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.

Are you joking? This whole issue arose because some people were determined to mention Nazis!

No. I'm suggesting it's irresponsible to propagate a conspiracy that LGBT people are child abusers and people who genuinely were motivated by child safeguarding would not do such a thing.

I can't help you if you don't recognise the homophobic trope that LGBT people are child abusers. I suggest you do some very basic googling. I'll post the Wikipedia link again for you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_grooming_conspiracy_theory

No one at all has done that though.

Pointing out a clear link between a school sex ed programme and an individual who appears to be a paedophile apologist (for reasons set out in the last 2 threads) is not suggesting that ALL gay men are paedophiles.

So relax Cassie.

Stop suggesting that people are doing something they are demonstrably not doing.

Please can you provide evidence that anyone other than Moira Deeming, Kellie-Jay Keen or Angie Jones was determined to mention Nazis? Because I haven't seen it. Partly why I'm baffled. MD says she was called a Nazi sympathiser but not shown where or when.

Agree but nobody is doing that are they? You aren't making any sense.

There are much better ways to make her point. I'm not clear exactly who the "paedo filth" are, for example.

I mean here we are, 100 posts into thread 3 and still this nonsense. It has been stated IN COURT that Jones was referring to the person she was arguing with who fetishises infancy and adult babies. The judge even took a witness to task for pretending he didn’t know what she was referring to.

Lol.

You're clearly in an alternative universe. I'll leave you to it. Enjoy.

I'll just refer back to this:

For me, I think its important for women to have biological differences recognised. I also recognise homophobia and attitudes that gay men are perverts/children abusers etc as a very common homophobic attitude.

If you don't recognise the homophobic trope I'm not here to persuade you. I do and will act accordingly.

So you can't back up your assertions with fact then. Lol.

A quote without any context or mention of who said it is meaningless.

But that is the way of your contributions on here. As I said I'll leave you to it.

It is the job of EVERYONE to protect children.

It is the job of EVERYONE to protect children.

In this context, who or what are you referring to?
I was talking about Angie Jones' tweet ("Nazis and women want to get rid of paedo filth. Why don’t you?") What are you talking about?

Because I haven't seen it. Partly why I'm baffled. MD says she was called a Nazi sympathiser but not shown where or when.
After all the info and discussion on this case, I give up. I can't help you if you still remain baffled.

OK. I'll take that as noone has in fact called her a nazi sympathiser then.

I wonder if the judge can Google or if they can only consider court docs

It's derail derail derail.

I'm just not interested. It's impossible to engage.

Just always come back to what the position of bias is.

Let women speak - not that one...

I'm as GC as they come but I don't like THOSE women to speak about it because right wing/ nazi, I HATE KJK.

The protection of children from paedophiles is a homophobic trope.

Yup.

Not interested.

I mean here we are, 100 posts into thread 3 and still this nonsense. It has been stated IN COURT that Jones was referring to the person she was arguing with who fetishises infancy and adult babies. The judge even took a witness to task for pretending he didn’t know what she was referring to.

Quite.

Exactly Cassie you will take it whatever way you choose no matter what info you've been given.

From thread 2 the tweet exchange not just the one tweet from Angie

"Helleofabore · Today 08:05

His honour was distinctly unimpressed with Rodrigo. HH understood the "nazis and paedos" tweet and also agreed that "adult babies" were paedophiles. He said so.
Coming back to this tweet (and I believe I heard the judge point out the full context of the tweet to Pintos-Lopez). It was specifically mentioned in the expulsion notice.
https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/hub/media/tearout-excerpt/15016/Letter-of-Motion-regarding-Moira-Deeming-20-March-2023.pdf
(b) on 19 March 2023, meeting with and publishing a video with KellieJay Keen, Katherine Deeves, and Angie Jones and that Angie Jones, on that day posted on Twitter words that, in the mind of any reasonable and lay observer, made association with Nazis including on 4:41pm by posting the words “Nazis and women want to get rid of paedo filth. Why don’t you”, that quote being set out in the Annexure hereto, which Annexure also contains a hyperlink to the video referred to in this reason.”
So much of the action for public censure and eventually expulsion rested on an unreasonable and twisted interpretation of that tweet. And under oath Pintos-Lopez stated he could not remember seeing the tweet in context at the time of putting together the information.
How much disregard for people does it take for a group of leaders who hoped to lead one of the most influential states in the nation to ascribe motivations to the people they accuse of wrongdoing that directly contradict the motivations stated clearly by the person they are accusing?
I think it is significant that this tweet has been discussed repeatedly in this case, because it was specifically featured in the expulsion notification. This repeated focus during the trial has meant that His Honour now has a full understanding of the tweet and the power and importance the team gave it. So much so, that during the session with the creator of the dossier, HH pointed out the meaning of the tweet and the context himself. "

A document prepared by the leadership team, admitted as evidence, had bullet point references to Nazis.

We know you know this.

Imnobody4 If someone hasn't rationalised themselves into holding a particular POV, they can't be rationalised out of it.

In general, after reading the article on Thread 2 about Sue Crysanthou earlier today, bits and pieces of info about Crysanthou's amazing motivation, energy, time management and professional skills have been popping into my memory throughout the day - exceptional woman!

Yes this is a really interesting point.

That article was fascinating.

It was a fantastic article.

I think that the particular issue has become that in our attempts to acknowledge the discrimination faced by certain groups in the past, we can then, in an attempt to be sensitive to past wrongs, overcompensate, and refuse to engage critically when there IS evidence of paedophilia in someone who is also gay.

This seems to be what is happening here.

Just to quote Professor Dowsett again (and a reminder that he was Deputy Director of the University department commissioned to produce the Safe Schools program, a school-based relationship curriculum, which Deeming has strongly criticised.)

“The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms.” (p. 36)

Gary Dowsett, “Boiled Lollies and Bandaids,” Gay Information: A Quarterly Journal, Spring 1982, issue no. 11, pp. 34-38.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9zGmvTCoD74RHhiNHVUa3BOc1k/view

Seriously, Safe Schools is not a hill to die on.

Thank you for the new thread; playing catch up with it.

I think that the particular issue has become that in our attempts to acknowledge the discrimination faced by certain groups in the past, we can then, in an attempt to be sensitive to past wrongs, overcompensate, and refuse to engage critically when there IS evidence of paedophilia in someone who is also gay.

Yes, absolutely. No sacred castes.

Seriously, Safe Schools is not a hill to die on.

You'd think