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.

I found it useful. The name, the timeline, it's all connected, anyway. Seemed like it was thought by some that not using "women" or "feminism" in the title would throttle the separated board? That's the impression I got on a quick skim and spot-read.

Both boards are now listed as Feminism in Talk and there's a signpost to the other board on each one. so that looks good to me.

@MessinaBloom

Would you care to clarify what you did mean then?

That they were some of the speakers, along with Liberal Party MPs? Is that it?

They were the bedrock upon which the rest is built.

Court in session now.

There's at least 15 sexes in mice.

I know it wasn't the point of the linked thread but this nonsense gave me a cackle.

@Helleofabore

oh. I see.

That last post was a general post, it mentioned some posters had used the terminology as a way of noting the additional significance to the thread. That it featured as a segment in court where Sue C questioned something along the same lines about the differences allowable between state and federal level was the key bit of information.

It referred to any poster who either directly or through inference claimed that Moira Deeming would have likely been expelled for her other beliefs or that she was considered 'too extreme'.

However ... There was no need for that. Indeed!

There seems quite a bit of revisionist work happening with this post plus some bizarre inference that you 'told me about Dutton'. But ok. So, it may be 'smaller' than the majority of Liberal party MPs (as I said, but it seems you agree that it is still powerful.

Since I don't believe you have ever gone beyond the basics, I have no expectations at all. I think I remember correctly assuring you that I generally have no interest in you at all. So, that question about where your knowledge came from was a passing thought.

I can see you clearly don't appreciate being caught out in a lie.

I'm guessing from the lack of posts that Pesutto did a good job of defending himself. I'm certainly surprised by some of the questioning the "biased account" live tweeter is reporting

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1838734134468055252.html

E.g.
Chrysanthou suggests the only reason the media ever mentioned Deeming was due to Pesutto's press release. Pesutto rejects that.

It's not credible surely to think the media would ignore an event with a very right wing politician that featured a bunch of neo-Nazis marching and doing the Nazi salute. The videos of them are shocking.

Chrysanthou asks Pesutto if he regrets any inference drawn from his words to the effect that KJK/Jones are Nazis. He says he doesn't regret, but he has apologised. ouch

“I can see you clearly don't appreciate being caught out in a lie.”

What lie? Were you named? No.

And you were not the only poster who has tried to position Deeming as extreme. Or CPAC as being ‘hard right’ or ‘far right’. Were you?

It was a general post. And it referred to things we had discussed.

Is this some kind of exercise in projection going on?

Yet, this board was created, hived off, at your request, because you didn't want to have to read gender critical stuff on every thread. You wanted to be able to talk about issues in an 'intersectionalist' way; yet you are here, most days, going against the flow......... just because.

This board has long been one of the only places that women could gather, speak and share on an issue that is deeply important to them. What is your goal?

You wanted to be able to talk about issues in an 'intersectionalist' way; yet you are here, most days, going against the flow......... just because.
Absolute bollocks. I linked the thread I made and why, it was nothing to do with "intersectionality". It was about the fact that the board was almost all trans stuff after being a place for discussion of wider feminist issues (y'know, boring things like rape culture, the gender pay gap, enforced dress codes, women freezing in Tibet because they got banished on their periods).

I am GC and follow the debate; I'm also feminist and want to discuss other aspects of life with other feminists.

Anyway, meh. I don't really care except when posters speak for me and represent some absolute horseshit as "what I think".

Deeming is extreme and controversial. That's been clearly shown in court today. As much as you (and her lawyer) try to say she's not.

I think people have not noticed how far the commentary has moved. Some of the 2017/2018 threads are interesting if you read them now.
I rarely see any posters being accused of transphobia these days for example.

Ok. So you are again making claims that you simply cannot support with even logic let alone evidence.

We get it. You want to be free to make any claim you wish and we are expected to treat it as if it is fact.

Andrew Cooper was the ‘founder’, not the only one but the only one mentioned. Unless you have any evidence to link up at all that OneNation was involved in setting it up, you are now just using more guilt by association because OneNation was just one political party to have speakers there.

I believe you have tried to indicate a much stronger relationship between CPAC Australia and OneNation using the presence of speakers and nothing else.

Your claims at this point don’t look credible.

What's wrong with being controversial? I've asked this before.

Pesutto's defence is one of ignorance. He didn't know he was putting his name to a hastily cobbled preposterous nonsense.

He accidentally stitched up his colleague, merely an innocent mistake. Whoops.

Always funny to see an intelligent legally trained man rely on incompetence. Mate, I'd have gone for dog ate my homework or big boy did it and ran away.

Nothing as an individual. As an MP it reduces the chances of people voting for you and as I understand in Aus where they have STV that's an even bigger problem. Hence why Pesutto was worried about the broader impact on the party.

