Appearing before the Federal Court on Tuesday (17 September), Dr Matthew Collins AM KC, representing Victorian Opposition Leader John Pesutto, took issue with the suggestion Deeming “had a glowing and untarnished reputation” and “couldn’t possibly have any controversial views or she wouldn’t have been elected”.
In that vein, Collins grilled Deeming on her views and public comments about transgender and gender-diverse people.
In response to one of the many objections from Chrysanthou, Collins told Justice David O’Callaghan he intended to walk the court through a body of evidence “involving the conflation of transgender issues on the one hand and paedophilia on the other”.
Asked by the judge how it would be necessary to his case – particularly given the court has heard “strongly different views” that may not be “hate-filled” – Collins said the court was going to be taken to “a lot of evidence that, on any view of it, is hateful”.
Granted permission to continue the line of inquiry, Collins asked Deeming about public comments she made on the Safe Schools program. While not part of the curriculum, the program was designed to create a safe and inclusive space for LGBTI students.
Deeming had alleged the program led to child’s safeguarding being removed and the promotion of “high-risk sexual activities”.
Collins then took Deeming to online comments she made that referred to the program as being “paedophilic garbage” and suggested supporters were “paedophilic apologists”.
Deeming said she “absolutely” stood by these statements.
In a message, Deeming wrote it was “going to take a global constituency of women to defeat this madness”.
When Collins asked what she meant by “madness”, Deeming elaborated: “The laws that erase the biological categories of sex for safeguarding, and single-sex spaces for sports – and things like that.”
Source: Deeming grilled over divisive transgender comments – Lawyers Weekly
Wonderful woman and Truth Teller
Unclear as to how this is relevant to a contention that the MP is a nazi or nazi sympathiser. This is the definition from Britannica:
‘Nazism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, Nazism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.’ https://www.britannica.com/event/Nazism (accessed 18 September 2024)
Surely counsel for Deeming should request that the judge requires counsel for Pesutto to set out clearly how it is that he contends the line of questioning is relevant – if the judge won’t do it for himself?!
(Cont.) On the other hand, it may be that a tactical decision has been made (and one would expect that to be the case) that to allow this line of questioning will support final submissions contending that there is nothing in evidence, and nothing exposed by Pesutto’s side, that supports a ‘nazi supporter’ or ‘nazi’ contention. Even so, seeking an answer as to relevance would provide some illumination – yet would also (upon reflection) provide counsel for Pesutto an opportunity for making submissions on this point ahead of time.