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.

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

It was. I guess it depends on how much is teased out and whether it's taken as representative of the belief as a whole. Which it is.

I'm just musing of course, don't pretend to have any particular insight into whether genderism would meet the Grainger criteria.

Her words are quoted. It's quite hyperbolic and also a bit weird to think "rows of lesbians" standing with Pesutto are going to make the controversy over the rally go away.

🙄

It's interesting to wonder how they'd spin it, though, isn't it!

Especially it was spun enough in the first place to be taught in schools, and every governmental department.

A defence is reasonable belief you are speaking the truth. So in this case, he reasonably believed KJK was a controversial figure and Deeming could have foreseen what happened at the rally.

It's going to be interesting to see where the judge goes with his judgement.

That still doesn't take away from the fact that MD calling ALL involved in the Safe Schools "paedophile apologists" is pretty outrageous. If I was one of them and had the funds to pursue a defamation case I'd consider it.

Morals operate via red lines one must not cross - as does the concept of sin.
When people "confess their sins", they are opening up about how they have transgressed their own boundaries and principles of right and wrong, good and bad. These are all moral judgements.

No. Morals are quite subjective but as a society we've codified some of them into law - then they become red lines.

For example, most people would consider having affairs outside a primary relationship to be "immoral". Yet many many people still "cross the red line" and wouldn't consider themselves to be immoral people. And an affair is not illegal.

Murdering people is universally considered immoral and is against the law with an extremely harsh punishment. That's not because "murder is a sin". It's because its a rule humans needed to be able to operate as a society. It's ingrained into us, regardless of if we believe in God.

Some people consider same sex relationships to be immoral, some don't. That's highly subjective. People who think its "immoral" often have a religious basis for doing so. So maybe that's a sin, not a moral.

"Sin" is a rag tag mix of trying to encode morals and random other rules put in place before humans had established separate courts. It's completely unhelpful to try to imply that "sin" and morals are the same and I'm not sure why PP was going down that pathway at all.

OK, I see. Ta.

Morals are not as subjective as you suggest. Most people share a very similar set of moral evaluations; without which society would disintegrate in a fuzz of basic or 'lower' instinctual and/or self serving drives.

I suggest people who have affairs really do know they 'shouldn't' be and do feel some level of guilt for doing so. Even those who repeatedly do it. Repeated unfaithfulness is grounds for divorce. People keep affairs secret because they know they are transgressional.

People who repeatedly flout such moral codes often have deeper feelings of shame about doing so. Shame is a common factor in moral transgression as it is with the concept of sin. When we indulge in secretive behaviours we are doing so out of shame. That if we exposed our secret habits or activities others might think us bad, undisciplined, indulgent, reprehensible or unworthy in some way.

So Moira Deeming, according to the consensus, is a sinner, a moral transgressor - because she knowingly associated with undesirables who everyone agrees are bad people. And in being a moral trangressor she brings her party into disrepute.

Sorry, what consensus are you referring to?
Personally I wouldn't refer to anyone as a sinner, or even be particularly judgemental about other people's moral compass, because I'm liberal.

I don't think a judgement of "bringing the organisation into disrepute" is ever a moral judgement, I think its a factual one. And I think it's one that leaders of said organisations get to make, which is partly why I'm following the case.

It's interesting to wonder how they'd spin it, though, isn't it!

Especially it was spun enough in the first place to be taught in schools, and every governmental department.

Quite. And the Safe Schools programme is a good example of this.

bringing the organisation into disrepute" is ever a moral judgement

What is your definition of ‘disrepute’?

" Disrepute" is a moral judgment, not a factual one. It is an adjective applied with negative connotation.

even be particularly judgemental about other people's moral compass

So you have no issue with KJK’s using right-wing media to make her case?
Or MD attending a LWS rally?
Or Rosie Duffield not resigning and calling a by-election?

Why are PPs pretending/lying that they don’t know (as said above AGAIN) that the NNs were there in support of a rally that is there weekly about naming high profile paeodphiles? Cos it suits them to to go on about KJK - pretending they give a shit about bringing an Australian political party into disrepute

oh and their not slurring the ordinary women that turned up - cos that wouldn’t wash - but pretending that MD being an MP makes her attendance and help iniquitous

it’s some insane, black is white shit - reverse engineering, we want KJK to be Nazi, therefore anyone associated with her is NAZI so we support anything that keeps these associations going - they would love for MD to fail so they can say SEE - when it would still prove none of the things they want it to

yes... I wonder.

Here we go, just for readers who might not have picked this up before:

https://fb.watch/uPY5aWyPBE/

At 50 minutes Rukshan says that the people in his comments are saying that the nazis are men from ANTIFA pretending. There was a lot of confusion about this until the National Socialist Network confirmed it was them.

And in glimpses between the 45-52 minute mark but certainly at 51.05 as the men are unfolding their banner, there is a frame where you can see a women and a man holding a banner that is certainly not part of the women's group.
It reads: 'PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. Stop the moral decay of society. Silence is no longer an option'.

It is there amongst the red Victorian flags and what looks like a Eureka flag (at least two people have these flags on a single pole) and Australian flags. There is a woman there with a sign on her back (looks to be beating a straw or ribbon drum thing) saying 'expose the 28' which refers to exposing 28 high profile pedophiles identified by a Royal Commission whose names are suppressed.

This is the remnants of that group that protests on the steps regularly. These are not the LWS rally, although the dude who speaks to Rukshan seems to think that they are connected. They are not part of the LWS rally although they might have gone and listened. They had their own protest and the NSN men joined that.
At around 51.07 a group of photographers were there ready to take pictures of NSN unrolling their banner behind the banner about PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.

The NSN knew exactly who was there, right where they got onto the stairs. It is really quite clear when you view Rukshan's footage, they fitted very well in with that group that was just finishing their time slot up. That was who they were 'supporting'.

_

I am not sure why even the Australian media is not doing its job. The 7:30 report should have discovered this connection. Who the fuck knows who the '28' are but it and the other banners about safeguarding, I remember hearing someone speaking into a loud speaker on the footage about safeguarding in schools.. It is all there. Easy to find, but it has been ignored.

It doesn’t fit their agenda

I am not sure why even the Australian media is not doing its job. The 7:30 report should have discovered this connection. Who the fuck knows who the '28' are but it and the other banners about safeguarding, I remember hearing someone speaking into a loud speaker on the footage about safeguarding in schools.. It is all there. Easy to find, but it has been ignored.

The 24 hour news cycle we inherited from the USA has turned a lot of news into being narrative rather than factual. Impartiality is another concept that seems to have died off in news media thanks to news channels; with Fox News being the early starter and then other US channels catching up and claiming they’re a counterpoint. Newsrooms become silos where an accepted viewpoint or interpretation is dominant. To be fair, tabloids were often this way in the past (having a political party or ideology they preferred most of the time) but national media’s telly and radio news initially seemed to be trying to be impartial and seemed to have largely managed it for decades.

I think the middle-classes taking over the profession of journalism in recent decades hasn’t helped when it comes to diversity of viewpoints in a newsroom either.

And of course the internet has not helped because clickbait creates a lot of monetary reasons for narrative-based rather than factual reporting.

There's no "pretending" about it. The leader said he was there to "act as a vanguard" to the Rally. Similar people/groups have turned up to other rallies and been given the microphone. In my opinion it's entirely consistent that the neo-Nazis would think it was a good plan to "protect the women".

Oops - that was meant to be to justnot.