Moira Deeming kicked out of her political party because of Wikipedia lies

[zordrac]

I noticed one thing that happened recently, where I live here in Australia, where a politician by the name of Moira Deeming lost her position in the Liberal Party (one of Australia's two major parties) because Wikipedia wrote lies about her.

This was pretty shocking to me, but Wikipedia didn't care, and to date haven't bothered to fix up their mistakes, and continue to lie about her, which has led to her expulsion from her own political party, as well as lawsuits, all of which was essentially Wikipedia's fault.

Details:

Moira Deeming was elected to the Legislative Council, the upper house of the state of Victoria, Australia (the state equivalent of the Senate) in December 2022 under the banner of being pro-woman and anti-trans. Essentially, she is a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, or TERF. She is also a Maori (a Native New Zealander), and is black.

In her first speech in March 2023 she said that she wanted to remove anti-woman laws that let trans women still with d*cks into women's toilets.

She was quite openly anti-trans from the outset, and that was her platform. That was why she was voted in. That was what she was all about. She was a feminist who didn't like trans women infringing on her space.

In April 2023, soon after giving her first speech to great applause, she went to a rally called "Let Women Speak" in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, at the steps of Victoria's Parliament House. This was arranged by a British TERF called Posie Parker. They self-described it as a women's rights rally.

Some trans rights activists (TRAs) decided that it was secretly an anti-trans rally and was discriminatory. They put in a complaint to the human rights commission, who assessed it and said that it wasn't. It wasn't an anti-trans rally at all, they proved, because it didn't say that people didn't have the right to be trans, only that they should not infringe on women's rights in their activities. That is not anti-trans. While some of the people involved might have been anti-trans, most of them were not.

A group of neo-Nazis appeared at some point towards the end of the protest, and made some Nazi salutes. Amongst them was the son of a prominent police officer, who was in attendance. They claimed to have been invited there by the organisers of the protest.

The neo-Nazis unleashed a banner which said "Kill Paedo Freaks".

The organisers of the protest were horrified, as were the TRAs (the "counter protest"), each of whom blamed the other for the Nazis being in attendance. The Nazis, for their part, claimed to be there on invitation from Posie Parker herself.

Wikipedia has claimed that Posie Parker is a Nazi. Posie Parker has been photographed with Nazis. But she said that she didn't know that they were Nazis. Wikipedia has made no such distinction.

Indeed, Wikipedia has been full of trying to accuse all of these TERFs who are involved in women's rights of being Nazis.

So, following the protest, the Victorian premier, and leader of the Labor Party, Daniel Andrews, decried the act and called for Moira Deeming to be removed. He said that even if they hadn't invited the Nazis in, that TERFs are bad and he demanded for her to be removed from the Liberal Party.

The leader of the Liberal Party of Victoria, John Pesutto, then agreed, and removed her.

I mean, WTF?

The basis of John Pesutto's decision was on Wikipedia's lies about Posie Parker and other people who were at the protest which falsely called them Nazis.

None of them were Nazis.

There was some opposition within the Victorian Liberal Party about this, as the Liberal Party as a whole had a pro-TERF anti-TRA policy, so what Moira Deeming was doing was fine. But the Nazis made it not fine.

So initially she was suspended for 9 months.

But then John Pesutto broke his promises surrounding the suspension, so Moira Deeming threatened to sue him for defamation if he didn't stop calling her a Nazi.

He refused, but claimed he had never called her a Nazi (even though he had).

He then got her banned for making a legal threat!

Isn't that a stupid Wikipedia thing to do? Officially I was banned for making a legal threat that I didn't actually make, and was actually made against me. So now Moira Deeming, in real life, was banned for making a legal threat.

So Moira Deeming is now an independent, and this effectively means that she will probably only see out one term and then that will probably be the end of her political career. A month after her maiden speech and 5 months into her 4-year term, she is banned for life and will probably never do anything again, all because Wikipedia lied about her.

The federal Liberal women's group denounced her ban and demanded her to come back but John Pesutto refuses to do it. He has been widely criticised for it, but he refuses to do it. After all, Wikipedia are always telling the truth, right? Right?

Wikipedia are largely responsible for this, because they lied about her, and their lies led to this major problem for her, and broadly for the Australian Liberal Party, who, in spite of being one of only two major political parties in Australia, don't hold power in any state for the first time in history, and are in danger of being removed as a political party.

