Moira Deeming Part 2.

Update 492. Now available to all subscribers. #BeMorePorcupine

In Part 2 I look at the judge’s findings of fact but also at some of the cross-examination of Mr Pesutto. This was originally only available to paid subscribers but is now available to all subscribers.

The judgment is here:

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca1430

Here are Mr Justice O’Callaghan’s findings of fact:

456 The media release commences with two sentences referring to the “abomination” of “neo-Nazi protesters” acting with “violence, prejudice and hate”.

457 The fourth sentence turns immediately to Mrs Deeming, and to the fact that she “attended yesterday’s rally”. The ORR [ Ordinary Reasonable Reader] would understand “yesterday’s rally” to refer to the rally of neo-Nazi protesters referred to in the first sentence, which occurred “on the steps of the Victorian Parliament”. It is true that the first sentence does not refer to a “rally” in terms, but there is no other “abominable” gathering of protestors referred to.

458 In my view, the ORR would understand Mr Pesutto to be saying that Ms Deeming thus “knowingly associates with neo-Nazis”.

459 The fifth sentence of the media release asserts that this “issue” is not about free speech “but a member of the parliamentary party” – Mrs Deeming – “associating with people whose views are abhorrent” – which can only be read to refer to “neo-Nazi protestors”. It seems to me that there is no other way that the ORR would or could read that sentence – that is, that Mrs Deeming associates with neo-Nazis.

….

461 And it was because her position was “untenable” that Mr Pesutto said that he was going to move a motion to expel Mrs Deeming as a member of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, so that that the ORR would understand, reading the media release as a whole, that he intended to convey that she is unfit to be a member of the Parliamentary Liberal Party because she knowingly associates with Neo-Nazis.

462 The word “knowingly” does not appear in the media release, but it is obviously conveyed. The ORR would not understand that Mrs Deeming was being accused of an innocent or unwitting association – otherwise why was Mr Pesutto moving for her expulsion?

463 Before turning to the 3AW interview, I should say something about Mr Pesutto’s frequent use throughout the impugned publications of the words “associate”, “associated” and “association”.

464 Mr Pesutto was well aware of the fact that “association” is “a flexible word”, and that by using the word “you leave yourself open”, because he said exactly that to Mrs Deeming at the 19 March meeting (see [183] above). He knew therefore that people could understand the word in different ways depending on the context in which it was used, and that meant that he must have known that he had to take care in using it in close proximity to words like “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis” or “Nazi sympathisers” or the like.

465 Mr Pesutto at various other times in the impugned publications used expressions like “known links” or “publicly associated with” or “in league with”. They too are expressions which need to be used with care when using them in close proximity with those words for the same reason, something that he also must have understood. As Lord Devlin said in Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 at 285 in a passage that has been applied in the cases many times:

‘[I]t is the broad impression conveyed by the libel that has to be considered and not the meaning of each word under analysis. A man who wants to talk at large about smoke may have to pick his words very carefully if he wants to exclude the suggestion that there is also a fire; but it can be done. One always gets back to the fundamental question: what is the meaning that the words convey to the ordinary man: you cannot make a rule about that.’

466 The use of loose language provides greater opportunity for the ordinary reasonable reader to infer adverse meaning from the published matter than the use of precise and unambiguous language.

The 3AW Interview

479 It was submitted that Mr Pesutto’s statement that his “point” was that Mrs Deeming was “associating with Nazis” was an “obvious mis-statement” and:

‘will have been understood as such by ordinary, reasonable listeners, who will have heard Mr Pesutto say, over and again, that the issue was Mrs Deeming having associated with persons who themselves have associations, including at lines 97-98. Any listener who focused on the mis-statement at line 103, and treated it is over-riding what Mr Pesutto had said over and again in the course of the 3AW Interview (at lines 11-13, 39-41, 46-47, 97-98) would be a person who was avid for scandal; unduly suspicious; searching for strained, hidden, forced or sinister meanings; or jumping to conclusions based upon their own beliefs or prejudices.’

(RCS [5.35].)

480 I emphatically reject those submissions.

481 Mr Pesutto said in in terms, “Moira’s not a Nazi, but my point is that she is associating with people who are”. It is fanciful to imagine that the ORL [ Ordinary Reasonable Listener] would have thought to themselves, “oh gosh, Mr Pesutto has just said his point is that Mrs Deeming associates with Nazis, but he didn’t mean it”.

