Table of Contents
Pass the popcorn: a flamboyantly homosexual MP is taking one of Australia’s most notorious political bruisers to court. All over a tweet graphically describing gay sex, and gay politicians going into schools.
Newly released court documents reveal independent MP Alex Greenwich is suing NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham for purportedly painting him as someone who “goes to schools to groom children to become homosexual”.
Yet Latham never actually said that at all.
The quote in question from Mr Latham is: “When (Greenwich) calls someone a disgusting human being for attending a meeting in a church hall, maybe attention will turn to some of his habits.
“Greenwich goes into schools talking to kids about being gay. I didn’t want to be accused of anything similar, leaving that kind of content on my socials.”
The Australian
Claiming that that is the same as calling him someone who “goes to schools to groom children to become homosexual” seems a pretty long reach. It seems pretty plain that Latham is simply saying that adults talking to children about their sex lives is something that at least some people would object to.
It should also be borne in mind that Greenwich started the unedifying Twitter fight by calling Latham “a disgusting human being” for, apparently, nothing more than speaking to a meeting at a Christian church. A meeting which was violently attacked by a group of homosexual and trans activists.
Greenwich is also suing Latham for tweeting:
“‘Disgusting? How does that compare with sticking your dick up a bloke’s arse and covering it with shit?”
Which is crass, certainly, but a not-inaccurate description of male homosexual sex.
In which case, if Latham runs with a truth defence, Greenwich may face some awkward questioning. To whit: is he a top or a bottom?
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
The Federal Court released documents from the defamation proceedings launched last month by Mr Greenwich’s lawyers at Dowson Turco Lawyers, a firm that describes itself as “out, loud and proud LGBTIQ+”.
The Australian
Even if Greenwich wins the legal fight, he may well end up losing the pub test battle. Because this is shaping up to look like yet another example of rainbow cry-bullying.
Because, while two wrongs certainly don’t make a right, it was Greenwich who picked the whole silly, tawdry shouting match in the first place, by defending “rainbow” protesters attacking a meeting at a church, and allegedly vandalising sacred Christian objects.
So, a great many people might start thinking that if the likes of Greenwich want “respect”, they ought to start practising what they preach. 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.
And proving Dave Chappelle right.