If you think that Wikipedia don't meddle in politics, this is a big one.

[ericbarbour]

A) Australian politics is a rotten insane mess and you should have realized this by now.....just by the by, Deeming's banishment has produced a political hellstorm. The Liberals fucked up.

B) I see that you tried to clean up Deeming's article and were blocked by Yamla. They will always hate you for being a "b& user" and "WP:NOTHERE" and all that rubbish. DON'T EDIT. Make an effort to avoid it.

C) The article creation, and most of the spluttering about Deeming's political positions, was the work of Blumph. An unnoticed sockpuppet who fucked around in the area of Australian politics. Sounds like a sock owned by Ambi or David Gerard to me. Is that you, Rebecca, or whatever you're calling yourself this week?

Blumph also mucked around with Ralph Babet, and David Smith (public servant). Does not like anti-vaxxers and conservatives and anyone who has a problem with trans people. And seems to be unhappy that Kathleen Folbigg was pardoned.....Wikipedia remains a giant nut magnet. Not just for simple leftists, for extreme crank leftists.

[Boink Boink]

Similar things are happening in UK politics right now, albeit obviously with far less of the insanity of Aussie politics.

Guilt by association has always been a very left wing trait, a rather despicable signifier of their tendency toward groupthink and ironically, repression of radical political thought.

Wikipedia is the natural home of lefties for this reason, its entire design is all about repression and virtue signalling.

If Wikipedia had any ability to understand what makes people tick on a very human level, they might be dangerous. Instead, they are quite powerless, and can only ever harm their natural brethren.

Wikipedia is the place where to them it make sense to abhor violence, unless you're punching a Nazi.

Ask a Wikipedian if it's OK to punch a communist then, or a woman who is pro life, or a woman with a penis who just raped a child, and they soon realise that democratic politics is pretty hard if you aren't capable of defending your opinions and indeed your first instinct is to run away from that fight entirely.

Take a look at Wikipediocracy to see how glaring it is that a core trait of Wikipedians is this cowardice, this fear of being found out as intellectually dishonest fools whose power only exists for extremely undemocratic reasons.

People don't vote for weak cowards, nor do they vote against their own interests. It is a rather good way of explaining the success of so called Nazis at the ballot box. And of course, the actual Nazis.

Many think the left are headed for an easy victory here, a final return to power after fourteen years in the wilderness. I am baffled by their confidence, given there isn't anything in their current strategy or offering that hasn't already been a proven vote loser.

Their current messaging isn't far removed from claiming that for the last thirteen years Britain has been ruled by a bunch of absolutely inhumane crop of bastards who are only in it for themselves, the "rich", so it's "time for a change".

Quite forgetting, as they often do, that in our system, you can't get elected if you aren't appealing to a broad base of people.

It has always been incredibly easy here to make the case to voters that the left are intellectually dishonest and you trust them with the public finances at your peril. It's a fact based argument. Nothing more dangerous than a Nazi that knows the power of facts as well as emotions.

If it proves to be the case that Wikipedia being Wikipedia is helping the left remain unelectable in Britain, well, isn't that just typical of how Wikipedia "helps" humanity. With friends like that.....

[Ognistysztorm]

With the Holocaust distortion scandals and the more recent drama on Reddit regarding 3rd party apps it's safe to say that enshittification of Wikipedia has just crossed into terminal phase, although I might be too optimistic here at the moment.

[zordrac]

A) Australian politics is a rotten insane mess and you should have realized this by now.....just by the by, Deeming's banishment has produced a political hellstorm. The Liberals fucked up.

B) I see that you tried to clean up Deeming's article and were blocked by Yamla. They will always hate you for being a "b& user" and "WP:NOTHERE" and all that rubbish. DON'T EDIT. Make an effort to avoid it.

C) The article creation, and most of the spluttering about Deeming's political positions, was the work of Blumph. An unnoticed sockpuppet who fucked around in the area of Australian politics. Sounds like a sock owned by Ambi or David Gerard to me. Is that you, Rebecca, or whatever you're calling yourself this week?

