Moira Deeming in Australia - thread 3

[TheSandgroper]

Following on from busy threads 1 and 2

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5167282-in-australia-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-now-on

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5172553-moira-deeming-defamation-trial-thread-2-from-australia

Keep on discussing, ladies. Change never happens in silence.

It's as if they are trying to bore or bludgeon the judge into submission.

So, let me ask, the judge hasn’t been convinced that Kellie Jay Keen has been ‘associating with’ nazis and the far right? Well strike me down! What a pity we couldn’t get a tribunal tweets transcript on that to paste every fucking time some one tells us all about how it is very convincing and all so accurate an assessment.

For those who have now seen the famous Gariepy video, did KJK discuss anything but what she normally says? Anything from a white supremist point of view? Was. Transcript of the interview provided for the judge? (To be clear I am not after transcript just asking if one was added to the evidence list)

Can we now throw that interview back at bad faith posters and point out that just by agreeing that any single sex space is needed or that affirming only treatment is harming children that they themselves are ‘aligned with white supremcy’?

Were both of the Soldiers of Christ videos of a woman interviewing KJK at speakers corner? And did the legal team provide concrete evidence that the soldiers of Christ were far right? Last time I looked, 18 months ago, all I found was an ad hoc interview of KJK at Hyde Park and that the group were a conservative Christian group with concerns about family values. But I didn’t find the ‘far right’ content , just some person’s say so.

Was the ‘proud boy’ Barenas of Miami as mentioned on these threads? The ‘ex’ Proud Boy at the time as reported by news outlets within 4 days of the appearance so wasn’t a ‘Proud Boy’ at the time but a bloke with some kind of political aspirations and who wasn’t as articulate as the women? Or was it at another event?

Thank you for the recap. I really look forward to the judges comments on these videos in his decision. Because I suspect it will be along the lines of pointing out that they didn’t show what some people have been desperate to have them signify. And that it really is bad faith and you would have to be deeply prejudiced to portray them as they have been in the past.

Thanks feralwoman and crafting1queen

So, let me ask, the judge hasn’t been convinced that Kellie Jay Keen has been ‘associating with’ nazis and the far right? Well strike me down!

@Helleofabore
For those who have now seen the famous Gariepy video, did KJK discuss anything but what she normally says? Anything from a white supremist point of view? Was. Transcript of the interview provided for the judge? (To be clear I am not after transcript just asking if one was added to the evidence list)
It was her usual talking points. I believe that all videos have transcripts. The interviewer man got misogynistic towards the end and KJK got a bit frustrated with him eg about the greater strength of men and their ability to cause greater physical harm to women than a woman to a man.

Can we now throw that interview back at bad faith posters and point out that just by agreeing that any single sex space is needed or that affirming only treatment is harming children that they themselves are ‘aligned with white supremcy’?
Yes.

Were both of the Soldiers of Christ videos of a woman interviewing KJK at speakers corner? And did the legal team provide concrete evidence that the soldiers of Christ were far right? Last time I looked, 18 months ago, all I found was an ad hoc interview of KJK at Hyde Park and that the group were a conservative Christian group with concerns about family values. But I didn’t find the ‘far right’ content , just some person’s say so.
Not sure of the locations. I think KJK was wearing two different outfits. I was getting sleepy. But yes, conservative Christians. Nothing shocking from them. I was waiting for something shocking. Nothing. Just standard conservative religious stuff.

Was the ‘proud boy’ Barenas of Miami as mentioned on these threads? The ‘ex’ Proud Boy at the time as reported by news outlets within 4 days of the appearance so wasn’t a ‘Proud Boy’ at the time but a bloke with some kind of political aspirations and who wasn’t as articulate as the women? Or was it at another event?
Pesutto’s side said it was him, Deeming’s side dispute that because the identity of the man hasn’t been confirmed. The man didn’t identify himself on the video.

A bunch of videos have been now scrapped from being shown. Judge had told Pesutto’s lawyer to think about them over lunch. He sensibly did and has decided not to show them. Total videos would have been over 4 hours.

Now watching a video with America’s Mom? That’s what they referred to her as. Blonde shoulder length hair, gold hoop earrings and a white t-shirt. It’s a zoom/online interview format. So far very blunt discussion of things like the effects of puberty blockers eg vaginal and uterine atrophy from puberty blockers/testosterone, girls being exposed to adult penises in change rooms.

