Table of Contents
Get ready for the spiciest defo case in years. If NSW MP Alex Greenwich goes ahead with his vilification case against Mark Latham, it’ll only escalate what should have been long consigned to the dustbin of the history of silly, nasty Twitter fights. Latham is not exactly known for backing away from a fight, and Greenwich may find that those who live by the nasty tweet end up getting cut themselves.
Sydney MP Alex Greenwich says he has lodged a complaint with NSW Police and the state’s anti-discrimination board about what he describes as “homosexual vilification” from One Nation leader Mark Latham […]
In a statement, Mr Greenwich said unless Mr Latham “apologises and makes amends” he would also commence defamation proceedings against him.
ABC Australia
Latho is hardly one to back away from a biffo, and he’s already made clear that he will not be apologising.
So, what’s all this about? At heart, two grown men, elected representatives no less, getting stuck into a sadly typical Twitter catfight — and one of them having a good old sook about it.
It all started when Latham was a speaker at a church event during the NSW election campaign in March. As they have gotten entirely used to getting away with, a violent mob of “LGBTQI+” protesters swooped. But when the trannies allegedly broke a crucifix and tried to set it on fire, they got far more than they were used to: hundreds of counter-protesters, apparently from the area’s Lebanese Maronite Christian community, quickly descended, enraged. In the end, the riot squad was called out.
And Alex Greenwich took to the media, to have a bash at Latham.
“Mark Latham is a disgusting human being and people who are considering voting for One Nation need to realise they are voting for an extremely hateful and dangerous individual who risks causing a great deal of damage to our state,” Mr Greenwich said last week.
Like the tranny protesters, Greenwich found himself getting an unexpected virtual biff on the nose. Latham tweeted:
“‘Disgusting? How does that compare with sticking your dick up a bloke’s arse and covering it with shit?”
Mark Latham
In a statement to The Saturday Telegraph, Mr Latham said: “Sometimes in public life when you throw out insults they come back at you harder and truer… So boo-hoo Alex Greenwich.”
“When he calls someone a disgusting human being for attending a meeting in a church hall, maybe attention will turn to some of his habits.”
Sky News Australia
As cry-bullies will, Greenwich had a literal sook about it.
He revealed just how impacted he was by the tweets and how it had motivated him to double down on achieving reform for the LGBTQIA+ community in NSW.
“I had a bit of a cry late yesterday at the end of the day, after being in this gig for a decade and being re-elected, I didn’t think I would still be subjected to homophobic abuse,” he said.
News.com.au
Well, perhaps he ought to have thought, before picking a fight?
The whole episode is tawdry and tacky, and reflects not at all well on either of them, as elected representatives. Was Latham’s tweet nasty? Sure was. Was Greenwich’s? Also was. As was his defending “rainbow” protesters attacking a meeting at a church, and vandalising sacred Christian objects.
Because, here’s the thing: if Greenwich wants “respect”, he ought to start practising what he preaches. For too long, the “rainbow” bandwagon has enjoyed an untouchable, one-way traffic in “respect”: behaving like bullying brats at every turn, and then crying like babies if anyone gives them a serve in return.
But the whole, silly fracas begs the question of just how a defamation proceeding will actually go.
After all, Australian law allows a truth defence in defamation cases.
If you can prove the material published was substantially true, then you can rely on the truth defence as a complete defence. This means that even if the court finds an imputation to be defamatory, the publisher is not liable if they prove the imputation to be true in substance or not materially different from the truth.
Legalvision
Which could see Greenwich being grilled in court on his sex life, if Latham seeks to establish the truth of his tweet.
In which case, the question would be, why does an openly homosexual public figure find an accurate description of homosexual sex to be vilification?
We’re gonna need a bigger bucket of popcorn.