Blumph also mucked around with Ralph Babet, and David Smith (public servant). Does not like anti-vaxxers and conservatives and anyone who has a problem with trans people. And seems to be unhappy that Kathleen Folbigg was pardoned.....Wikipedia remains a giant nut magnet. Not just for simple leftists, for extreme crank leftists.

I will be interested to see if Moira Deeming does end up suing Joe Pesutto over this if she reiterates that he got his false information about her from Wikipedia. Wikipedia might end up getting sued over this. They should have checked their facts! It's just insane that they have done this. This is election interference! Well, not the actual election but the position of people who were elected.

I have spoken to Moira a little bit since this, and encouraged her to sue Wikipedia, but to date she isn't doing it directly, but we will see. They were a major part of the decision to remove her, which was insane.

[Boink Boink]

If you're in contact with her, a good start would be to explain the following:

Theory: Wikipedia has a disclaimer that makes it very clear that it is the Wikipedia Foundation's official position that readers of Wikipedia should not trust a single word they find there. They are expected to verify every word for themselves. And every word on Wikipedia is meant to be backed by a reliable source, which is the means readers can verify a claim.

Reality: Wikipedia knows damn well that very few people have any idea this is the theory of Wikipedia. They play on the fact that the public simply knows Wikipedia is an "enclopedia" (because they tell them it is), and even if they do know the pitfalls of "...that anyone can edit" (false or biased information), they feel reassured by the constant messaging that Wikipedia is built by a dedicated band of volunteers who patrol the encyclopedia correcting errors.

As we all know, this was a serious problem even when Wikipedia was attracting lots of editors (Siegenthaler). It has only gotten worse now that Wikipedia has peaked and is in decline. A rather obvious problem with the combination of falling editor numbers and rise in article count, is there are even less experienced editors per article, checking new additions come with a reliable source.

Because Wikipedia actually came late to the importance of sourcing to their model (which initially was like an encyclopedia where you just provided a list of general references and assumed people cared for an article the way an actual encyclopedia "editor" would) they adopted the inline citation requirement. But it was far too late, and now there is a huge backlog in unsourced statements, even if you restrict it to the categories of anything about living people ("BLPs") and anything likely to be challenged.

It's incredible to me, the general lack of public awareness of just how divergent Wikipedia reality is from Wikipedia theory. Even now, for a really scary example of just how irresponsible Wikipedia is as a publisher, is the following self declared statistic.....

Category:BLP articles lacking sources from January 2007

Started: January 25, 2018 with 76 articles

It currently contains 39 articles

That is insane. And rather obviously, Wikipedia's self declared statistics rely on someone having noticed a problem and tagged an article as needing work. The real numbers are always higher. Always.

As you will see being proudly flaunted by the scumbags on Wikipediocracy, the so called but not at all "investigators" of Wikipedia's "dark corners", because all that tagging has really done is make the encyclopedia look unsightly and the tags just sit there for years without ever getting addressed (and bizarrely, sometimes an article has actually been fixed by a well meaning passer by, but they wrongly assume it is down to an "editor" to remove the tag), many Wikipedia Administrators actually punish editors for merely tagging an article and remove the tags.

Administrators see it is a particularly serious crime if done by an experienced editor, since Administrators above all now exist solely to ensure Wikipedia ticks along in the mode of operation it has settled into, and has sadly gained public acceptance. This is what they have decided all by themselves as the top echelon of a cult, is the best for Wikipedia, having long ago realised that creating an "encyclopedia", especially under the requirements of respecting all contributors and welcoming newcomers, is pretty damn hard. Far beyond their capabilities.

As you learn if you get involved in Wikipedia in any serious way, also hampering the efforts to properly source Wikipedia, is that the shift to inline sourcing of claims has meant the definition of a reliable source has been weaponised to ensure the biases of Wikipedia editors pervade articles.

A rather hilarious example is the Wikipedia ban of the Daily Mail. Despite being the most popular and most right wing mass market newspaper in Britain, if you believe Wikipedia, every word of it is a potential fabrication. The Mail only exists to make a profit. Quite what they think is the economic model of other newspapers, is beyond me.

Having been found by Parliament to be a serial liar, the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson is now out of Parliament entirely and has taken up a regular column in the Mail. This presumably suits Wikipedia editors fine, since serial liar joins serial fabricator for mutual economic benefit is an actual fact in their world view. A rather inconvenient fact of course is that Johnson was already a scandal laden politician even before he achieved two of the biggest political victories in modern times (winning the Brexit referendum, then winning a whopping 86 seat majority to break the ensuing political deadlock as the lefties tried their best to nullify the will of the people).

