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.

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?

is he talking about the children being sexually aroused, or the parents?

Edited because I think he's clearly talking about the parents. That it's not uncommon for parents to get turned on while they're cuddling their children.

For fuck's sake.

Well one thing is for certain Cassie, you now definitely do have an opinion of her!

The woman can do no right can she? Bit like KJK.

You are consistent though. I’ll give you that. Criticising the language women use when attempting to protect sex based rights and children.

mmmmm

It’s just grim. But you know what? We should just focus on criticising the woman who pointed it out for not checking that Cassie approved of the language she used first. Because that’s the most important thing.🙄

Frankly if she's calling that man a paedophile apologist, I would imagine it's because she actually was self censoring, and wanted to call him something a lot worse

At least two of the LaTrobe University academics associated with the production of Safe Schools have written articles which are... paedophile apologia. What else would it be called?

Dr Steven Angelides: “There is research to show that, as well as feeling a sense of power and control in sexual encounters with adults, children can frequently experience sexual pleasure … It is imperative that children’s sexual desires and sense of power and pleasure not only be recognised but also normalised.” “Sex and the Child.” Meanjin, Volume 63, Issue 4, 2004.

There are lots of other quotes from Dr Angelides.

I have already quoted Deputy Director of the Centre, Prof Gary Dowsett extensively on this thread, advocating inter alia for the 'sexual rights' of children (and no, he doesn't mean the right of children to be safe from predatory social engineers).

That's at least two of them. What is the correct term for academics such as these, if not 'paedophile apologists'? What more moderate language should Deeming have used?

Livestream starts early today. Starts in 9 mins. YouTube: federal court Australia livestream.

Anyone who thinks "paedophile apologist" is an anti-LGB slur already associates LGB people with paedophilia, IMO. Bach actually mentioned LGBT people. So perhaps that is his opinion of them?

You would think, from some of the comments on this board, that MD had invented the article, or misunderstood it, or was just going on a feeling or hunch.
This is not a case of rousing a mob against a random person without any cause.
And there is no mistaking what the article is about.

Jesus, just reading the parts of the transcript that dealt with LaTrobe etc made me feel sick. Hiding in plain sight isn't a strong enough descriptor - HOW did no-one do any feckin due diligence before the Safe Schools materials were created?

Have the professional managerial class across Western countries become inured to Butlerian doublespeak or have they become terrified of being accused of being some sort of -ist or -phobe? Is it insufficient or faulty safeguarding education? Is it desire to seem cool and with it?

What is it that has allowed people with dangerous ideas to become involved in programmes like SS in AUS or like various relationship/sex education programmes in UK/Ireland/Canada/USA? We keep seeing the same sorts of overtly inappropriate materials getting past the civil servants, and then the head teachers and the safeguarding leads in schools, and I can't understand why everyone just nods these materials through. Has no-one any wit any more? Is no-one prepared to cause a fuss? Does no-one in authority favour the idea of kids just being allowed to be kids?

And then when parents, or groups like Safe Schools Alliance, or politicians like Deeming or Duffield, try to raise concerns about inappropriate materials they get accused of bigotry and hysteria.

MD is a better woman than me, i would have said much worse!

Dr Steven Angelides: “There is research to show that, as well as feeling a sense of power and control in sexual encounters with adults, children can frequently experience sexual pleasure … It is imperative that children’s sexual desires and sense of power and pleasure not only be recognised but also normalised.” “Sex and the Child.” Meanjin, Volume 63, Issue 4, 2004.

Fucking hell! Either this guy is very much a paedophile apologist, very paedophile adjacent or a paedophile. The only other option would be he is as thick as pig shit, but as he has the Dr before his name I'm going to have to discount the last one!

It's weird isn't it!. I hear the words paedophile apologist and at no point does my mind jump to that being in anyway connected to LGB people as a group. It just doesn't. So why do some people conflate paedophile apologist with LGB? That definitely says more about them than they realise I think.

I'm Irish so I'm more likely to hear those words and have the image of a Priest/Bishop/Cardinal pop into my head 🤷‍♀️ but that doesn't mean I assume all Priests/Brothers/Vicars/Pastors etc are dangerous men.

And with the laity, I'm much more likely to assume that someone in a position of trust with regards children should be under ongoing evaluation rather than to suspect someone (or a group of people) because of their sexual orientation.

