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.

Illuminating, too.

Yes, isn't it a conundrum? Both can be true, of course.

Because if there is evidence that a person is considered 'extreme' by the federal leadership of their political party, it would indeed be significant and credible. If the use of 'extreme' is just somebody's opinion, like the people using it as a form of abuse as I mentioned experiencing, it becomes meaningless in the context of the discussion about whether a political party considered an MP 'extreme'.

HTH.

I gather Pesutto was a lawyer at one stage, yes? Maybe that's a part of his problem. Instead of just answering, he's trying to second-guess his cross-examiner, re-frame the question, give as little away as possible.
It's much better when a witness just answers succinctly but frankly. If a barrister has to ask you a difficult question several times because you try to evade answering it, then a) it annoys the jury or judge/panel whose time you are wasting and b) it ensures that if/when you eventually have to admit the thing you didn't want to admit it really sticks in the mind. So the jury/judge/panel hate you and they think you're shifty and the adverse answer that had to prised out of you seems more important than it would have done if you'd just answered the first time.

I'm using a common rhetorical device called "a metaphor" to make my point clearer.
The only thing I'm desperate for is a balanced discussion of the case and implications.

Not really. It comes across a bit as "words mean what I say"

I'm interested we got Pesuttos words verbatim but not Deemings. That suggests a potential bias on the thread.

I think that's all fair comment. I get that politicians are generally very careful about what they say - and so it's no surprise.

But the facts as established don't look very good.

1. his staff under his responsibility prepared a preposterous statement or statements based on research that consisted of a quick look at wikipedia
2. he signed off on that
3. this resulted in the defamation of his colleague
4. instead of apologising and taking responsibility, he doubled down and suspended MD
5. There's more too, but this is already plenty

And here we are, in the 'Finding Out' phase of his little adventure to the land of Fucking Around and Finding Out

@Helleofabore

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?

I didn't say "founded". My words were "foundation". They have different meanings.

That suggests a potential bias on the thread.

Well, yes, it is on a "feminism" board.

I'm sure a nice MRA will be along soon enough to restore 'balance'

Interesting she's dropped some of her allegations now
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/deeming-drops-part-of-her-defamation-case-against-pesutto-20240923-p5kcv5.html

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/24/moira-deeming-defamation-trial-john-pesutto-nazi-rally-ntwnfb

This also interesting to read juxtaposed with the elements that have been dropped

The dossier contained news articles about the co-organiser of the Melbourne rally – UK activist Kellie-Jay Keen – including an interview she had given with a Canadian white supremacist.

Paper clearly confident now that is factual

oh. I see.

That last post was a general post, it mentioned some posters had used the terminology as a way of noting the additional significance to the thread. That it featured as a segment in court where Sue C questioned something along the same lines about the differences allowable between state and federal level was the key bit of information.

It referred to any poster who either directly or through inference claimed that Moira Deeming would have likely been expelled for her other beliefs or that she was considered 'too extreme'.

However ... There was no need for that. Indeed!

There seems quite a bit of revisionist work happening with this post plus some bizarre inference that you 'told me about Dutton'. But ok. So, it may be 'smaller' than the majority of Liberal party MPs (as I said, but it seems you agree that it is still powerful.

Since I don't believe you have ever gone beyond the basics, I have no expectations at all. I think I remember correctly assuring you that I generally have no interest in you at all. So, that question about where your knowledge came from was a passing thought.

Would you care to clarify what you did mean then?

That they were some of the speakers, along with Liberal Party MPs? Is that it?

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

No, let's use them where they are a correct and accurate description.

Calling women who do not believe that humans can change sex, that a man becomes a woman just because he says so a nazi or far right is not a correct or accurate description.

Calling a woman who does not believe that children should be drugged and have healthy body parts removed in pursuance of a false premise a nazi or far right is not a correct or accurate description. In point of fact the actual nazis were the ones who were keen on doing that so somewhat ironic that the ones speaking out against harm to children are being labelled nazis.

That is where it becomes meaningless and the end result of that is dangerous.

This is a good reminder, Gail. Thanks.

That is because there was no available record except you and your biased tweeter for the first part of the trial. It was only late on 22nd Sept I posted the link to TT.

Cassie are you aware this is behind a pay wall? Have you actually read it?

For anyone wanting an archive link

http://archive.today/puesr

Deeming drops part of her defamation case against Pesutto

September 24, 2024 — 7.28pm

Collins showed the court examples of Deeming being bombarded in the 24 hours after the Let Women Speak rally she helped organise. He produced a series of social media posts urging the opposition leader to take action – before Pesutto had said anything about her publicly.

“None of it had anything to do with Mr Pesutto, none of it,” Collins told the court.

Neo-Nazis were among several groups of protesters that arrived at the steps of the Victorian parliament on the day of the Let Women Speak rally on March 18, 2023.

The court also heard Deeming was dropping three of 23 imputations, including one that related to whether Pesutto implied she was a white supremacist.

The case threatens to destabilise the state Liberal Party after the court heard former leader Matthew Guy offered to help expel Deeming on the night of the rally.

The article continues.

Also

Collins has sought to portray Deeming as slow to respond to the seriousness of what occurred and reckless for failing to foresee the risks.

How could anyone foresee those risks? That neo Nazis would turn up, unimpeded by police, and do Nazis salutes on the steps?

You'd think.

Yep- click on it and go straight to airplane, you can read it that way

How could anyone foresee those risks? That neo Nazis would turn up, unimpeded by police, and do Nazis salutes on the steps?

I watched it at the time, it was crazy. So were the TRAs, yet they get off Scot free.

🤣

1. It's happened at other LWS events
2. The police warned her it was a possibility

"Neo-Nazis were among several groups of protesters that arrived at the steps of the Victorian parliament on the day of the Let Women Speak rally on March 18, 2023."

What a bizarre way to frame it. It implies they were protesting LWS. Very confusing for anyone unfamiliar.