482 And the words that follow Mr Pesutto’s statement that Mrs Deeming is “associating with people who are [Nazis]” – namely that “that brings them [ie Nazis] into a place where it is unacceptable for me as a leader and I believe unacceptable for the party” – would also lead the ORL to have thought that when Mr Pesutto asserted that Mrs Deeming “associates with Nazis” he meant what he said. The ORL would also be under no misapprehension that the Nazis Mr Pesutto said she was associating with were Ms Keen and Ms Jones, because he says so:

N Mitchell: So, you’re saying Kellie-Jay Keen is a sympathiser with Nazis, correct?

J Pesutto: Yes.

N Mitchell: And others are there as well?

J Pesutto: Well certainly her, Angie Jones …

…

And as alternative Premier I want to make it clear to Victorians that my values, the values of the party I lead are not consistent with Kellie-Jay Keen, never will be. Not consistent with Thomas Sewell or the Nazis who turned up on the steps of Parliament, never will be.

483 The ORL would also not conclude that Mr Pesutto misspoke when he said that Mrs Deeming “associates with people who are [Nazis]” because in the answers set out in the immediately above passage, Mr Pesutto identifies precisely who those Nazis are. And that is a repetition of his claim that he was seeking Mrs Deeming’s expulsion from the Parliamentary Liberal Party because she associates with Nazis, including Nazis like Ms Keen.

484 Further, and contrary to the submission advanced on behalf of Mr Pesutto, the ORL would think that a person who sympathises with Nazis is a supporter of them.

The ABC Interview

493 At lines 31–41, the following critical exchange occurs. It is critical because Mr Pesutto is asked why he is moving a motion to expel Mrs Deeming, viz:

M Rowland: – do you have a view on whether this woman whose views you hold – you find abhorrent, or her appearance at the rally yesterday abhorrent, kicked out from the Liberal Party you lead?

J Pesutto: Uh, Michael, I think all of our viewers are very reasonable and sensible and they will understand that by me moving this motion for the reasons I have outlined, that there are certain unmistakable presumptions that they can draw about what I want to happen in the broader party. The party I lead is a party that’s there for all Victorians, we are inclusive, we want to engage with everybody, and I promise everybody watching that the party I lead can be a voice for all of you, for all Victorians. And what I’m doing is a statement that we will not tolerate or ever accept any association with neo-Nazis and white-supremacists or anybody who sympathises with them.

(Emphasis added.)

494 The beginning of the emphasised part of the answer (“And what I’m doing is a statement”) would be understood by the ORV [ Ordinary Reasonable Viewer] to mean “I say”. So, in answering the question “do you have a view on whether Mrs Deeming (who Mr Rowland calls “this woman”) [should be] kicked out from the Liberal Party”, Mr Pesutto says, “we will not tolerate or ever accept any association with neo-Nazis and white-supremacists or anybody who sympathises with them”.

495 That is loose language, to be sure, but as the cases say, such looseness provides greater opportunity for the ordinary reasonable reader to infer adverse meaning from the published matter than the use of precise and unambiguous language.

496 In my view, the ORV would understand Mr Pesutto to convey in that exchange with Mr Rowland that “this woman” [Mrs Deeming] should be “kicked out” of the Liberal Party because she (knowingly) associates or sympathises with neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

The press conference

508 In my view, watching and listening to the press conference in that way, the ORV would have understood Mr Pesutto to convey that the organisers of the LWS rally, principally Ms Keen (who was the only person he identified as an “organiser”), had known and established links with or shared platforms and worked with Nazis or people who have Nazi sympathies and who promote white supremacist views and ethno-fascist views, to help them promote their odious agenda, because he says those things, or a combination of those things, repeatedly.

It has to be recalled that, by the time of the hearing, Mr Pesutto had settled the separate defamation claims brought by Kellie-Jay and Angie Jones, had accepted that they were not Nazis and did not have associations with or sympathies with Nazis and had accepted that they abhorred Nazis. Therefore:

516 Mr Pesutto admitted in his defence that, if carried, each of the imputations [ that she associated with people who were Nazis or had associations or sympathies with Nazis] pleaded by Mrs Deeming in her statement of claim is defamatory of her.

Though I am not generally looking at the examination of witnesses, at this point it really is worthwhile looking at one bit of the cross-examination of Mr Pesutto:

551 Mr Pesutto sought to make the case that Mrs Deeming did not suffer, or was not likely to suffer, serious harm to her reputation, because, so he swore in his 27 May 2024 affidavit …, she already had a “bad reputation … particularly for giving succour to hateful and/or extreme social or political views”.