For e.g.
“And you’ve also publicly described the authors of the Safe School Program as, quote, literal, pedophilia apologists, haven’t you?,’’ Dr Collins said.

“That’s correct,’’ she replied.

“You said that the authors of the safe school program were, quote, putting pedophilic garbage in our school curriculums. You said that?”

“Yep,’’ she replied.

Those are controversial views. UK politicians from mainstream parties would not say such things.

Calling abortion "a terrible evil" also controversial.

She can't have her cake and eat it. Either she wants to say controversial and extreme things, in which case she should run as Independent (or maybe stand up an Aus "Party of Women). Or she wants to be part of a bigger party, more likely to have influence. In which case she needs to stick to the party message to avoid reputational damage.

I mean, that's just common sense surely?

Oh look. Thread judge has pronounced.

I find her opinion completely credible and backed up by facts should you care to Google

“You said that the authors of the safe school program were, quote, putting pedophilic garbage in our school curriculums. You said that?”
“Yep,’’ she replied.

Those are controversial views. UK politicians from mainstream parties would not say such things.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/children-at-risk-from-predators-on-government-website-20150721-gihjgz.html

Through the Safe Schools Hub, students are given the opportunity to "find out about" homophobia, and coming out. When they click on the relevant page, they are taken to the websites of Youth Central, and the Safe Schools Coalition, as well as an associated site, Minus18, which describes itself as "Australia's largest network for LGBT youth".

Whatever else Minus18 is, it functions as an online dating site. Users register by answering questions such as age, sexual identity, outness, gender, location and preferences, and can search profiles of other members. Users can then connect online.
Carol Ronken of Bravehearts has looked carefully at the Minus18 website and issued the strong warning that "without appropriate oversight and administration, sex offenders can and will exploit these sites to target vulnerable youth".

Given this is a website aimed at teenagers younger than 18, there are no checks to ensure that users are of a similar age. A perusal of the profiles on the site suggests many of the users are aged between 14 and 16.

In spite of Minus18 supposedly having a rule that users over the age of 25 are not permitted to utilise the forums "without direct permission from Minus18" there are literally scores of users older than this on the website.

Minus18 does not enforce its own rules. When this was put to Tim Christadoulou, the Relationships Manager at Minus18, he stated that "rather than actively refuse registrations for certain age groups, we respond to individual profiles and users on a case-by-case basis".

Even this is dubious. Minus18 management was unable to answer how many users were refused registration in the past 12 months. That is particularly disturbing given some of the profiles from men aged 30 and over who seem to have an interest in underage users.

One 30-year-old man said he was looking for "fun fun fun" and described himself as "a man like a tiger nice". I don't know about a tiger, but he certainly seemed predatory. And lest there be any misunderstanding about his intentions, he provided a number of semi-naked photos to make it clear.

Another user was a 31-year-old secondary school teacher from Leichhardt in Sydney who was implausibly looking to network with other schools and youth organisations. One would have thought a simple Google search would have been easier.

And then there was the 36-year-old man from Birmingham, Alabama, who registered last month and was "into guys". I cannot imagine what reason a 36-year-old man from the United States would have joining a website full of teenagers in Australia, but it can't be a good one. Whatever it is, though, he helpfully provided a Facebook page and phone number.

In what way is what Deeming said controversial, given what she said is accurate? Do you think having safeguarding concerns based on the above information, shared by Bravehearts, is “controversial”?

I've already provided evidence on the first thread, referred to by Helle yesterday, of the extreme queer theory approach of the Australian "Safe Schools" programme. I was aware of it a decade ago.

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned was the only bit I caught when I woke up yesterday. In the cross examination, Pesutto was asked why he suggested Deeming should have been wary of associating with Angie Jones, and he said “the tweet”. But the tweet was after the rally, so he was asked how Deeming was supposed to be wary of a person based on a tweet that hadn’t happened at the time of the rally.

He was also asked “anything else? Just one tweet? That’s it?” Couldn’t add anything.

@Helleofabore
Big hugs. Thanks for everything you do.

Clearly never expected to be held to account. It's a theme, isn't it?

I thought there were a couple of significant points made today:

Chrysanthou SC: Did you condemn the violence against women?

Pesutto: No

and

Chrysanthou SC: "Should the women have had to stop speaking because of the conduct of a bunch of men who had left"

Pesutto: "Mrs Deeming was there as the Victorian Liberal Party... of course women should be allowed to speak, but..."

First rule of But. Everything before the but is a lie

"Pesutto: "Mrs Deeming was there as the Victorian Liberal Party... of course women should be allowed to speak, but..."

See also "I'm not racist but...", "I don't hate gobby women who won't shut up but..."

"UK politicians from mainstream parties would not say such things."

Why should Australian's take any notice of what UK politician etiquette might be?