such acts severely affect the dignified participation of women and girls in society.”

Bang on.

@Helleofabore

What was really interesting is that Sue also questioned that whole 'has the federal Liberal Party's beliefs changed' line. It think there is a real dissonance in people forgetting that the Liberal Party is one that has had what some posters have tried to categorise as 'extreme' as beliefs that have been shared by their federal leaders, and leaders in the past 10-20 years too.
Have you absorbed anything at all from what I've replied to you? As I said, all parties have factions, the Liberal Party included. There is a small subset within the Liberal Party that holds views more conservative than the rest. The Liberal Party itself is not extreme.

This creep of describing groups as being 'far right' when they are not, as we saw with the Australian CPAC conference being described as 'far right' because there was a lack of a far right example, leads to misinformation being spread. And the mandates and beliefs of one state is not reflective of the entire party.
I'm happy with my description of CPAC as far right, though. It's a clone of US conservative radical politics. That it contains current sitting Liberal/National politicians makes little difference - its foundation is OneNation politicians such as Malcolm Roberts and Pauline Hanson.

In Australia, usually the mandates and beliefs of a party do transfer across states.

Perhaps with the over dramatisation of the use of words today, and where words have been so overused that they lose the power they used to, that perhaps there are some people who have have broadened out the use of words such as 'extreme', 'fascist', 'nazi' and 'far right' to be meaningless to rely on for characterisation of belief.

Having stood for hours having people yell 'nazi' and 'fascist' in my face while I was part of a circle around women speaking really put much of this into perspective.

Don’t forget Lesbians are being called ‘sexual racists’. For being same sex attracted.

Actually the defence is "honest belief they are true".
If someone for example says that a particular politician supports child mutilation, or hates women, either they must honestly believe its true or they are defaming the politician.

I'm saying it's a dangerous precedent if one can't use what they've seen all over social media to support an "honest belief".

This is used all the time by people and in fact is seen as a key tenet of free speech. And I'm sure using the example I've just given you can see why I think there is a risk of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

goodness.

If I remember correctly, you have claimed how 'aggressive' I was with you. Yet, you are here posting snidely, as you have done previously. Oh... and wasn't there some snide remark about people expecting their knowledge to be deferred to...

Yes, I remember you agreeing with 'me' that political parties have factions and that the Liberal Party is included in that. I would suggest though that you would like to consider the more conservative group of the Liberal Party as being a small subset .

Can I ask what you base that on, please by the way? Where do you gain your understanding of the membership of the Liberal Party?

I disagree that it is a 'small subset'. I would also say that it is has been a powerful group and that that power has not just disappeared with Howard and Abbot no longer being elected.

Considering you have chosen not to support your claims about Moira Deeming's beliefs beyond vague accusations, should I have bothered 'absorbing' anything you have posted?

Added:

'In Australia, usually the mandates and beliefs of a party do transfer across states.'

Yes. I know. I believe I was the one saying that the federal party generally set those mandates and beliefs ....

CPAC is indisputably far right and I cannot see how on earth anyone who pays attention to them could deny that. It's controversial for hosting far right speakers and attracting far right figures in every country it's in.

Talking about CPAC I see KJKs appearance is "subject to visa". Which could be interesting.

Perhaps with the over dramatisation of the use of words today, and where words have been so overused that they lose the power they used to, that perhaps there are some people who have have broadened out the use of words such as 'extreme', 'fascist', 'nazi' and 'far right' to be meaningless to rely on for characterisation of belief.

Yes, exactly. It's a turn off to many people. Counterproductive.

@Helleofabore

If I remember correctly, you have claimed how 'aggressive' I was with you. Yet, you are here posting snidely, as you have done previously.

Yes, I remember you agreeing with 'me' that political parties have factions and that the Liberal Party is included in that. I would suggest though that you would like to consider the more conservative group of the Liberal Party as being a small subset .

Can I ask what you base that on, please by the way? Where do you gain your understanding of the membership of the Liberal Party?

I disagree that it is a 'small subset'. I would also say that it is has been a powerful group and that that power has not just disappeared with Howard and Abbot no longer being elected.

Considering you have chosen not to support your claims about Moira Deeming's beliefs beyond vague accusations, should I have bothered 'absorbing' anything you have posted?

No. Go back please. I never agreed with you about factions - it was the other way around. It is Dutton in charge of this subset. Remember who told you this? I told you that. It is not a dominant faction, but it is powerful.

It's none of your business where I get my information. I've decided, since your mocking post at the end of the last thread, I don't need to respond to you with more than the basics. There was no need for that.

Yes, let's stop using the words 'extreme', 'fascist', 'nazi' and 'far right' as they are "meaningless". What could possibly go wrong? #sarcasm

I'm struck by the contradiction between "meaningless" and "worst insult ever" too. Surely if they are meaningless then it can't be defamatory to use them?

Here you go Cassie,

Article Summary
The defence of honest opinion, established under the Defamation Act 2005, protects individuals who express opinions on matters of public interest. This legal protection aims to balance the right to free speech with the need to protect individuals' reputations.
Unlike the older 'fair comment' defence, which required comments to be based on factual material that was substantially true. the honest opinion defence allows for broader protection 'by permitting opinions based on 'proper material"
This encompasses a range of supporting material, including well known facts, contextually evident information, or hyperlinks., However, the defence is not without its challenges. Distinguishing between fact and opinion is crucial, as only opinions are protected.
Legal complexities arise in proving the opinion's factual basis, its relevance to public interest, and its honest nature.
Additionally, the defence can be nullified by proving malice, where the opinion was expressed with harmful intent.
The rise of the internet and social media has further complicated these issues, as online platforms blur the lines between opinion and fact, making it easier for defamatory content to spread rapidly. In this article, our experienced defamation lawyers explain the defence of honest opinion in detail.

https://stonegatelegal.com.au/defence-of-honest-opinion-in-defamation/

And you're just a parrot.

Tl;Dr. Can you summarise your point please?

My point is the law is a double edged sword as precedent applies equally to all. So as much as it might swing against your "enemies" today, it could be used against your "friends" tomorrow.

The judge will be thinking about this obviously.

And you're just a parrot.

And you have contributed very little to the thread throughout, apart from vague smears and rude comments, all while berating others for same.

Like can you imagine the uproar if "reasonable concerns" about the Mets two tier policing were being shut down by the Met Commander because they were defamatory? To use a current example.

If I am a parrot I'll be a galah, they're cool. Or a macaw, beautiful.

To be fair it's pretty hard to comment when confronted with endless questions and screeds of text. She's definitely contributed more in the way of different opinions and perspectives on this thread and the last than some.

By the way, could you please link up where One Nation 'founded' CPAC Australia? Is Andrew Cooper part of One Nation? Or is it just that they also had some One Nation MPs at the initial conferences as well as Liberal Party MPs?

You are so black and white in your thinking. What has the law got to do with friends and enemies, it's about applying fair rules to everyone.
The Summary I posted should be intelligible to you. You are merely getting desperate because John Pesutto is being shown to be a nasty piece of work. As I said earlier win or lose his days are probably numbered.

It really is an interesting thread in many ways.