552 He swore that he knew “of no other person with such a bad reputation who has been allowed into the [Liberal] Party.”

553 It is as well to set out the relevant paragraph of his 27 May 2024 affidavit (paragraph 45) in full:

‘In my opinion, based on my experience as Leader of the Party (which caused me to mix with and meet a variety of people, including politicians and members of the broader community), while it was clear some people loved Mrs Deeming and shared her views on those issues (in my view, a minority), on the whole, in the circles in which I moved including the more mainstream parts of the community I was trying to attract to support the Party (in my view, the vast majority), Mrs Deeming had a bad reputation, particularly for giving succour to hateful and/or extreme social or political views. I know of no other person with such a bad reputation who has been allowed into the Party.’

554 He was cross-examined about that evidence as follows …:

[MS CHRYSANTHOU:] I just want to direct your attention back to paragraphs 44, 45, and 46. I just want to suggest to you that paragraph 44 is not correct - - -?---No. I stand by those paragraphs, your Honour.

- - - and the opinion you express at paragraph 45 is not true, in the sense that you have said that:

She had a bad reputation, particularly for giving … succour to hateful and/or extreme social or political views.

?---No. I stand by that, your Honour.

And I also suggest to you that the last sentence of paragraph 45 is not true?---It’s my view, your Honour; I am sure people would contest it, depending on their view. But it’s certainly my view.

555 I then intervened:

[O’CALLAGHAN J]: Well, do you know anything – can you point to any example of Mrs Deeming having given:

…succour to hateful and/or extreme social or political views

?---Your Honour, that’s a general observation of what I consider to be Mrs Deeming’s, I will call it, notoriety in the community. I am not trying to suggest in that paragraph that that’s – that’s my assessment of Mrs Deeming, necessarily.

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] Did anyone ever tell you that they thought that she had a reputation for giving succour to such things?---Not as your Honour has precisely articulated it.

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] No. It’s the way you’ve - - -?---But – but there would be too many - - -

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] But it’s the way you’ve articulated it?---Yes. I - - -

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] You’re saying that she had a bad reputation for those things, and I am asking you did anyone ever say anything to you along those lines?---And what I would say is there were numerous conversations over a long period – I can’t recall specific conversations, but what I can say to your Honour – your Honour is that this was not, if you like, a – a – a subject that was rare in political circles when we’re – in – in Liberal Party circles when we’re talking about Mrs Deeming. And what I mean by that is the conversations I was privy to about Mrs Deeming were always in relation to the controversy that seemed to surround her; whether that’s fair or not, but that was – that was my general assessment – that Mrs Deeming was seen in that vein. And whether you take it from - - -

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] What? Seen to be controversial?---Yes. And – and – and seen to be a, if you like – again, fairly or unfairly – a magnet for that kind of controversy. And it’s why – I think you saw media - - -

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] Why does that mean she has:

...a bad reputation … for giving succour to hateful and/or extreme social or political views

? ---That’s my general view of how she – how Mrs Deeming was seen, certainly, in many circles. Now, there would be a contrary – a countervailing view, I’m sure, in parts of the party that would be devotees of Mrs Deeming; I accept that. But, in my view, there was also another view that Mrs Deeming was as I’ve described.

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] So rather than her having a bad reputation, you say that some people thought she did that, ie, gave succour to hateful/extreme political views?---I think it was a pretty widespread view. It’s not a universal view. But, in my view, it was a widespread view about Mrs Deeming.

556 Ms Chrysanthou then asked, “I want to suggest to you that that’s just not true?” and Mr Pesutto replied, “… I reject that, your Honour”.

557 I have no hesitation in saying that Mr Pesutto’s evidence at paragraph 45 of his first affidavit is untrue. Having said, on oath, that “in the circles in which I moved including the more mainstream parts of the community I was trying to attract to support the Party (in my view, the vast majority), Mrs Deeming had a bad reputation, particularly for giving succour to hateful and/or extreme social or political views”, when pressed about the allegation, he was unable to provide a skerrick of evidence to support it. That is a shameful state of affairs, because the allegation – which went as far as saying that he “[knew] of no other person with such a bad reputation who has been allowed into the Party” – was self-evidently calculated to defeat Mrs Deeming’s case that she had, or was likely to have, suffered serious harm as a consequence of the impugned publications.[ Dusty - MY EMPHASIS]

558 The allegation that Mr Pesutto made that Mrs Deeming had a bad reputation also flies in the face of objective facts, including most obviously the fact that it was Mr Pesutto himself who proposed that Mrs Deeming be elected to the position of Party Whip in the Legislative Council in December 2023. (Mr Mundine explained in his evidence that the role of Whip “is a very powerful position which carries authority within the party” and that “one is not appointed … unless the party (and the party leader) thinks highly of the candidate in relation to their integrity and trustworthiness” …)).