If you believe The Guardian, the British public now regret Brexit. It is a mark of that newspaper's rank bias, that they don't want to acknowledge why the opposition aren't proposing to reverse it, or even undo it a little. It would be political suicide. It is as ludicrous an offering as if the U.S. Democrats suggested it's wrong that surviving cancer in America is a lottery.

Some things transcend politics. Americans broadly seem to accept the price of "freedom" is that a citizen has a non-negligible but entirely random chance of a gruesome death. The Brits never had and never will trust the French or Germans, and clearly want no part of "an ever closer political union". The Scots perhaps do, but unfortunately they are not so good either at the fighting or the talking, so for the next few Parliaments at least, it seems like they will have to live with their reality.

We can all see what happens when Wikipedia quite deliberately picks which world views are valid. Their articles rapidly cease to reflect basic reality. I dare say Johnson's biography already reads worse than Trump's, even though Trump would (quite literally) kill for the electoral success and achievements of Johnson.

Wikipedia editors want no part of reality. If they could get away with it, they would happily edit Johnson's Wikipedia biography to claim that the only plausible explanation for his success is that Britain is a deeply racist deeply stupid nation. They can't do that of course, because as it turns out, it is actually quite hard to reliably source the narratives of the loony left. Since Britain doesn't have American style Free Speech, not even the Guardian (or the Mail) can print literal bollocks. Unlike Wikipedia, there are always consequences, because they are publishers.

Easier instead to simply bar the sources that reflect the mainstream political opinion of the side you dislike. The left here still routinely blame the "right wing media" for every political defeat they suffer.

I shit you not, this is normal for Wikipedia....

There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail.[226]

That extremely defamatory statement is seemingly sourced. But how well? Not very well. The source is a single opinion piece by a Guardian columnist. The Guardian is the only left wing broadsheet newspaper in Britain, so it says a lot that Wikipedia can't find an actual news story from the Guardian that might back this claim.

Much less an academic source that might put the bones of fact on their rather vague and obviously malicious statement. A statement that would never even make it into a real encyclopedia. Wikipedia's left wing editors simply want you to believe the Mail is racist. Facts are irrelevant. Hilariously, even for mere vague opinion, they have to resort to someone whose bias against the Mail can be fairly described as, ironically, "rabid".

Even when they resort to facts, they are quite curious facts.....

In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]"

Wikipedia wants no part of facts. Wikipedia "editors" are entirely uninterested in how ludicrous this statement sounds, once you realise it was famously the Mail's campaign against the very racist Metropolitan Police that brought the term "institutional racism" into common usage, precisely for the purpose of telling people that yes, the Metropolitan Police are racist, and it is precisely because it is actually quite easy to find examples of " front-line" officers doing racist things, if only you actually look. It is not a bad apple problem.

Fast forward a decade, and Wikipedia still has no real proof The Mail is institutionally racist beyond a smattering of examples (a drop in the ocean of the Mail's vast output). But we do now know that the Met is racist at a frequency that is a very real problem.

The irony of that [226] opinion piece is that it suggests the Mail has only one concern, are you buying it? Wikipedia of course clearly only has one concern, are you paying for it? Unlike the Mail, Wikipedia doesn't really do the things that would persuade people to pay for it.

How long will it take for people to realise that Wikipedia doesn't merely have examples of irresponsibility. It is institutionally irresponsible. It needs to be regulated. Expecting Wikipedia to police itself, is about as likely to achieve real results as it did with the Met.

Despite all the scandals, Wikipedia refuses to tackle these glaring liabilities in any meaningful way. Quite literally the only reason it gets away with this is because American law doesn't designate it as a publisher but as merely a service provider.

Seeking cannot sue Wikipedia unless she can prove her case is part of an institutional problem. That is a very easy case to make. There is literally an incident on the Wikipedia internal governance board right now where an official campaign to add sources to the encyclopedia has been halted for being less than perfect. It is literal proof that the Wikipedia community would rather have an outsourced statement than a poorly sourced statement.

