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.

There you go again,equating Hearts of Oaks and Nazis.
I'm assuming there was also police intel given the police warned MD about issues.
So yes, I'd say the risk was entirely foreseeable. In fact this is bread and butter of public order policing I'd think.

Exactly - it was the job of the police to protect MD and all the other women's freedom of speech, otherwise Nazis could close down every meeting they chose to. Is that the state of human rights in Australia.

This substack details the rally and seems to have lots of links and some relevent archives I think. (Delurking again after some amateur Internet sleuthing!:

https://rainyseason.substack.com/p/traging-let-women-speak-melbourne

according to some reporting Deeming had to withdraw a lot of her affidavit.
Can, you give your source for this please. The news report you shared only mention her dropping the accusation he called her a white supremacist.

It is quite usual in these kind of cases to refine as you go along to focus on the most substantive accusation.

Also wanted to say it's good to see a little moment of shared understanding (Cassie and Short).

Gives me hope.

I'd far rather see it as non-partisan and as you say, a concern for many people regardless of political persuasion.
Think this is something we can all agree on.

Hearts of Oak turned up unannounced, did a livestream or recording of an event without permission and somehow gets used as leverage. Yet, KJK had no idea who they are.

Giving their attendance any significance at all, is like saying that KJK is aligned in any way to the Laughing Auditor who turned up at Speakers Corner after he videoed the women being protested at the launch of the Lesbian Project.

These types of guilt by attendance are guilt by association accusations with an even longer reach.

(sorry, I am not disagreeing with you nobody, I am posting in support of your point.)

Yes. The leadership team were very clear. Moira's speeches, the first two incidents, were directly related to her support of female people and children with the impacts of gender identity.

The repeated message was how inconvenient it all was to the election strategy.

Not one thing has been said about any of Moira's other beliefs.

What is interesting is that she has been labelled a climate denier on the other thread. Yet, the only thing I could find (and I welcome seeing any clarification) is her speech about the inadequacy of the efforts of a bill relating to energy. And she repeated the Liberal Party line (while I think this was after expulsion) that Dutton, the Australian leader, proposed a couple of months ago.

There seems to be some serious accusations being made without any supporting evidence. But what has been clear is that her speeches have been inconvenient to the leadership team. It is not even clear that any or all of the team agree or disagree with her. Just that it was inconvenient.

From Sall Grover
“This is the crux of the issue as far as I’m concerned: women were holding a rally to bring attention to the fact men are invading women’s spaces & then bad men invaded that women’s event & the women are blamed for it.”
Nails it on this video.

#DeemingvPesutto
https://x.com/salltweets/status/1837079574150271230?t=bby8sB-GiP9YOx8FNsAwUQ&s=19

🎈FULL EPISODE TOMORROW 🎈

Thanks babayagashouse

In that substack is this link:

https://x.com/RachaelWongAus/status/1637726477549535232

'To solidify this evidence, a video of a man questioning a neo-Nazi on their appearance surfaced a couple of days after the event. The neo-Nazi refers to the transactivists further up Spring St. as "pedophiles", or at the least, "pedophile protectors" and "pedophile advocates". When asked what he thought of the Let Women Speak group, he answered that he was "all for womens' rights" before adding on "what rights don't women have these days?", seemingly contradicting himself. He stated that he and the other neo-Nazis were the most worried for little boys, stating that "they're made to stand up and apologize for rape". Evidently, if the neo-Nazis had come to support Kellie-Jay Keen, they had not done their homework on what Let Women Speak was about.'

This is a dude who is right there questioning the NSN men. And the answer he gets is consistent to the claim that they were there to support the other group who had finished as the women started. Again, that other group was videoed shouting about safeguarding children and from memory were regulars at that same spot with the same messaging for a very long time.

And the voices of that group were women, there was at least one man, but it makes sense that when Sewell claimed to be there to support the women, he meant the women who were shouting out information that supported the men's banner. And their stated reason for being there.

What the actual fuck
Hearts of oak are horrific far right extremists. I really hope this was just clumsy language as opposed to you really are OK with them.

You know that list I posted yesterday about features of fascism? Hearts of Oak meet most of them. Actual fascists and I'm not allowed to say that. I'm absolutely shocked.

www.vice.com/en/article/far-right-hearts-of-oak-protest-london/

Totally.

and you can only get away with that sort of crap for so long. People start to notice.

Well for e.g

https://x.com/ExposingNV/status/1836271628784898472

Dr Collins asks Deeming if any1 ever called her a Nazi in connection w/ the LWS Rally, prior to her meeting w/ the Liberal Leadership in the days after

MD: no

(This goes to whether Deeming already had a reputation of association w/ Nazis, before Pesutto accused her of it)

Various tweets got shown of her interacting with people calling her a Nazi before the rally

Another tweet, posted by someone about Kellie Jay Keen noting her assoc w/ a Proud Boy. Deeming replies to this tweet, defending KJK.This tweet was BEFORE the Rally. Deeming previously gave evidence that she didn't know KJK had been accused of associating w/ Proud Boys prior to the Rally

Dr Collins: "You now accept that the evidence you gave earlier is incorrect"

Deeming: "Yes"

You can see the affadavits were heavily redacted (I screenshot on the last thread) and they weren't uploaded till after her cross examination.