559 Mr Pesutto also accepted that at the time of the “Western Metropolitan Meet & Greet” that he attended with Mrs Deeming in February 2023, he was happy to be pictured with her on the event flyer …; had no concerns about being photographed with her at the event …; and agreed that he had a conversation with Mr Mundine about Mrs Deeming in positive terms ….

560 Mr Pesutto was also cross-examined about paragraph 44 of his 27 May affidavit, which read:

‘However, after several months as Leader of the Party, it was apparent to me that Mrs Deeming’s views on social and political issues (most notably, abortion and transgender related issues) were notorious, controversial and regarded as hateful by some, and she had a mixed reputation in the Parliament.’

561 I asked him, “Can you point to something that Mrs Deeming said that, in your view, represents a hateful view concerning abortion or transgender-related issues?” This was his answer:

‘There was – and I’m not saying I shared – that I had that view myself. What I would say is that things like Mrs Deeming’s inaugural speech, which for the most part I’ve said in my affidavit was a very good speech, but for some reason the part at the end, which dealt with some of these issues, was all the media and people were talking about, for the most part. So, it was that, but, your Honour, it was more – my comments in relation to that affidavit – that paragraph of my affidavit – are more in relation to what I was seeing in terms of how we were being perceived, and how Mrs Deeming was being perceived, in my view. Not just – I would actually go further than the months as leader, but in the lead-up to the election itself there was significant media and commentary from people such as Daniel Andrews [then the Premier of Victoria].’

562 It is difficult to know what to make of that, but whatever it means, it is clear that Mr Pesutto was unable to point to anything to make good his sworn assertion that “it was apparent to me that Mrs Deeming’s views on social and political issues (most notably, abortion and transgender related issues) were notorious, controversial and regarded as hateful by some, and she had a mixed reputation in the Parliament”.

…

Serious harm established

615 For those reasons, I am satisfied, having regard to the seriousness of the imputations carried, the extent of publication, the inherent probabilities, and the evidence of the actual impact of the publications, that the publication of each of the impugned publications has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to Mrs Deeming’s reputation.

Mr Pesutto had claimed that his actions were in the public interest.

660 Mr Pesutto was cross-examined for four days. The length of it was due in considerable part to his inability or refusal to give a simple answer to simple enough questions.

661 I understand that when politicians are engaged in the cut and thrust of politics – facing tough questions in press conferences, for example – their job can involve deflecting questions, pivoting to another topic or running out the clock.

662 But that is not the role of a witness in a court proceeding.

663 Time and time again, Mr Pesutto gave lengthy and non-responsive answers to questions asked of him by Ms Chrysanthou, in particular questions of his understanding of issues going to the public interest (as well as other matters).

I think it is also worth looking at how Mr Pesutto dealt with information about Kellie-Jay and Angie Jones:

668 The next day, Mr Pesutto was cross-examined about Ms Keen’s interview by Ms Kay Soco from the “Soldiers of Christ” referred to in the EMD, as follows …:

[MS CHRYSANTHOU:] You were aware, weren’t you, before you published the media release, that Ms Keen had been recorded as saying that she was not aware of the Soldiers of Christ background before she gave that interview?---I wasn’t aware in relation to the Soldiers of Christ. I do recall a comment in general discussion on the Sunday that – to the effect that Ms Keen was trying to say that she doesn’t check who she – who she gives interviews to and only does – does cursory checks or something to that effect. So I – I understood her to be somebody who regularly appeared on these types of platforms, what I understood to be extremist or far-right platforms, but didn’t bother checking, and that was my understanding.

So when you say that “she was trying to say”, she had been recorded as saying, hadn’t she, that she didn’t do detailed checks of the people who she conducted interviews with?---Yes. Something to that effect.

And you understood, didn’t you, that she would give an interview to, basically, anyone?---I understood that’s what she was saying. I found it incredible that someone would say that.

Right. But you did understand that’s what she had been saying?---Yes.

And you had no information to the contrary, did you?---No. But I didn’t believe what she was saying.