And it is literal proof that when confronted with an organised effort to improve sourcing, Wikipedia editors rely only on anecdotal evidence to assess success or failure. It is also proof that when confronted with anecdotal proof of failure, they are disinclined to help, by for example, combing through the added sources to fix any errors. Incredibly, one suggestion was to block the hashtag so that the campaign was nullified. A move which also means the effect of the campaign cannot be systematically measured.

There are ways and means like this to prove ordinary Wikipedia editors and their Administrative masters have completely and totally abandoned the basic principles of Wikipedia happening literally every day. Every hour. Every second, if you look at the basic edit logs. Wikipedia is not crowdsourced. Wikipedia is not open to editing by anyone. It is now a very deeply quasi professional outfit, but they lack the things you would expect to see in an operation which now relies heavily on the perceived status and training of key personnel, and a deeply hierarchical and bureaucratic organisation.

At a very basic level, it is about accountability. On Wikipedia, for the Vested Contributors and Administrators, there Is no accountability if it challenges the status quo of Wikipedia's de facto and very very broken operating model.

Politicians need to do more than simply highlight their personal experience. They need to dig into the root causes, and start shouting about it.

This is a battle that can be won. It would take very little to ensure Wikipedia's brand is fatally damaged in a territory like the Antipodes.

[ericbarbour]

basically correct, but still

[zordrac]

Moira Deeming's story relates to her platform as a politician, which was to be someone standing up for women's rights - at the exclusion of trans rights, which some people would describe as a TERF, or trans-exclusory radical feminist.

This is her first speech to parliament:

https://new.parliament.vic.gov.au/parli ... 4#wrapper7

That was 21 February 2023, just 4 or so months ago, and it was applauded. She was elected on that platform. If you voted for her, you were voting for a TERF.

Does that make her anti-trans?

Well, not according to Moira.

She is perfectly happy for people to be trans, by any definition of trans. She is happy for people to identify as women when they are men, or vice-versa. She is happy to respect their pronouns. She is happy for them to exist. She isn't anti-trans by any sensible definition of the term.

These are her issues:
1. Trans women in women's toilets.
2. Trans women in women's prisons.
3. Trans women in women's sports.

That's it. That's her platform. That's why she was elected.

The trans lobby, as well as some in the broader LGBT lobby, hate her, but again, that was why she was voted in. That was why she was a member of the Liberal Party. That is her platform.

I just want to make that clear because a lot of people will think that her political party might not want an anti-trans to be a part of their team, or, even if they accept that she is pro-trans but is a feminist, or a TERF, that they might not want her to do that.

That's the position of the opposition party, of Labor. Labor wants her removed for being a TERF, and Labor believes she is anti-trans. But her own party, the Liberal party, do not hold that view. The Liberal party gave her a position and she was voted in because she was a TERF.

I just want to make that clear as her critics say that that was why she was removed from the party, but that had nothing to do with the decision to remove her.

Her decision to attend a very small TERF rally called "Let Women Speak" outside Victorian Parliament House on 18 March 2023 was perfectly fine as far as the Liberal Party were concerned. She told them that she was going. It came less than a month after her maiden speech to parliament. She was only voted in the previous November 2022. She was brand new.

To put this into perspective, people here in Melbourne have protests all the time, with Victorian Parliament House one of the main venues for regular protests. These are some of the main popular protest venues:
1. Victorian State Library
2. Federation Square outside Flinders Street Train Station
3. Victorian Parliament House
4. In the middle of the mall

Generally-speaking, protests try to pick the venue that best suits their interests. If it is an intellectual protest, then they pick the library, if it is something that they want people to see in passing then they try Federation Square, if it is something that is of general interest for people having lunch or doing shopping then they pick the mall and if it is political then they pick parliament house. So this one was a bit political so they picked Parliament House.

We have these protests pretty much every week, usually on weekends though not always, and we often have them in all 4 main protest venues at the same time. It's so much that people tend to avoid those places on weekends if they can because they just get so annoying. Seriously, these protests are so common that they lose their meaning. We just protest non-stop about nothing.

What also often happens is that we have counter-protests, particularly about the Parliament House ones. If they are trying to advocate against a decision by the current political leaders, then people who support their opponents launch a counter-protest. It's pretty much to be expected. If you don't get a counter-protest then what the hell are you doing protesting at Parliament House for? Go pick a different venue if your protest isn't controversial. They also know what side the protests are going to be on. The Labor Party is in power right now, who are progressives, hence the conservatives are the ones doing the protesting and progressives are the ones launching the counter-protests. If the other side were in power, then it'd be reversed. These protests are almost an extension of parliament itself.