I am checking what each videos are while they are on the stream.

Sewell is pretty clear that he considered the 'TERFs' part of the 'chaos' of the day. Sewell on the video was clear that he and the group were there for that regular group. That the group believe are not well organised so believed their presence would 'vanguard' the safeguarding group's actions in that chaos.

Sewell and the neo nazis categorised the LWS group in the same disparagement as ANTIFA, the 'commies' etc. Sewell was very clear that they were there for the 'Freedom' group who were there each Saturday.

That video clarifies what some of us worked out from the other videos.

Thanks again for the clarification. I will look in the morning for the transcript for the Gariepy interview to see if it has been uploaded.

The woman in the current video is Jennifer Bilek.

I have just skimmed the Gariepy video, nothing that she was saying is 'aligned' with the far right. The judge actually says 'nothing in that video shows that she was aligned with him, and that Gariepy has very different views to him. That KJK was described as a 'funny lady' (not humerous)'. This is me paraphrasing.

The Pesutto team tries to point out the she said something about 'paedophiles' and that she separated blokes with transvestic fetishes and other transgender people.... and that is what they took exception to.

The judge points out specifically that KJK didn't say anything that showed that she agreed with Gariepy with much at all. And that just being interviewed by Gariepy should not be considered 'aligned'. The judge really looks confused by how Pesutto's team ever came to this conclusion.

I think that we can really say that any person trying to make this 'alignment' argument should also be aligned if they think that any single sex space should exist and that affirming only treatment is not serving children well.

The first Soldiers of Christ video is one I have watched where KJK has agreed to an adhoc video at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. The discussion is just about the usual talking points.

The second video (the one with KJK in a red jacket) is also from that location (I think) on a different day it seems. And it was one that I have not seen, I will have a look for it in the morning to check it out. But it again is just the usual discussion.

KJK says specifically in the first video that she and the interviewer have very different religious beliefs.

I look forward to seeing the transcripts that have now been entered into evidence.

Yuck. KJK is saying positive things about Trump, Tucker Carlson, Heritage Foundation in terms of trans bans. The trade off of them though would be a huge loss of women’s rights like reproductive freedom. I don’t think the price would be worth it.

A few short videos now.

Gariopey interviewing Nick Fuentes. No KJK. Deeming’s side objects. No vision of G, just voice.

I just saw Moira's defence lawyer insist that Lisa Morgan's speech was played in full rather than just the 'one minute' segment that Pesutto's team wanted played. I think that was wise, because it needs to be heard in full to understand the full context.

WTAF is this little clip at tab 92 supposed to show, where she is yelling 'your mum's a terf' and telling someone they are a big scary man, and says fascist is the new word for legend?? The judge is hilarious, he literally said, tell me that you don't think that KJK is calling herself a fascist?

And then Pesutto's team says she is not showing 'disgraceful ambivalence towards language and symbols nazism and white supremacy' .... (I shall have to look up on twitter to see if someone has the exact wording.) But the judge is incredulous that they think that this is evidence is showing what they want it to.

The Proud Boy speech is the Miami event as has been discussed on these threads. The one where no one asserting that Barcenas is problematic has shown evidence that he was still a Proud Boy at the time. A media report stated in an article four days after the event that he had already left the group.

So, the America's mum was interviewed by Proud Boy's days earlier and KJK is being aligned via that connection? And this is what the team feels is appropriate evidence???

Two short clips from one interview with gbnews.com.

A short clip from a 4 way online chat with Deeming, Glinner, Helen Staniland and Arty (a man).

Pesutto’s lawyer has finished. Now for Deeming’s side to play videos.

First one was a voice mail audio calling Deeming a Nazi sympathiser and a homophobe.

Promo video from the protect the children group for the rally day.

Something playing Let’s Get Loud.

Another voice mail to Deeming. Claiming to be from Hitler.

Another voice mail. Asking if it’s the recruiting office of the Aus Nazi party.

Voice mail. Angry man. Clowns, far right, Nazis, facists then “have a nice day”!

Voice mail. Sarcastic supportive message.

