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.

Thank you Datun.

I remembered this too from the previous threads. There really does seem fo be something of a disconnect happening.

Wow, another mad trope is being introduced and you're all going to spend the rest of your days attempting and failing to counter it, thereby producing gigaquads of data which basically says 'Gay men are pXXXXXXs'

I'm getting crazy deja vu here.

Anyone remember the 'How far does you sexuality stretch' thread from Gingerbeer circa 2018? IIRC the same strawman was introduced.

We could just tell someone to shut the fuck up over there so it didn't get much traction.

I must admit, I think it would be funny for someone to send the Judge a link to a wiki page as a source of reliable information. After all, wiki has been held in very high regard as evidence during the court case!

It's being used as evidence of an honest opinion.
The bar is different - it doesn't have to be a criminal standard of evidence to be used as the basis for an honest opinion. When the media are reporting things, when it's on Wikipedia, when constituents are writing to MPs to complain, all of that can be "honest opinion".

I said at the very start of these threads I thought this trial was basically going to be like a thread on here, but in court. And that's what it's proving to be. Deeming's case is basically that Pesutto had no right to form an opinion of KJK/Jones based on what he'd seen and read, and that he should defer to her on it. You can hear a lot of that attitude in the latest audio. Interestingly in that audio (from before the LWS event) she threatens suing for defamation if there are implications she's transphobic or homophobic. There's no inclination to listen or consider why someone else might form that opinion in good faith.

Pesutto's defence is that its a widespread position on the Internet that KJK associates with extremists and he honestly believed that MD's refusal to distance herself from KJK would damage the party.

I'm more on his side due in no small part to how I've been treated on KJK threads with people denying the blindingly obvious (e.g. CPAC/Trump) and telling me I just hate her, for expressing an opinion.

I'm going to be interested in both sides closing statements as I am still unsure what the "defamation" actually was. I thought it would become clear, but it hasn't.

And to the point on the previous page, I think that lack of clarity is why the papers are focusing on infighting and recordings - because outside that there is nothing tangible to report.

Link to an interesting article in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies/comments/1fwfu6w/god_bless_the_victorian_liberal_party_for/

The idea that you can’t possibly mention paedophiles around LGBTQ because it upholds a damaging troup is not benign. It is being pushed by those who want to hide their interest in children. The shocking thing is how prepared others have been to go along with this and shut down safeguarding as a result.

But there is even more to it than that - the Q that has linked itself to LGB. Queer theorists are not silent their view on sex with children…

There's no inclination to listen or consider why someone else might form that opinion in good faith.

I listened to that audio, unless you think that by wanting rights for trans people whilst protecting rights for women who need single sex spaces is a transphobic position, I cannot see how you can have a 'good faith' belief that MD is transphobic.

She was persistent in her belief that this is important. I tend to agree with her. Unless a party is prepared to stand up for women, women will lose out to men who identify as trans.

It should not be seen as something that cannot even ben discussed for fear that a political party would be deemed transphobic. The minute it is discussed it is clear it is not transphobia, unless, of course, you think that women wanting spaces for only females IS transphobic.

Noone thinks "you can't mention paedophiles around LGBT people". That's a huge strawman.

I'm unclear what posters like you are getting from questioning a well recognised homophobic trope and strawmanning those of us that recognise said trope.

I will leave you to it because both of us are going to get limited value from arguing a strawman.

Wow I hadn't seen that LongtailedTitmouse. Thank you for posting.

That isn't what I said.
Pesutto is trying to raise with her why the general public might have concerns. She is not prepared to listen to his suggestions as to how to manage those concerns, instead she's jumping straight to a very hardline response and insisting the only acceptable course is for him to say "Moira isn't transphobic and no-one can find any evidence she is".

That kind of approach inflames tensions rather that dousing them as it encourages people to look for evidence, so I'm not surprised Pesutto wasn't keen. He also wanted to talk about something completely different, and Moira's approach wouldn't have allowed him to do that.

Whilst I would like to see Deeming win, even if she doesn't win, these awful men have been both shown up as misogynistic, untrustworthy, etc, take your pick.

Women are standing up for their rights. They are talking about them.

Trying to shut women down resulting in the media speculating that 'all four leadership positions being spilled'?

Court or no court, that's a massive result.

Plus, the added bonus of the strong unlikelihood of anyone calling KJK a Nazi again.

Transactivists have never understood that win or lose, the needle is always shifted.

If you have to lose on a technicality, I would absolutely take these men being shown up for the hopeless, manipulative, misogynists they are.

'I was very careful in my wording, to maintain plausible deniability'!

Who the fuck says that out loud AND apparently proud!!

Exactly, any LGB individual concerned with being associated with paedophilia would wish to distance themselves from Queer theory.

And object to Peter Thatchell being wheeled out as their spokesperson.

Trying to shut women down resulting in the media speculating that 'all four leadership positions being spilled'?

Court or no court, that's a massive result.

What do you think the "massive result" is?

Do you think it's more likely parties will welcome those with strong GC views, or avoid them?

I think its a huge own goal and likely to make mainstream political parties even more wary of those who are outspoken on gender issues, due to the risk of political fall out like this.

Transactivists have never understood that win or lose, the needle is always shifted.

Absolutely. Even the Guardian in its reporting has frequently repeated the paragraph:

The Let Women Speak rally was co-organised by UK activist Kellie-Jay Keen, also known as Posie Parker, as part of her tour of Australia and New Zealand in which it was claimed that the push for transgender women’s rights was silencing and discriminating against women.

