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.

Funny how having a group of Nazis appear at an event next to yours that you had nothing to do with makes you a Nazi supporter, but promoting programme written by at least two paedophile apologist's, and that reflects their values, even after this was pointed out, does not also make you a paedophile apologist…

I didn’t call anyone a bigot. I wrote that those attitudes expressed are a form of bigotry.

expressing a mainstream, reasonable concern.

I would agree that far too many people in the mainstream consider it reasonable to be concerned about the wrong sort of people rather than the issue being discussed. I wish it would be a fringe belief instead.

I would be tempted to prevent gender zealots having input, because they have trashed child safeguarding, but until such time as genderism is tested in court and found not to be WORIADS, they would be entitled to have their say, too, as parents or teaching professionals.

I think you are making the same point I am.
I'm baffled how Moira Deeming thinks its defamatory for people to raise concerns about Nazis being at a rally she attended, yet OK to call everyone involved in the safe schools programme "paedophile apologists" because one of the people involved had written some paedophile apologia.

To me, they are the same thing. She has double standards in feeling entitled to call out behaviour she doesn't like in language of her choosing, but being offended and upset when others do the same to her.

So now you are saying morals should be considered in the teaching of SRE, but they should be your morals?

Also, to date I've seen no evidence Pesutto called her a Nazi supporter or anything similar, yet she testified to calling all the Safe Schools authors paedophile apologists.

Pot, meet kettle.

But they are not equivalent. If you explicitly promote work that is an apologia to paedophilia then you are a paedophile apologist. No one is calling parents who happen to be in the playground whilst this work was promoted and had no idea that it was going to be promoted paedophile apologists.

Maybe not overtly, but many teachers are activists or ideologues and inject a lot of their own values and beliefs into their lessons. We certainly know that trans activist teachers exist and are teaching contested ideas as fact.

It is fairly standard in many British schools to uphold a general Christian ethos - certainly in the many Anglican and Catholic schools that exist. I'm not catholic myself, but I always enjoyed teaching in Catholic schools due to the strong community/pastoral ethos they have.

MD's case is that Pesutto implied it by his words and actions. He's been at it during the case, if you've been following.
He presented no evidence for MD being a Nazi supporter, sympathiser, or having associations or links. His case was that some people on social media thought so.

There is plenty of evidence that SS were paedophile apologists.
Additionally, they did not distance themselves from the directors.

Innuendo vs evidence. Evidence wins.

Really? You think everyone involved in the Safe Schools programme knew what that guy had written? Based on what I've seen so far, I don't believe that to be the case at all.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-the-safe-schools-program-contain-highly-explicit-material-87437

I literally cannot believe what I am reading on here this morning.

It is everyone's job to protect children.

It's not often I'm speechless but if I were to write what I think I would be banned for a personal attack.

It used to be said that the Church of England was "the Tory party at prayer"; I'd say it now resembles, far more, the Labour party at prayer.

You don’t think they read what they were promoting?

His defence is that he never said she was, he was concerned that she associated with people (KJK) with links and the reputational damage.

The "innuendo" to me is Deeming insisting that pointing out KJKs links is defamation to Deeming. Its odd. But I'll see what the judge thinks.

You don't think Moira Deeming knew about KJKs associations?

🙄
Where did I say that? Honestly, I'm done talking to you. You are twisting my words to the point conversing is impossible.

First you'd have to define 'Socialist values':

Equality;
Taking from the Rich to give to the Poor:
Group Identity and belonging takes precedence over Individualism?
It is not the winning that is important it is the taking part ( it used to be that some schools banned competitive sports).......and so on, maybe?

I see we're onto special meanings of ordinary words again.

Anyone got anything to say about Deemings assertion that trans and gay people are her biggest fans? Or are we just glossing over that?

So not just yours, just certain people you agree with?

What is there to gloss over?

Was she directly promoting the work of KJK’s ‘associates’?

I was never talking about morals. I was talking about sin, which I defined at your request.
You brought up morals. I don't have to engage with an argument where you are twisting my words.

Yes.
This phenomena is both fascinating and painful to watch- as I keep saying, and is what mostly moves me to comment on here.

Seeing it playing out in the world, and on here, and witnessing the enormous blindspots people have to seeing it in themselves.

It would take the ability to pause and reflect- with some humility-to move away from ego defensiveness and tolerate the discomfort that comes with a radical shift in perspective. (That if you can come through the other side of, is as rewarding and expansive feeling as it is intitally uncomfortable).

The first step would be just to question with genuine curiosity; "This tendency to 'other', tribalise, and fear 'contamination' is universal, very human. We are all susceptible to it. I am human. I am capable of this. Are there any ways in which I am doing this myself, right now- with a group I can't relate to/disagree with?"

This piece from 2019 in psychology today (US focus, but very pertinent to the whole thing- these discussions and this court case) I think:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/values-matter/201907/the-politics-contamination

Small section:

People tend to think of their moral beliefs as having universal application. When partisans moralize their ideologies, they run the risk of thinking that they have it right—and that the other side simply has it wrong. This leads us to dismiss our political foe as immoral, inferior, or inhuman. Under these circumstances, to engage the “other side” risks being seen as tacit approval of the other’s position. The partisan who reaches out becomes tainted by contact with the evil other.

He illustrates with an interesting example of an early interaction between Biden and Harris.

And:

Understanding a political opponent doesn’t mean agreeing with them. Seeking to create some sort of common ground with an opponent doesn’t mean endorsing views we might find morally repugnant. Even having compassion for the human needs that motivate a political opponent doesn’t mean affirming their beliefs. Making contact is the first—and often painful and difficult—step to bridging political divides.

“Should LGBT people/charities also be part of the process? If not, why not? Why are they different to religions?”

Of course they should contribute to the sex education sections. Who said they should not? They should not have final approval, they should not be contributing if they have be shown to support child sex abuse and they should not be solely responsible for producing the content. Nor delivering it in schools.

The exact same role as any religious input. And any contributions should be reviewed by a panel to ensure accuracy, validity, age appropriateness, educational value and whether the content is a safeguarding issue in any way.

No education department should be outsourcing Religion and Sex Education or importing whole programmes developed outside the expertise of that department.