Voice mail. American man. Neo Nazi scum, traitor piece of shit.

Voice mail. Muppet. Libs will never be in power while Deeming is a member.

Voice mail. Want a Nazi for an appearance. Maybe she should go kill herself.

Voice mail. “Joke” about planes and Nazis. To unsubscribe resign from parliament.

So basically the videos put forward by Pesutto's legal team do not support his claim about KJK? They actually bolster Crysanthou's argument that they have been smearing Deeming by association, because showing the videos to the judge is an example of an attempt to smear KJK by association.

Adherence to GII makes clever people stupid.

Edited for clarity.

Court adjourned until 10:15am AEDT, Tuesday 22 October.

@Snowypeaks IMO those videos did nothing to help Pesutto. They were however a fabulous way to shed light on the realities of trans and gender ideology, so that’s a win for KJK!

I didn’t see much of the day but did see KJK talking to America’s Mom listing everything. So good to get that heard. I hope some of Victoria’s political class were keeping up and heard it all but it will probably be young staffers who will deem it irrelevant and not pass it on.

Thanks again Feral. I just lost the feed.

I wonder what the Judge is privately thinking. His incredulity was clear today that the dossier evidence was really rather full of only bad faith interpretations that don't seem to represent an accurate representation of the positions of various people.

That Gariepy interview and the bloke interviewing Sewell also highlighted what numerous posters have been saying since that Melbourne rally.

I thought it was also interesting how Sewell refused to shake the hand of the policeman who ended up being the person who let his group into the centre. Sewell called the man a 'dog' and refused to shake his hand, according to Sewell. I think it shows that the police at the time had no idea what to do with that group of men.

I agree that they didn't help Pesutto's case. I really hope that the judge says something about it in his decision.

It also showed some of the tactics of the extreme trans rights activist protestors.

An interesting part of KJK's Garipey video was when he was insisting that women get preferential treatment by the courts in family law cases. He also insisted that women are as violent as men and then gave a little ground that women are 'potentially' as violent as women "if they had a knife". It was interesting as KJK rebutted him on both, quite eloquently and insistently.

Take away point is that she didn't go on his show to polish his halo. He let her speak unlike James Whale the other night who got huffy and cut her off. I'm not implying that in a different interview Garipey would always be Mr Nice Guy to KJK, it's the first time I've heard his voice and only know his name from this trial though I've heard the smears cast about him before! I'm only saying that the judge saw no evidence that either of them were necessarily horrible people.

I'd say the police knew at the time who Sewell and his group were as he's quite the head boy for the nazis here. I think Sewell was taking himself too seriously and entirely possible he was lying about the interaction with the police to make himself sound good for his tribe.

Here in Victoria, the previous Premier (Dan Andrews) got rid of some law that would have allowed the police to move the Nazis on. This was probably created to appease the woke left who has been his supporters while overlooking that it also allowed others to take advantage. I believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) it's the same reason why if the TRAs had taken the steps the police could not have moved them on though the women had made previous arrangement for extra police security. In Victoria, though women have notified and liaised with the police even weeks ahead to be on Parliament steps, it is no guarantee if another group usurps them on the day.

The police of course were undermanned on the day as they probably underestimated how many counter protestors were going to turn up and then to have the Nazis there as well pretending that they were some kind of vanguard for whoever - the Freedom Party people aka antilockdown/antivax people (?) because the women didn't invite them or want them there.

@Filomene I’d read somewhere about a law change meaning that police couldn’t easily move protestors.

I did not remember the law being changed about the moving on protestors, I did remember hearing Andrews had done something in that area but not the details. Thanks.

From what Sewell said, yes, that policeman did seem to know ‘who’ he was. Sewell said the piliceman asked him if he was ‘Thomas Sewell’. But as I said, I don’t think the police knew how what to do with them. Because as you say. There was more people. and more groups too maybe, than they expected.

Sewell also pointed out that there was confusion because they were wearing their version of black block and some people thought they were part of antifa.

“I think Sewell was taking himself too seriously”

Absolutely! Most of what he said was about him and his group being a saviour type force.

I wonder if the freedom group even knew him? He knew of them. And he spoke rather disparaging of their weekly efforts. The ones he wanted to ‘vanguard’ like he was this positive force.