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.

They cannot just repeat defamatory statements made in court as though they are true. And would be very foolish to do so. They would still be defamatory. They could report ‘respondent stated “[defamatory statement]”’ and the claimant could then use that to argue for increased damages from the respondent. If media simply said ‘claimant did x’ then they could also find themselves in court for defamation.

Also, it's important to bear in mind that queer theorists getting control of sexual education materials is something which has happened globally. You linked a few good U.K. examples yesterday.

Nobody should be intimidated out of speaking up by allegations that they're the wrong religion, sex, race etc.

One of the processes involved with safeguarding is discussing - listening and evaluating whether a behaviour is abusive or something different. It's often a collaborative effort as you tease out how dangerous to a child something is - and scary because if you get it wrong, a child continues to be harmed. Claiming that that this or that religion is problematic in terms of using safeguarding as a tool to influence SRE is a very discriminatory approach and works to silence.

It's depressing to see safeguarding being used like this. Children's safety depends on adults being able to raise challenging issues without being shut down with "oh that's just what they (religious group, race, sex etc ) do"

Nobody should be intimidated out of speaking up by allegations that they're the wrong religion, sex, race etc.

Exactly. That's a safeguarding problem in and of itself.

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.

But thinking that religious people should not express views on it, or that their views should be dismissed because the people expressing them are religious, is discriminatory. That's what you were expressing. Nothing about content, just views on individuals.

And not only discriminatory, it's immensely dangerous. The combination of using social pressure to persuade your in-group to not talk about X, along with declaring that any concerns raised by the out-group should be dismissed about X, purely because they're the out-group, basically guarantees X will happen.

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.

No. But stating that religious people must only be raising concerns about safeguarding because of some sneaky motive, other than just, being concerned about safeguarding is. You wrote:

My point is that very religious people often have reasons that are nothing to do with "safeguarding" for getting involved in how schools teach SRE. Usually to do with notions of "sin" and being concerned for children's souls.

You have made a presumption of negative motive about people you know nothing about raising appropriate concerns about a subject you don’t think they should get involved in because of their religion. That is the discriminatory belief.

My point is that very religious people often have reasons that are nothing to do with "safeguarding" for getting involved in how schools teach SRE. Usually to do with notions of "sin" and being concerned for children's souls.

“Notion of sin” could otherwise be expressed as their morals or ethics. Are you suggesting you have no morals and how schools teach SRE should be entirely amoral? If so, you are advocating for extreme Queer theory.

”We can’t have the wrong sort of people talking about safeguarding.”

”We can’t have the wrong sort of people speaking at women’s rights rallies.”

“We can’t have the wrong sort of people raising concerns in parliament.”

“We can’t have the wrong sort of people calling out paedophile apologists.”

”We can’t have the wrong sort of people meeting with the wrong sort of people to discuss the right sort of issue, because that adds up to wrong.”

It’s just another form of bigotry.

This.

And if the right sort of people suddenly go to the wrong sort of rally, now they're the wrong sort of people.

And if the right sort of people defend those rally goers, they are also the wrong sort of people.

AND if the right sort of people use the wrong sort of words about paedophile apologists, they are suddenly also the wrong sort of people

And also, why shouldn't people from different religions have some say in how religion is taught in school. They should not have any greater say than other experts, but they should not be simply excluded because they are have a 'religious belief'.

At all times what is taught to our children needs to be written and thoroughly evaluated by educational professionals for each age group. I don't think any outside organisation should be providing teaching content or aids directly, certainly not branded and certainly not taught by people who are not impartial or heavily invested in getting a particular message across.

I also think for consistency that one department should oversee what is being used in schools.

However, religions and parents should be part of the process of development of the curiculum and the content. Of course they should.

Yes. Based on what a UK politician should and shouldn't say... when the politician involved is from Australia which has had its very own political system and been governing itself as a nation since 1901.

You're only "derailed" because a number of you are throwing questions at Cassie at the same time, and you'd be annoyed and she ignored them, so she answers them. Calling that a derail is hardly fair.

I'm pretty sure they will have watertight legal advice on this.

ALP = the Australian Labor Party, not the Australian Liberal Party. They are opposed. Pesutto is the Victorian Liberal Party leader.

Now we’re hearing about Deeming not attending a parliamentary meeting that Crozier granted her permission to not attend. Crozier assumed it was a medical appointment for one of her four children.

I wonder why she assumed it was a medical appointment for one of her children. That's very specific.

This.

And if the right sort of people suddenly go to the wrong sort of rally, now they're the wrong sort of people.

And if the right sort of people defend those rally goers, they are also the wrong sort of people.

Yes, exactly.

Equally people can raise a safeguarding risk to children of religious people inappropriately inputting to SRE.

I know posters on this board are most comfortable focusing on the risks of transition, but there are a whole load of other safeguarding risks out there. Teenage girls being raped and sexually abused by boys in their schools. Boys getting warped by porn to think coercive sexual behaviour is normal. Gay children being made to feel strange and different, affecting their mental health.

Conservative and religious groups often want to shut down SRE to purely discussing the mechanics of sex in science classes, and all the "relationship" stuff to be dealt with by parents. That opens teenagers up to loads of risks, even more so now than ever before when their alternative source of information is the Internet.

Many children don't have parents who are equipped to inform them about healthy relationships and sex, for a whole multitude of reasons. So I think an attitude that relies on "parents know best" is paradoxically a safeguarding risk.

Which "individuals" did I express aview on please? Can you quote the post that has given you that impression?

The only individual I've mentioned is Moira Deeming using the term "paedophile apologists" about a whole group of educators, when in fact she meant one person in that group. I think its inflammatory and unreasonable to call everyone involved in the Safe Schools programme "paedophile apologists". It's an offensive over generalisation in my opinion.

It’s just another form of bigotry
Don't be ridiculous. You can't go round calling people "bigots" for expressing a mainstream, reasonable concern.

Equally people can raise a safeguarding risk to children of religious people inappropriately inputting to SRE.

Once again discriminating against religious people. It is entirely valid for religious people to input to SRE. Why shouldn’t they have a say in how their children are taught? It would be a breach of the ECHR to prevent it.

I have come across religious people before who feel that non religious people have no morals, its an odd point of view to me. Humans innately have morals because we are social animals.

"Sins" are specific things forbidden in religious texts that are not universal "morals". Such as - homosexuality. Eating pork. Envying your neighbours mansion. Mixing fibres. Working on Sabbath. Having sex without a relationship. Using contraception. Those kinds of things.

By the same argument, why shouldn't people with a particular gender ideology input to SRE? It would be a breach of the ECHR to prevent that too

Yep. See also using the wrong sort of words about far right people.

Maybe we should all be allowed to insult each other with impunity. Scrap defamation laws!

However, religions and parents should be part of the process of development of the curiculum and the content. Of course they should.
Should LGBT people/charities also be part of the process? If not, why not? Why are they different to religions?