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.

This is what I don't get. Why lie about it?

Surely, especially in the age of the Internet, where everyone can see everything, a politician would know to have at least a semblance of integrity when it comes to accusations.

That's practically like deleting the word 'not' when someone says I'm not a Nazi

Do you think that you can confidently claim that he was a Proud Boy while he was speaking at the event?

It isn't relevant why he left for the purpose of this question. He was no longer a member at the time.

Also KJK has said she will talk to the devil himself. It's really not news that she might talk to people that other people don't like.

She hasn't said I'm going to talk to the devil himself, because I believe in devil worship. She has said I will talk to the devil himself to get my message across. It's all about her message, not theirs.

over 130 posts since I last read and all I can think is

"I'm as GC as they come, but......"

Yes we do have eyes.

They suspended her, failed to hold up their end of the bargain, kicked her out, sent out a dossier to the press, used the resulting press coverage to label her a Nazi across the worldwide stage, labelled all the other women Nazis across the worldwide stage but...here's the real news...

She is suing them because they didn't 'like' her. Crikey.

Story about Chrysanthou for anyone interested. She doesn’t give interviews and didn’t for this one but the newspaper spoke to those close to her.
https://archive.is/bT6eu

That is a fascinating article @FeralWoman - she's amazing!

I'm inclined to agree. It was probably intended to be a joke. Crass, but not a statement of his actual political beliefs.

yeah the thing about this case is not so much the lies, it's that they were so easily debunked.

I have a terribly low opinion of people who knowingly lie, and even lower opinion of people who repeat statements that they know to be false, having been presented with the facts.

Fair enough if you're (for example) just someone on an anonymous forum, on their umpteenth username. You can just get a new one and reset your credibility back to zero before going back into your overdraft.

But a recognised politician with a fairly long career, why would you start a binfire and put your credibility in it. He can't just rename himself Jan Barutto and start again, can he? Well he can, I suppose, but his patterns of behaviour will soon enough make him known. You can run all you want but the earth's still round.

It is really discordant.

Exactly. That was clear to me from the start, which is why Pesutto has always seemed so thoroughly shitty to me.

My theory is that they expect never to be questioned.

yes.

And allowing one person to speak, in the hundreds who have, to tarnish the work just allowing women to have a voice takes some serious catatrophising.

My theory is that they expect never to be questioned.

Totally.

And I've absolutely no doubt that there was a conversation that went, look if push comes to shove, we'll pay her off.

What's that word for assuming other people have as low standards as you do?

I linked Moira's LWS Melbourne speech upthread. It's very much worth listening to.

I don't think the Libs are "lying"
What they've said (and what Southwick said in the meeting recording) is that 1) equating LGBT people with paedophiles is a well recognised homophobic trope,which is true; 2) the terminology is very similar to that used by the Nazis on the day, which is true; 3) that noone should be using Nazis as a role model i.e. "nazis and women".... This is more opinion based.

Then they are saying those 3 things are unacceptable to most voters and therefore its damaging to the partys reputation for MD to be associated with it.

The ins and outs of the tweet are not actually that relevant to most of that and it's isn't "a lie" to not bring up the context.

It is similar to the "paedophile apologist" thing. Using emotive words generates a reaction and it may not be a positive one.

It is. Both the speeches she was censured for as two of the '3 incidents' are worth listening to. Because both are about centring women and children in the discussion about negative impacts of prioritising gender identity over sex.

Thank you to those presenting patient, painstaking expositions of the grotesque unfairness of the treatment of MD and the flimsiness of the “evidence” against KJK, with whom I don’t agree on all things, but think she does a very necessary job. It must be tiring for you, but it’s extremely useful.

I'll restate though, I'm interested in the trial because I think there will be ramifications if political leaders can't remove the whip/expel people as its seen as "defamatory".

Here’s a thought. If the only way you can expel a member of your party is by defaming them, then maybe you don’t have a good enough case to expel them.

If you have a good enough case to expel them, based on facts and truth, then it won’t be “defamatory”.

It’s nonsense to suggest that expelling members will be seen as “defamatory” purely because they’ve been expelled. It will only be seen as defamatory when it is actually defamatory.

HTH.

From what I'm reading, the judge certainly seems to see all the deception, misrepresentation, and manipulation.

And that's before you take into account the slippery demeanour that they all appear to favour

yes. Why lie about it?

Why twist and completely misrepresent the tweet? The tweet that featured in the expulsion notification and has been mentioned so much in the audio recordings and the witness sessions.

I really do think that they never expected to be questioned as SnowyPeaks said. They expected that everyone would just accept the superficial statements and that would be it. And it seems that the majority of the Victorian Liberal Party MPs did take it as fact.

The testimony today where they dismissed all the attempts of people to raise the point that what they were saying was incorrect was remarkable. It seems that the leadership group are so focused on getting themselves into Victorian leadership that they could not fact check for themselves after seeing just one person say you are wrong. These politicians did not then say ... 'hang on.... maybe we are wrong' and go check. Maybe it is just me, but when someone says 'you are wrong', I go and check why. Because if I missed something, I want to know what it is that I missed. But I don't see this group doing this checking at all.

I don't like to count chickens in cases like this, as I think sometimes it's just not a strong enough legal argument to nail the respondent and force them to pay damages, like Allison Bailey against Stonewall. If they've managed to make out that Moira's treatment doesn't meet the threshold of "defamation" which is possibly greater in Australia than under U.K. laws she may not win, despite how much of a weasel Pesutto is and how awful others are.

Why twist and completely misrepresent the tweet? The tweet that featured in the expulsion notification and has been mentioned so much in the audio recordings and the witness sessions.

It's bizarre, isn't it. I think they maybe just thought Angie Jones was lying or that everyone else would think that she was.

When I listened to Pintos-Lopez today, he came across just as feral had said. He declared that he know Angie Jones' motivation for the tweet. SC asked directly, 'do you know Angie Jones'? And no, he did not.

I think a rather large part of this entire situation has been that Moira Deeming is 'non-compliant'.

And that women are expected to use only acceptable language so that people will be able to hear what they say. Because, it seems that if unacceptable language is used, those women are to be vilified and demonised.

Oh... yeah... and if acceptable language IS used in one context but the words are those that are on some 'should not be mentioned or someone will maliciously misrepresent those words' list, that language should be vilified and demonised as well.

It really seems that you really must be fully compliant in all things.

Definitely not a done deal as you say @Ereshkigalangcleg

Me neither. But even if she loses in court, she's won the moral high ground, no doubt about it