They would never have done that before. I can’t wait for the ruling, even if it goes against Deeming, because there’s no way their behaviour against women - as warned by Credlin - won’t be evident for all to see. Then maybe a party to hold Victorian Labor to account will finally be seen.

CassieMaddox I agree with your post at 09:36 as regards the way Deeming's comments may have been perceived by the defense (and elements of the general public), due to a reflexive rejection of the conflation of paedophilia and LGBT, rather than due to actual awareness of the origins of the Safe Schools program.

My comment 'Safe Schools is not a hill to die on' related to your assertion on the previous thread that, funds permitting, had you been a contributor to Safe Schools who wasn't Steven Angelides or Gary Dowsett you would have sued Deeming for defamation.

In your hypothetical case, I'm not sure what you think would be achieved by exposing the university and your colleagues to the inevitable deep scrutiny of a defamation trial.

I'd consider it because I'd find it extremely offensive to be directly labelled a paedophile apologist. I'd also settle or withdraw immediately if there was an apology.

In your hypothetical case, I'm not sure what you think would be achieved by exposing the university and your colleagues to the inevitable deep scrutiny of a defamation trial
Exactly what I feel about Deeming. I don't know what she hopes to achieve and I don't know why she didn't settle and continued to court.

I think it is brilliant that she has brought the claim, because win or lose, she has highlighted the issues that women face when it comes to highlighting the conflict between trans activism and women's rights and child safeguarding and the lengths men (and women who support men's rights) will go to to prevent these issues from being discussed.

I can see why people who don't want these issues to have sunlight would prefer she had settled.

Unfortunately I think sometimes the nature of the debate and the role of social media have normalised some really offensive ways of talking.

One cannot go round calling people emotive terms like "groomers", "paedos","bigots", "enablers", "paedophile apologists" etc just because those people are making points one disagrees with, as it will shock, upset and offend people, especially when it's not true. And unfortunately people seem to have forgotten that. Jones' tweet is a good example.

I think it is increasingly common and I think it alienates people from the movement. I know I've had stuff said to me on here that I've found deeply, deeply hurtful and offensive (as well as just plain wrong) and it's made me less inclined to be sympathetic to certain elements of the GC school of thought. And I'm a GC feminist. This kind of language must come across terribly to people who already think we are acting out of prejudice.

OK.
My personal feeling is most people don't have the depths of understanding of the issue to see anything other than politicians fighting.

I can see why people who don't want these issues to have sunlight would prefer she had settled. I think not settling was an odd choice because of what I said in the para above, not because "I don't want the issues to have sunlight".

Respectful debate and recognising people's reasonable concerns is a much more productive approach than suing people for "defamation" in my opinion.

That's a really important point. There's been a sea change in the press, elsewhere online and amongst the public generally with so many people now noticing and commenting on the intimidation, bullying and open prejudice being used against women and men asserting their right to free speech and sex based rights.

And of course, as ever with these tribunals, so many of the witnesses openly lie, dissemble, are economical with the truth and expose their lack of integrity. And no amount of "ah but' and flailing arguments can disguise that.

It's always a sunlit filled exercise

KJK, with I think the help of JKR IIRC, successfully brought a challenge against Independent and Buzzfeed "journalist" Patrick Strudwick for saying that LWS Melbourne "staged a mass Nazi salute" forcing a retraction and apology. JKR posted this tweet on Twitter/X:

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1687177746680541184

"A retraction and apology has been issued by iNews for the baseless accusation made by journalist @PatrickStrud against Kellie-Jay Keen, aka @ThePosieParker. Mr Strudwick has forgotten to share this on Twitter, so it would be nice if people could help him out."

PS then posted on his personal account a link.

x.com/hardakeep/status/1687208029446623235

Respectful debate and recognising people's reasonable concerns is a much more productive approach than suing people for "defamation" in my opinion.

Agreed but that was beyond the capability of JP wasn't it!

I think it is brilliant that she has brought the claim, because win or lose, she has highlighted the issues that women face when it comes to highlighting the conflict between trans activism and women's rights and child safeguarding and the lengths men (and women who support men's rights) will go to to prevent these issues from being discussed.

I fully agree.

See, Cassie, I think the opposite.

Deeming has brought the case because she has nothing to hide.

Whereas in your hypothetical defamation case there is a great deal of very damaging material to want to keep well away from judicial and public scrutiny. Given that, why on earth do you think that hypothetical you would even be offered an apology or a settlement?

Hmm.
OK. In my hypothetical case I'd be completely fine with the defence showing all the evidence relating to those men, but I would claim that as a member of a much larger organisation,never having met those men or being aware of their views, it would be defamatory to call me specifically a "paedophile apologist".

The defence would have to prove I knew about it and chose to associate with those men.

At risk of being accused of "purity spiralling" I'm quite choosy about who I associate with/work with and can safely say I wouldn't be involved in anything promoting that man or his views if I knew about it.

Deeming isn't comparable. The point is she was fully aware about the controversy surrounding KJK but she didn't care and is now suing for having it pointed out. Whilst simultaneously "guilt by association"-ing the safe schools programme by calling them "paedophile apologists" (which is much stronger language than anyone in the Liberal Party used about her).

As I say, pot, meet kettle.