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.

Nothing. I don’t believe she said she had ALL people’s support. She stated she had some of that group’s support.

Making the point that that group are not a homogenous group and should not be treated that way.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. Not gender ideology.

I think it’s more important that it’s not the morals of the wrong sort of people. And hey, if it happens to be the morals of the righteous instead, then that’s a happy coincidence.

So I see, you're quite right. I should have said Liberal Party of Australia or LPA -rather than ALP ( which does indeed refer to the Australian Labor(sic) Party )

It's unfortunate that their Victoria branch is dragging the entire party into this entirely self-created disrepute, but yanno, that does seem like a Proscuitto and LPA problem.

You are creating a false distinction between morals and sin. They are both the same; standards of behaviour, principles of right and wrong. The only difference between atheists and religious people is the belief in spiritual outcomes from transgressing those principles.

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.

Yes, any ideological conflicts of interest that prevent people from being impartial should be clearly acknowledged and mitigated against. Safeguarding should be key in schools. That goes for religious or secular ideology.

I am always interested to see, when I happen across the Guardian’s “Dining Across the Divide” feature, that the two opposing parties are often surprised to realise that people with opposing views aren’t the actual devil, and their views have reasonable basis.

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

Yes, absolutely, it’s very evident.

It’s one thing I am grateful for from the gender debate. I have a greater appreciation of differing views and differing perspectives from different people as a result.

It’s one thing I am grateful for from the gender debate. I have a greater appreciation of differing views and differing perspectives from different people as a result.

Yes, me too.

His defence is that he never said she was, he was concerned that she associated with people (KJK) with links and the reputational damage.
As a matter of logic, if you are accused of having implied something defamatory, it is not a defence to say that you didn't say it explicitly.

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.
That's not what innuendo means.

Some lawyers say that because disbelief in genderism is protected, it follows that belief in it is protected. I don't see how, but IANAL.

Well, there seems to be plenty of porkies being shown up in testimony from the Vic Liberal party leadership…..

@BezMills

So So I see, you're quite right. I should have said Liberal Party of Australia or LPA -rather than ALP ( which does indeed refer to the Australian Labor(sic) Party )

'Labor' is the correct spelling of the Australian Labor Party. Weird, I know.

@CassieMaddox “I'm baffled how Moira Deeming thinks its defamatory for people to raise concerns about Nazis being at a rally she attended”

Well now, isn’t that rather disingenuous? You’re trying to link the Nazi group (who were separately escorted to their spot by the police) with the Women’s rally. The women’s rally was LWS.

You might as well link the Nazi group to the TRA rally/protest. Indeed the TRA’s didn’t attack the Nazi group at all, but did attack the LWS rally, Police and even the horses.

Yes, I was thinking more in terms of LGBT as a group having input into SRE.

Not teaching gender ideology wouldn't be discriminatory in terms of protected characteristics, because it isn't one.

Some lawyers say that because disbelief in genderism is protected, it follows that belief in it is protected.

I can't see how genderism wouldn't be, but manifestations of it that affected others would be subject to limitations just like any other belief.

Wouldn't it have to satisfy the Grainger criteria?

(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

Not teaching gender ideology wouldn't be discriminatory in terms of protected characteristics, because it isn't one.

Yes, I agree with this as far as our law goes, don't know how it works in Australia.

Just a reminder that the neo Nazi men were there to support the group of people with regular weekly slot booked on the steps of Victorian Parliament House.

Even their banner supported the banners and placards that the other group had on the day. The neo Nazi men of the NSN said they were there to ‘support the women’. Ie. The women who were holding the banners and signs who regularly are there on the steps. Those men declared afterwards they were opposed to the feminists.

The Victorian Liberal leadership did not do their research properly and have also been shown to have removed the very significant information that they had found that KJK was very clear she abhorred Nazis and white supremists from the dossier they then publicly distributed.

CassieMaddox “I'm baffled how Moira Deeming thinks its defamatory for people to raise concerns about Nazis being at a rally she attended”

I'm baffled at you being baffled - the alleged defamation is not that people raised concerns about Nazis turning up at a rally Deeming attended, the alleged defamation is that she in some way condoned/welcomed/tolerated/celebrated it and/or didn't state that in a way which satisfied Mr Pesutto and some of his colleagues.

Big difference.

Wouldn't it have to satisfy the Grainger criteria?

(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

I guess it depends on the circumstances of the specific case where it was examined and how "the gender identity belief" was framed. Broadly, I imagine you could say that it was a serious belief because the rights of people who identify as transgender or have the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" are serious. It depends how much the angels dancing on the head of the pin are dealt with I think!

They might want to consider changing lawyers as it is getting rather expensive. The $1.9 million does not include a $390,000 award and associated costs in a case just after this article was published. Or the costs of several other cases within that time period.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/abc-defamation-bill-hits-1-9-million-over-four-years-20230808-p5duta.html#

Just a reminder that the neo Nazi men were there to support the group of people with regular weekly slot booked on the steps of Victorian Parliament House.

precisely.

Their presence was absolutely fuck all to do with KJK and LWS. Nothing whatsoever.

They didn't even know who she was.

it's quite extraordinary that despite them not knowing who she was, saying they didn't support her, and supporting an entirely different group altogether, she still had something to do with their presence!

And here we are 800 posts in on the second thread still debunking nonsense being posted by people who have been on both threads since the beginning.

I wouldn't mind seeing that conversation in action. I'd love to see someone take the belief apart, in public with lots of time in which to do it.

More importantly

(v) It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

The Adams v ERCC judge viewed the transideology expressed there as extreme and yet it was pretty mainstream by transideology’s standards.