How would you rationally form a view as to whether you believe that or not, based on the information you had about Ms Keen up until that point on Sunday?---Looking at the material we had at that time – which, your Honour, in the circumstances, was across the Sunday – so not a lot of time – but again I’ve explained the urgency of the matter – I – I was convinced that the combination of things we did know on Sunday about her was serious enough to base an expulsion motion for the reasons I’ve said.

All right. Can you answer my question now. You had no reasonable basis, based on what you knew that day, to disbelieve Ms Keen’s statement to the effect that she would give interviews to anyone?---I – I thought it was a threadbare statement. If you are giving interviews on various platforms, you’re posting a Barbie-doll image, you’re being pictured with a – a well-known anti-Semite, that – that was a hard thing to believe, and I didn’t accept it.

…

MS CHRYSANTHOU: You had no basis to form the view, rationally, that Ms Keen was a liar?---I wasn’t calling her a liar. I just said I didn’t believe it; that’s a different thing.

669 The next day, day 10 of the trial, Mr Pesutto was cross-examined about why the additional (exculpatory) material was omitted from the hard copy version of the Pink News article that was attached to the EMD, as follows …:

[MS CHRYSANTHOU:] Now, I want to suggest to you that at the time you sent out the dossier – or the dossier was sent out at 6.01 pm to the membership, you knew that the last two pages of the pink news article had been deleted?---Well, yes. It was – it was just the one page.

And you knew that in deleting that, the context of the Gariepy interview with Ms Keen was completely altered?---No, I don’t accept that, your Honour. The links were there.

You knew that by the time it was sent to members at 6.01 pm, the denial by Ms Keen about her knowledge of the interviewer’s right-wing associations had been deleted?---I don’t accept that, your Honour. The full links were there.

I’m not asking about the links. I’m asking about the line that I showed you, that has appeared in repeated versions of the dossier throughout the day, that Miss Keen denied knowledge of her interviewer’s right-wing associations, or word to that effect, was deleted in the final draft that was sent to the MPs?---Well, it wasn’t deleted. It wasn’t included. I – subject to the language that Ms Keen actually used in the article, I would accept that.

And you knew – well, were you part of that decision to delete that?---No.

Bu you know - - -?---And would have – sorry, Ms Chrysanthou. I wouldn’t have had a problem if the whole article went in because the links were there. And I knew – as with the broader debate around this issue, I knew that it would be a fairly spirited debate in the party room ultimately when it got there, so I had no misapprehension that members would consider the document carefully.

The context of the Angie Jones tweets and her condemnation, or words to that effect, of the Nazis in her tweets appeared in earlier versions of the dossier that day, didn’t they?---I believe it may have, your Honour.

And you knew at the time it was sent to members at 6.01 that that context and that condemnation had been removed?---It appears that it obviously had. But again, like the Gariepy article, it was very easy for MPs to access Ms Jones Twitter account.

[O’CALLAGHAN J]: But that wasn’t the question, Mr Pesutto. The question was about whether you knew that it had been removed?---Well, I take it it had been removed.

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] Sorry?---I accept that it had been removed.

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] But even that’s not - - -?---And I believe I would have known it, but again - - -

[O’CALLAGHAN J:] But that’s not responsive either. Did you know at the time that it has been removed?---I can’t recall specifically recollecting, “Oh, that has been removed.” But like the full article, I wouldn’t have had a problem with the whole thing going in, because my concern with that tweet always was what it conveyed as a tweet on its own, irrespective of the context of the tweet exchange.

670 Ms Chrysanthou invited me to find that on many occasions when Mr Pesutto gave such evidence, and did not answer the question asked of him, he did so deliberately to avoid giving evidence unhelpful to his defence, and that he was an untruthful witness in many aspects of his evidence.

671 I have given anxious consideration to the many submissions made by Ms Chrysanthou along those lines in respect of significant parts of his evidence.

672 Mr Pesutto is a qualified solicitor, so he is aware of his duties to the court as an officer of it.

673 Ultimately, however, I am unable to conclude that he gave dishonest evidence about his subjective belief on the public interest question, as infuriatingly unresponsive as much of his evidence was. [ Dusty - MY EMPHASIS].

Not surprisingly, Mr Pesutto’s public interest defence and other defences failed.

It is worth quoting an extract of the effects of all of this on Moira:

770 The evidence about Mrs Deeming’s hurt, distress and embarrassment flowing from the impugned publications was extensive. Her own evidence, and the corroborating evidence of her husband, friends and colleagues is that Mrs Deeming has suffered and continues to suffer substantially in each of those regards.

