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.

Cassie I interpreted your post as saying that Christians involved in school sex ed/ relationship curriculum was a bad thing because their view of such things is offensive to you as a secularist.

But nowhere on this thread was anyone discussing religiously academics coming together to create a sex ed/ relationship curriculum at the request of the state. That is not what the current court case is about, even tangentially.

However, we are discussing peadophile apologist academics coming together to create a sex ed/ relationship curriculum at the request of the state.

I read your post as setting up and attacking a position that was not being debated i.e. a straw man.

At no time did Christians offer to replace Safe Schools with a Christian focused module on sexuality.

What they did do was call into question WTholyF was going on at La Trobe Uni, why the taxpayers were funding it - and why the government were supporting it.

I doubt it. This is why I think Deeming was nuts not to settle. All the material was heard in court, ABC can now legitimately report on what was said in the public interest.

It's blown the whole "you can't say that, it's defamatory" thing out of the water. Huge own goal really.

I'll be doing no such thing, do I look like your lackey?

Yes. And allowing any person who has in any way publicly communicated their support for paedophilia to be involved with the project is surely defined as the group being involved in the act of supporting paedophilia, if they have not then rejected that person’s input.

Nope, you just seemed extremely defensive about a fairly non-controversial point I made, and I wondered why.

OK, thank you. So you basically read a whole heap of stuff into my post that wasn't there.

Having looked into what happened with Safe Schools it is clear to me that some of the involvement of Christian groups (in this case) came from concerns around teaching of homosexuality and "anti-Christian values". They used safeguarding concerns as a legitimate way in.
That is a common MO for religious groups and why I'm wary when churches speak out on "safeguarding".

I’m not “extremely defensive” and your point is not “non-controversial”. I am pointing out you are indicating that religious people’s motivations for raising concerns about safeguarding aren’t pure enough for you, they’re “tainted” by their religion. I’m pointing out how discriminatory you are. You see religious people, conservatives, and right wing people as “lesser” without the ability to be motivated by good intentions. That post is your posting history in a nutshell.

OK, so you are just being anti socialist and equating a theoretical risk with an actual thing that happens in the real world then. Good to know.

Interesting the mention of religion is so triggering for you though. Why is that?

"Non-confrontational"

lol

I'm sure you know my intentions and "posting history" far better than I do

I don't care about "purity", I'm pointing out an actual observed pattern of behaviour from religious groups. You are shutting it down, for reasons best known to yourself.

And we're derailed again.

I don't care about "purity"

🤣 good one. Your posts about conservative people you don’t like getting into issues you don’t want them to say otherwise.

You are shutting it down, for reasons best known to yourself.

I think you want to shut down conservatives or religious people from talking about safeguarding and paedophile apologists, for reasons best known to yourself. I wonder why.

Yes, it's a shame that a completely mainstream opinion about the role of religious bodies in SRE teaching causes some people to have to make strawmen and misrepresentations that need correction.

Maybe, I don't know, we could just agree to respect each others opinions? Just a thought

This is an open message board. You can't control who joins a conversation. Feel free to discuss safeguarding as much as you want, I'll also continue to provide my input as much as I want. That's the point of a forum.

Only one of us is making comments about "purity" and strawmanning/ misrepresenting the other. Those are tactics used to avoid an open conversation e.g. shutting down. If you actually want to discuss it I'm happy to without those tactics, so please stop. Otherwise I'll go ahead and ignore your posts.

Lol to you too

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/104428596

Another recording! And wtf

"My biggest fans are gay people and trans people," Ms Deeming said.
"I can get you a row of lesbians to stand around you and back you up in a press conference."

This feels slightly dehumanising to lesbians and also missing his point

“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.”

To misquote the Stone Cold Legend, I wouldn't care if it was the devil himself who called out these creeps.

This is an open message board. You can't control who joins a conversation. Feel free to discuss safeguarding as much as you want, I'll also continue to provide my input as much as I want. That's the point of a forum.

Why am I trying to control the conversation?
I am pointing out your discriminatory beliefs as part of an open message board. You can continue to provide your input as much as you want and others can point out what it means.

Only one of us is making comments about "purity" and strawmanning/ misrepresenting the other.

Really? Why did you make a point of pointing out that the people raising concerns about Safe Schools were religious, then?

The topic is the Proscuitto (very thin slices of porkies) and the ALP fucking around and now in the process of finding out.

Yes, Cassie, I do find your posts difficult to interpret in the context of this thread.

I'll leave you to it.

I’m still here. Wondering why whenever I try to look at the livestream, I get there 10 minutes before they recess. Might it be a talent, do you all think?

Aren't most mainstream Christian beliefs in Western society based in a commitment to the importance of love, family, protection of childhood 'innocence', honouring vows and promises etc. It's not so much about '100 virgins in heaven', or an 'eye for eye'.

How would strong Socialist beliefs, for example, be qualitatively any different?

Exactly, they are not. Which in our country's legal system (not sure about Australia's) we have the protected characteristic of religion or strongly held philosophical belief. They are together.

And this example of being socialist is highly relevant to Safe Schools, as Roz Ward was/is a socialist.

To misquote the Stone Cold Legend, I wouldn't care if it was the devil himself who called out these creeps.

This.

Thinking that religion should have no place in SRE is not a "discriminatory belief", any more than thinking gender ideology should not have a place in SRE.

You saying this is a discriminatory belief that I hold is why I think you are being defensive. It's my opinion. It's a fairly mainstream opinion. You can just disagree without saying I'm implying "purity" or being discriminatory

I’d say the same about a man having his shirt buttoned the same way.

It’s federal court. Dressing conservatively and respectfully is expected. She’s a state Deputy Opposition leader. She’s got the financial means to dress appropriately.