"Let Women Speak" is a global protest movement founded by Kelly-Jean Keen, also known as Posie Parker, who, like Moira Deeming, is a TERF, but Posie Parker goes one step further and self-describes herself as anti-trans, which, again, Moira Deeming is not.

The aim of "Let Women Speak" is to advocate for women to have "safe spaces", which aligns pretty much exactly with what Moira Deeming's views are. But the people who are at the protest aren't identical.

Many of the people who were at the protest (and not the counter-protest) were actually progressives. Indeed, Moira Deeming herself is pretty much dead-centre politically, as her family, she said, were progressives, and she grew up progressive. The only reason she switched sides to conservative was because she was alarmed that trans rights were impacting on women's rights. She is a feminist. Feminists are usually progressives, or at least were until the trans rights movement started a few years back, or at least the version of trans rights that hurts feminists.

The actual protest was about 300, which is tiny by Melbourne protest standards. This is a city of some 7 million people who have 4 protests per week every week, with a small gap when we were all in lockdown due to the pandemic in 2020-2021. In fact, because we missed a lot of protests due to the pandemic when protests were banned here, there are if anything more going on than there were before COVID-19 started, like everyone was saving up. Typical protests are about 5,000-strong. This one was absolutely tiny.

And it's weird that it was so tiny, because it's a popular issue. It's not like it's the majority view that trans women should be allowed into women's toilets. That is very much a mainstream viewpoint. It's a mainstream viewpoint to ban trans women from women's sports. All of their views were mainstream. So why were there only 300 people attending?

What was worse was that there were some 5,000 people in the counter-protest, which is an unusually-high discrepancy between protestors and counter-protestors.

Usually you do get counter-protests at political protests at Parliament House, but they are usually the same size as the original protest or smaller. But this one had a counter-protest that was more than 10 times larger.

Why?

Well, the counter-protest weren't arguing that they were wrong. Not at all. They were arguing that the protest was illegal and that it was discriminatory.

In other words, the counter-protestors were lying, and/or they were being lied to, about what the protest was actually about. Someone had told them that the protest was aimed at murdering all of the trans people in the world. That wasn't the case at all. It wasn't an anti-trans protest. It was a TERF protest. There's a world of difference. It self-described itself as a women's rights rally, a feminist rally. 5 years ago a feminist rally wouldn't even get a counter-protest.

The counter-protestors were incredibly violent, and they included Antifa, who, at least here in Australia, are generally regarded as a terrorist group. Antifa generally dress all in black. So those 300 protestors, who were probably as small as they were because of the size of the counter-protest and the lies that were being told about them, were being attacked by a wide variety of groups, including Antifa, who are generally viewed as terrorists. Police were holding the line to stop the violent counter-protest, but people kept slipping through.

Then at some point a group of neo-Nazis turned up.

According to the people at the rally, when they turned up, all in black, they were assumed to be Antifa, because that's what Antifa look like. They broke through the line, and the people at the protest were scared that they were going to be attacked, as police didn't do anything to stop them.

It turned out that this group of neo-Nazis had been told that this was a protest against trans people for grooming children, that it was an anti-trans rally aimed at murdering trans people.

So the neo-Nazis were happy to murder trans people, so they showed up to show solidarity.

Now, we don't know who e-mailed them, but they showed up, putting on their website that they were supporting the "Let Women Speak" rally.

If you were to guess who e-mailed them, you'd probably say it was someone on the other side. Maybe a Labor party politician, or at least someone loyal to them.

What was odd though was that police greeted them, and it turned out that one of the neo-Nazis was the son of a police officer - someone who was there on duty to protect the protestors.

In other words, it's fairly likely that that police officer knew that the neo-Nazis were coming. Perhaps his son told him. Perhaps police were the ones who set it up.

It's all reading a bit like a false flag operation, a set-up aimed to stuff up the "Let Women Speak" rally, but it seemed to be more specific than that. This particular false flag operation was political - it was aimed at causing Moira Deeming to lose her job.

