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.

Well I think one could equally make the same argument about KJK associating with the far right- women who raise concerns are rejected and smeared.

To me the case is really highlighting some troubling double standards. Calling people "paedophile apologists" is also defamatory and shouldn't be said without proof. The proof she gives are online articles. Exactly the same kind of "proof" her lawyer is asking the court to discount in relation to KJK.

Luckily she's not on trial but I can still see the double standard there.

The proof she gives are online articles. Exactly the same kind of "proof" her lawyer is asking the court to discount in relation to KJK.

Exactly the same, except for the whole true/false factor...

Luckily she's not on trial but I can still see the double standard there.

Yep, person A is saying words, and person B is saying words, but somehow one person's words are "true" but the other person's are "false". How can this be? It's ridiculous! Double standards!

Correction:

Materials linked to by Safe Schools appear to be in favour of adults having sex with children.
KJK is not a Nazi or a Nazi sympathiser.

Paedophiles have been trying to glom onto the LGB for decades.
The answer to this is to make a clear distinction between the two groups, not to
censor any criticism of people who appear to be in favour of adults having sex with children.
Otherwise you risk creating the impression that the LGB are in favour of having sex with children, that you don't see it as a problem and it's bigoted of anyone to raise concerns. Remind you of anything?

No sacred castes.

KJK is not a Nazi or a Nazi sympathiser.
I didn't say she was. I said she had associations with the far right. The far right who incidentally also like to "glom on" to issues to validate their approaches.

To me the answer is to allow people to discuss concerns without resorting to over emotive language, hyperbole and insults.

No politician should be using the words "paedophile apologist" unless there has been a conviction or an enquiry. It's irresponsible.

That has no relevance whatsoever to what I said. It is the opposite to what I said. it’s just straw man stuff.

Firstly, I am talking about the safeguarding of children.

Secondly, I said no one should be exempted from scrutiny and accountability. Lastly, I said that “One would care more about a group/institution than the safety of children if one just jumped to ‘smear’ without looking into it.” So, the allegation is investigated. Looked into. You’re talking about smearing people without looking into it. False equivalence. The paedophilia stuff was looked into by MD. The labelling of women is being done without looking into it. As is being revealed in this court case.

To reiterate, paedophiles use whatever loopholes they can to gain access to children. To have contact with children. To groom children. Safeguarding is put in place so that children are protected from that (as much as possible). It doesn’t matter if one is a priest, a teacher etc., and it irrespective of one’s sexuality. Are you saying that if some people should be exempt from the normal scrutiny and accountability of safeguarding? If yes, why? If someone thought that, they wouldn’t really believe in safeguarding children because they are creating loopholes. It would be like boring holes in a dike.

Allegations should be investigated. I’m not sure if you’re saying whether this shouldn’t occur with some (because of their sexuality) because false allegations were made in the past? Are priests and teachers exempt also? Are men as a sex class exempt because most of the allegations (including false) would have been made about males?

"Associations" 🙄
Like KS and the far-right?

To me the answer is to allow people to discuss concerns without resorting to over emotive language, hyperbole and insults.

No politician should be using the words "paedophile apologist" unless there has been a conviction or an enquiry. It's irresponsible.

A paedophile apologist is someone who tries to justify or garner sympathy for adults who want to have sex with children. They don't have to be defending a specific criminal, it is the behaviour which they are attempting to normalise.

It's not a strawman, it's an analogy.

GC women get called transphobes all the time. It's a serious allegation because transphobia is harmful. Should 1) all allegations be fully investigated because of the serious nature, regardless of how often the accusation is baseless? Or 2) allegations be discounted as baseless if they fit a pattern?

Unfortunately people calling others in the LGB community they don't agree with paedophile/groomer on the basis of nothing happens so often and now means people often discount such emotive accusations as hyperbole.

I don't blame Bach at all for discounting what Deeming said, and it isn't a "safeguarding fail". If she wants to be taken seriously, she needs to use more measured and factual language, not the language of stereotypes.

Plus he is right to say a lot of LGB people would find such language upsetting and feel it was driven by homophobia.

OK, got it. So we can "dare to be honest" and call people paedophile apologists with impunity, but we can't "dare to be honest" about KJKs associations as that is a smear/defamatory.

No, when I write it down, I still haven't got it.