The thing I find hard to understand is why when Dowsett's academic paper was made 'public', it was barely reported on. Just crickets from the mainstream media. He trundled along happily for several more years, and has just been retired as an Emeritus.

All the journos had to do was print Dowsett's own words. Why were they so coy?

Lol, Crysanthou brought up the lobster with a mobster incident, and the public dressing as lobsters when attending Lib events. 😆

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/09/lobster-with-alleged-mobster-scandal-to-be-investigated-by-federal-authorities

This guy’s voice is putting me to sleep.

What a great title for a scandal! All news to me over here in the UK, of course.

I would like to take this opportunity to say how impressive Crysanthou is. She is on top of absolutely everything.

Southwick is sounding like a dickhead. Once again he’s another man connecting the ‘destroy paedo freaks’ sign to trans people, and therefore the Nazis were connected to LWS.

Crysanthou is using an exasperated mum talking to a lying child voice.

Deeming’s husband is in court today supporting Deeming. It was their 19th wedding anniversary yesterday.

Well, she's being handsomely paid to be, right? She's ... doing her job.

Southwick has been caught up in lies and exposed as essentially trying to hide the recording of the 19 March 2023 meeting. He kept claiming that the LWS rally was anti-trans despite not actually knowing what it was about or what the women said. He said something along the lines of pro-women equals anti-trans. He was asked to state at least one anti-trans quote or belief that Deeming had said. He couldn’t come up with anything.

He’s made himself, Pesutto and the rest of the leadership team look bad, and the Liberal Party. Crysanthou has gotten fed up with him multiple times when he’s not answered the question and given a speech instead. She’s cut him off when speaking. The judge has been fed up with him too and telling to answer the question.

Lunch finished 15 mins early to allow for the questioning of Deeming’s final witness Rachael Wong of Women’s Forum Australia. She’d been unavailable prior to this. Now back to Southwick. He must be finished today before a Jewish holiday begins tonight(?).

What has confused me is why does anyone have to wait for any kind of conviction of a crime before calling someone a paedophile apologist? For what crime? A paedophile apologist does not mean the person can be convicted as a paedophile based on their work. Of course, they could be if they acted on their theories and thoughts.

If we had to wait as a society until a person was convicted of the crime of paedophilia before describing their work as paedophilia apologia, wouldn’t that then just make the work a manifesto of some sort? The whole point of describing something as being ‘paedophile apologist’ is pointing out that the person saying / writing is attempting to normalise and / or legitimise paedophilia. And to my mind, using that language is leaving some room for doubt about intentions. It is leaving room for allowing people to have not intended their work to normalise / legitimise such abhorrent acts.

Crysanthou said this earlier today when Southwick wasn’t getting on with giving an actual answer:
https://x.com/anonotanon/status/1841305482478453046

Southwick is excused and court is finished until 10:15am tomorrow. He couldn’t lie straight in bed. So many non-answers, bullshit and misogynistic crap like automatically not believing what a woman says.

Tomorrow will be Georgie Crozier of the leadership team, Louise Staley (former MP, now Pesutto’s Chief of Staff) who will only be a short appearance and I think Alexander Woff of the media team. He’s likely to only be a short appearance too. That leaves Nick Johnston and Rodrigo Pintos Lopez to go on Friday.

Interesting framing.
Perhaps I criticise the language people use in a wide range of circumstances. Yes I am consistent about it.

Mmmmm.

If someone is apologising for or sympathising with a paedophile, what’s wrong with calling them a paedophile apologist? It’s what they are. They wrote the words and put their name to it.

Is this a cultural thing? Australians are probably more direct in their language with less ingrained politeness.

Well,one thing about these threads is I do learn about things.

Safe Schools was headed by a woman called Roz Ward, who appears to have been bullied out of her job for running the programme. Also for commenting on child abuse church and because she is left wing (or a "cultural marxist" as the more antisemitic refer to it).

https://redflag.org.au/node/6713

Seems like a good example of not letting women speak.

I find it interesting that Deeming testified she wasn't prepared to call the men in black at the rally "Nazis" as that is so serious to her, but she did call the authors of the Safe Schools programme (presumably including Roz Ward) "paedophile apologists". That suggests to me she's not just blunt and thinks carefully about words before she uses them.