From the live tweeter you don't like, in lieu of anything better:

Collins is taking Deeming through her affidavit paragraph by paragraph. Nearly every claim she's made in her affidavit about either her words or Pesutto's is being revealed as incorrect. #DeemingvPesutto

Chrysanthou on her feet to shield Deeming from cross-examination. Arguing that Collins is unfair in pointing out where Deeming's account is disproved by the transcript because it was Deeming's understanding.

Collins points out that without the recording and transcript, the judge would be left with an account of the meeting that is wrong on nearly every point. The judge asks why can't this be done in submissions. Collins points out that these paragraphs were withdrawn by Deeming's counsel, and he needs to put them before the judge.

Sue says the reason those paragraphs were withdrawn because they know they're incorrect, so Collins shouldn't be allowed to cross-examine Deeming on them.

Chrysanthou threatens to object to every question Collins will bring on these unread paragraphs in Deeming's affidavit.

Collins says Deeming's account is indicative of either unreliability or dishonesty. She has included quotes and claimed questions that do not appear anywhere in the transcript.

This suggests to me the redactions are indeed because the statements have been withdrawn.

Incorrect. Pesutto was told by Southwick that he had a recording back in Dec 2023/Jan 2024. Pesutto didn’t ask to hear it, for a copy of it or even why Southwick had recorded the meeting. Seems unlikely to me. Anyway, he supposedly forgot about it until a few weeks ago reading documents to prepare for the court case. He saw that Deeming had recorded a meeting and that reminded him that Southwick had a recording. He checked that Southwick still had it and informed his lawyers. His lawyers obtained it that same day. I think they decided it was about 2.5 weeks ago.

Yeah, there's barely a woman on here who doesn't agree with that.

It's utterly predictable.

OK, my recall of when the recording got made was wrong. The main substance (that it has been admitted, you can listen to it and draw your own conclusions) stands though.

I can see many reasons he might not want the Liberals dirty linen from that meeting aired in court, and my conclusion is its not necessarily all about covering up the Deeming interactions. I think a huge motivator could be trying to minimise what was made public so as not to expose the divisions. Damage limitation for after the trial if he still has to try to unite the party.

If he doesn’t want dirty linen aired then he shouldn’t shit in the bed.

That divisions and factions exist within the political parties is no surprise to the Australian public.

Back to sleep for me. It’s just after 4am and this whole new thread has appeared here since I last checked Mumsnet. I haven’t even finished reading the last one.

But then you can always change your username....

Absolutely and let’s not forget what the division is over in this scenario.

Most posters, on a feminism board, think that Deeming has been treated abhorrently for the crime of believing that women exist and wanting to protect children.

The fact that twitter etc was calling women such as KJK Nazis/ nazi adjacent very convenient for Pesutto imo.

Most posters on this board want to see Deeming win , not prove that Pesutto was right because they can’t stand KJK.

Because what matters here is that women should have the right to speak.

I hope you manage to get some sleep.

I think it is absolutely no surprise to Australians about factions and divisions.... look at how many 'PM spills' we have had!

This is quite cliquey, no? You'd have no idea what "most posters" think and its absolutely still a matter of opinion whether 1) expelling her was an abhorrent response and 2) whether it happened because of her GC views or something else.

I don't care who wins. I know about the trial because of KJK, I'm following because of the broader implications of either conclusion. Even so, being in the minority doesn't mean I can't express my opinion here and it doesn't mean we can't have useful conversations. My chat with shortshrift earlier was interesting and positive for example. It would be nice if we could exchange views like that more often without playground carping about what most posters think, the appropriateness of name changing, limericks, cake recipes, and endless circular questions.

To be honest I don’t care what you think.

You only critique the women.

I don’t find anything you post interesting or positive. It’s always coming from the same perspective, which isn’t one I share because my priority is that women who want to speak about issues that impact us should have a platform.

And yet, you still feel compelled to reply to tell me how uninteresting you find me 😂

And really. As if KJK is the only way women "have a platform".

Oh that old chestnut, who else is providing one for every woman irrespective of whether they hold ‘acceptable’ beliefs?

This is an issue that affects all women. Including women you disprove of.

Erm....mumsnet?

I somehow really doubt I'd be welcome at a KJK event. She's also generally not very welcoming to SocFems or female trans rights activists. So I don't think its true "all women" are welcome.

Anyway look. I know you are a big fan of hers, so let's agree to disagree and move on.