Honestly, how hard is it to go "yes in hindsight calling gay people "paedophile apologists" is likely to cause some concern in the LGBT community"?

It is not an analogy. It is not a comparison as you are presenting false equivalences.

Aside from all that straw man guff, do you think some people should be exempt from safeguarding? If so, which people, and why? I wonder what that would mean for children. That is really the beginning, the middle and the end.

No, of course I don't
That really is a strawman.

I don't think an MP calling the authors of a school education programme "paedophile apologists" because one of them is very questionable is doing safeguarding. I think she's doing ineffective hyperbole.

I didn't even know about this before the trial but its nonsense and not at all grown up politics. Far too easy for someone else to dismiss that kind of language.

I don't think an MP calling the authors of a school education programme "paedophile apologists" because one of them is very questionable is doing safeguarding. I think she's doing ineffective hyperbole.

just a reminder:
SC: Formulated Le trobe uni?
MB: Yes
SC: Aware dep director of unit has written lengthy article about paedophilia?
MB: No
SC: Aware Deputy director stated the love of children equates with love of parent?
MB: No
SC: Aware this person wrote article asking how [reads]?
MB: No
SC: Were you aware Le Trobe director suggested many mothers and fathers agree children are sexual and generate sexual response from parents. Cuddling kissing fondling kids - not uncommon to be sexually aroused?
MB: No

But it is not a safeguarding issue to question the materials produced for use in schools by a man with these views?!?!

That’s good then. So, all should be scrutinised and accountable, even if they are LGB or priests. Everyone held to the same standard. Without any reduction or removal of safeguarding. If anything looks to be contrary to good safeguarding, it should be called out. Irrespective of which group of people are involved. You don’t say, ‘oh, you can’t call that breach of safeguarding out as X.Y, or X are involved’.

Isn’t it funny how people accused of being paedophile apologists based on facts outlined here never sue for defamation. It’s almost as if they know what their chances of success might be and what scrutiny a case might bring…

There are paedophiles and paedophile apologists in every community. No group should be exempt from scrutiny - ever. We have had countless examples of this across every community in the UK. Every enquiry into child abuse highlights the silencing of those attempting to whistle blow and the complicity of the powerful by keeping silent - including politicians.

Unbelievable seeing anyone wanting to control the language of those speaking out about paedophiles and their enablers. And on a feminist board.

long my point is that it is more effective to question materials without calling the authors "paedophile apologists". When language like that is used, people switch off.

Unbelievable seeing anyone wanting to control the language of those speaking out about paedophiles and their enablers. And on a feminist board.

This.

All for the purpose of criticising women they don’t approve of.

Mind blowing.

It should be unbelievable, it really should. Alas this board has shown me some posters will defend anything (whilst admonishing those speaking out) if it fits their view of a situation, no matter how often it's pointed out they are wrong.

Yes. If could be said that for every person that cringes from specific language and blocks reading because of specific language being used, that there is likely someone who will be alerted because of the language and will read on.

And again, when is it appropriate to hold Australians to UK etiquette around language usage?

If some people won’t look further at accusations because of the words ‘paedophile apologist’ has been used, that is on them. If they require information to be using specific acceptable language before they are prepared to read it or to go and check further, that really says more about them and their need to control people’s language and thoughts.

Hang on, weren't you telling me all about how use of language is vital if one wants someone to engage with the point on another thread?

I can't keep up with the standards! Getting whiplash from the abrupt changes.

People who are concerned with safeguarding will be doing the opposite.

Thankfully.

I had very little knowledge/opinion of Moira Deeming before this. And my criticism is nothing to do with "approval". It's to do with the fact that using emotive language is counter productive.

I've said on many other threads I don't think its helpful if you want to bring others along with you.

Some will. And some who are concerned with being effective in safeguarding will choose their words so they can not be written off by their opponents as anti-LGB slurs.

One thing that has become clear about Deeming is she is either politically very naive, or she's playing to a specific audience and doesn't care about everyone else. Neither is a great look for a politician.

.Some will. And some who are concerned with being effective in safeguarding will choose their words so they can not be written off by their opponents as anti-LGB slurs.

People who are interested in safeguarding are used to having an opponents leveraging language, tone, of course.

Any safeguarding officer who finds themself being censored by those wishing to control their language should obviously not be safeguarding in the first place. The quicker they are out, the better