771 It is not necessary to rehearse all of that evidence. In her affidavit evidence, by way of example, Mrs Deeming gave the following unchallenged evidence about the combined effect of the publications …:

‘In the days following the Publications, I felt shell shocked. I have in the past always tried not to cry in front of anyone, not even Andrew or our children, but now I cried frequently. I couldn’t help it. I often stayed in my room for long periods. I would stay in bed and I had no energy. I started losing track of time almost immediately. I felt frozen. People that know me know that if I start to forget things, I’m not coping and I’m not in a good headspace. I was now confused; I couldn’t remember what I had just done or what I had to do next. I would find myself standing in a room, not knowing what I was meant to be doing.

I felt degraded and humiliated. The whole process was very dehumanising. I felt that nobody was seeing me as a mother with four children for whom I was responsible. I felt that Mr Pesutto and the Leadership Team did not see me as a human but rather as some sort of political unit. I was very disturbed by this. I wondered what sort of monsters they were, who didn’t care about me but only about the political career of the leader of the party. They seemed not to care about justice, or the truth.

…

I became fearful of going out in public. I stopped wanting to go out with our children, because I was scared they might get hurt or spat on or otherwise caught in the middle of this terrible situation.

I stopped eating. I would forget to drink and eat, and sometimes Andrew would have to remind me to do so. I lost weight.

I felt utterly isolated and lost.

I felt I had lost control of my life, and of my fate and the fate of our children.

…

The injustice of it all grated on me day and night, and it still does. I could not comprehend that this could happen - right out in the open in front of the whole world. I was so hurt that the Leadership Team had betrayed every principle we were supposed to protect - women, children, family, free association, free speech, due process, civil rights, even just common decency. I wondered how they could ever be trusted by ordinary people to fight for their rights when they so callously and unfairly persisted in persecuting an innocent woman and tearing strips off her in front of the whole world.’

772 Mrs Deeming also gave this unchallenged evidence about the ongoing impact of the publications on her …:

‘I have continued to suffer emotionally and physically as a result of the ordeal starting with and caused by Mr Pesutto’s Publications. I have had to see doctors about various physical issues. For example, I have had terrible headaches (I had to have an MRI to check for any issues); I have been subconsciously clenching my jaw (for which I have had to have treatment including physiotherapy for my neck and shoulders and then dry needling in my jaw and face muscles); I have been subconsciously clenching my fists (more than once I woke with nail marks in my palms) and my toes (so that I have frequently had agonising foot spasms at the end of the day and at night); I have had disturbed sleep and am often tired; I have had irregular periods (mostly they disappeared but once I had two periods in one month which I was told by my doctors is a known catastrophic stress reaction in women).

The ongoing impact on me has been nightmarish . Over time I withdrew into myself, into a state of absolute loneliness and misery. I even stopped going to Church because I hated the idea of potentially crying in public and I was upset with God and was getting emotional during sermons and because I was so exhausted from having to explain myself to everyone, everywhere I went.

On the outside, I have always tried to ensure that nobody would see how broken I really am, because I find it excruciating not to have emotional privacy and am a private person. I have never been able to feel that my physical privacy is secure because of my past experiences, so emotional privacy has always been paramount to me and my very last line of defence. This whole saga - Mr Pesutto’s public attacks on me, followed by attacks on me by others, and the utter humiliation of having to tell people I’m not a Nazi - were all so public that they have been traumatic to me to an extent that I cannot properly explain in writing.’

Ultimately damages of $300,000 were awarded. Costs are to be dealt with in due course.

Dusty’s Conclusion

It is extraordinary that Mr Pesutto continued with his defence and put Moira through the further trauma of the trial when he had settled the cases brought by Kellie-Jay and Angie Jones. The judge concluded that he was often being dishonest. This man should not be in any public office. I wouldn’t employ him in any job. He should resign immediately. Many of the people around him should resign as well. I believe that Moira will be re-joining the Liberal Party. I think she would make a great leader of that party in due course. Congratulations to Moira and I hope she can now re-build her life.

Please let me know if this two parter has been of use and let me have your comments.

#BeMorePorcupine

#LetWomenSpeak

#Grassroots Army

#GenderIdeologyIsEvil

#PesuttoShouldResign

I hope that the next regular update will be on Thursday or Friday, Terven.

If you like this update, please send to a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free or paid or buy me a coffee, like and comment.