Now, this wasn't anyone in her party. The Liberals were happy for her to be a TERF. They wanted her to be there to represent women at the exclusion of trans rights. That was her aim. They didn't send anyone in to stuff her around.

The Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, took advantage of the situation to immediately accuse Moira Deeming of being a Nazi and demanded for her to be kicked out lest the entire Liberal party be shown to be Nazis. Then, he amended it to say that even if she wasn't a Nazi, she was still anti-trans, and that's disgusting.

And that, somewhat surprisingly, led to the Liberal leader, John Pesutto, promising to fire Moira Deeming.

And this is where Wikipedia comes in.

You see, John Deeming used Wikipedia to do his research. He spent 20 minutes looking at Wikipedia and concluded that "Let Women Speak" was a Nazi rally and therefore that Moira Deeming was a Nazi, so he had to fire her.

Except that Wikipedia was wrong.

Posie Parker has addressed where this lie about her on Wikipedia comes from.

Posie Parker was photographed with a neo-Nazi, who agreed with her that trans are bad. Once again, Posie Parker is anti-trans. Neo-Nazis also tend to be anti-trans. Posie Parker didn't realise he was a neo-Nazi, and didn't care. She is not a Nazi, but they are both anti-trans.

So Posie Parker didn't care if she was supported by neo-Nazis, or one neo-Nazi at least. Her movement as a whole isn't really supported by neo-Nazis since neo-Nazis want to murder trans people and she doesn't. Neo-Nazis are also against gays, and she isn't.

So Posie Parker is not a neo-Nazi and her movement is not a neo-Nazi movement.

And even if it was, Moira Deeming attending it does not make her a neo-Nazi.

Posie Parker is anti-trans.

Moira Deeming is a TERF, but she is not anti-trans.

Neo-Nazis are also anti-trans.

But just because neo-Nazis are anti-trans does not mean that everyone who is anti-trans is a neo-Nazi. It doesn't work back the other way.

So Wikipedia lied about Moira Deeming, and about the Let Women Speak group, and about Posie Parker, and about a whole range of other things, and, as a result of those lies, Moira Deeming lost her job.

And Wikipedia won't even admit in their article that they did anything wrong.

There was heaps of newspaper coverage of this, proving that Wikipedia were at least partially responsible for this.

Now, Wikipedia didn't send the neo-Nazis an e-mail telling them to please go to the Let Women Speak rally. Possibly the police did that. Or Antifa. Or someone on the side of the counter-protestors. Maybe someone from the Labor Party. There are all sorts of suspects. But it seems pretty unlikely that Let Women Speak sent them an e-mail, let alone Moira Deeming.

Her being expelled from her party for a legal threat felt very Wikipedia-like to me.

She was suspended because of lies on Wikipedia, but expelled for making a threat to sue them over it - which she is now following through with.

There should be a Wikipedia article about it that mentions Wikipedia's role in this.

Moira Deeming probably has merit to sue Wikipedia over this, to be frank.

She has chosen to sue the leader of her political party, which is probably the right way to do things. But once that is over, I wouldn't be surprised if she sued Wikipedia too.

Their refusal to check their facts cost her her job.

[ericbarbour]

That's the position of the opposition party, of Labor. Labor wants her removed for being a TERF, and Labor believes she is anti-trans. But her own party, the Liberal party, do not hold that view. The Liberal party gave her a position and she was voted in because she was a TERF.

I just want to make that clear as her critics say that that was why she was removed from the party, but that had nothing to do with the decision to remove her.

So, it was hypocritical of the Liberals to remove her, and/or are you just being obtuse? The latter would be a good way to deal with WP since it's an obtuse monstrosity.

Why focus on this with such intensity anyway? Her treatment on WP is exactly the kind of shit I expect them to pull, and you should have realized the same by now. You were a major Wikipedia critic since, what, 2005 or 2006?

Do us all a favor and make a list of links to WP places where Deering was being condemned, plus the combatants. Who's the biggest fink? If she's going to sue the Liberal Party (which I think she should do anyway), a list might help her case.

After all, there must be a problem--
https://www.theage.com.au/national/duri ... 5djtd.html

[zordrac]

Obviously, her treatment was stereotypical of what they have done time and again. It was a particularly bad example, though, even by their standards. Usually they'd have at least mentioned their own role in her downfall.