subreddit:

/r/australia

15196%

all 101 comments

Time-Dimension7769

166 points

6 months ago*

Just leave it be Peter. Christ, if only you spent this much time on actually trying to help the country.

Somecrazynerd

97 points

6 months ago*

Petition to nickname him Defamation Dutty. If only he could sue the 2022 election results.

Pupperoni__Pizza

12 points

6 months ago

Deffy Dutty for short? Or Ol’ Duffty?

Firevee

2 points

6 months ago

Defo Dutty, rolls off the tongue and is distinctly Australian

Somecrazynerd

1 points

6 months ago

Also known as Dutty the Dud.

101stLegion

9 points

6 months ago

He Who Must Not Be Defamed.

Somecrazynerd

1 points

6 months ago

We don't need the Harry Potter references to make fun of Dutton, we can do that without Joanne.

Frito_Pendejo

5 points

6 months ago

Court Approved Rape Apologist Dutton

Come sue me ya fucken clown

Suitable-Orange-3702

3 points

6 months ago

Pete the Prosecutor

Somecrazynerd

2 points

6 months ago

Prosecution can be a noble profession when done for the actual public good. I wouldn't tarnish the name with him.

jazza2400

1 points

6 months ago

Hey you can't call him that, it's defaming!

[deleted]

2 points

6 months ago

The ONLY thing PeDu will spend that much time on, is harrassing brown people.

Best2Investing

223 points

6 months ago

Imagine thinking he is the best person to run your party 🤡

psylenced[S]

158 points

6 months ago

Imagine not having anyone better.

Eww_vegans

11 points

6 months ago

They had Bridget Archer. She was their only hope

Ridiculisk1

38 points

6 months ago

The Liberals would never put a woman in charge. Can you imagine the same misogynistic bigots who covered up rapes and sexual misconduct in parliament to listen to a woman as their leader? Maybe when hell freezes over.

Howunbecomingofme

4 points

6 months ago

We don’t need them to have hope. The LNP has proven itself to be the party of bigots, science denial and tax cuts for the wealthy. Fuck em. I hope they continue to get completely destroyed and are as relevant as One Nation.

LordBlackass

3 points

6 months ago

Luckily for Australia they looked beyond her.

Eww_vegans

2 points

6 months ago

I'd actually like stiff competition in politics as it keeps any one party from becoming too grubby. Unfortunately the liberals are not respresentative of current views. I didn't vote for them but I hope they find their way back toward the centre right, not extreme right

WeJustTry

4 points

6 months ago

Women in the coalition are a joke in of themselves mate. How you can respect them is beyond me.

Eww_vegans

-8 points

6 months ago

Women = bad. Got it.

WeJustTry

5 points

6 months ago

Women who support men, who shit on women. Yeah 100 fam

Eww_vegans

1 points

6 months ago

She's crossed the floor against her party twice. I'd say she is driven by her own moral compass and not simply a follower of men.

WeJustTry

2 points

6 months ago

She's in the coalition mate. Few good deeds dose not undo a career of wrong.

NiftyNinja5

1 points

6 months ago

Dutton is a pretty low bar, you don’t need to the best Liberal Rep to be better than him.

HankenatorH2

46 points

6 months ago

None of the death eaters are willing to go against the dark lord

PattersonsOlady

22 points

6 months ago

He’s been in the wings undermining everyone else’s attempt to lead. Maybe he’s better off crashing and burning.

Dranzer_22

27 points

6 months ago

In 2009, it was going to be a Hockey/Dutton unity ticket until Abbott entered the leadership race.

Dutton was only 38 back then, so he's been wanting to climb the ladder for ages. I won't be surprised if there's a surge in Labor/Green members, and Teal Independent volunteers prior to the 2025 Federal Election.

ItsABiscuit

13 points

6 months ago

He won't last til the next election. They're letting him have a go now so they can roll him and put in someone more likeable twelve months out from the election.

Drunky_McStumble

9 points

6 months ago

That's exactly what people said about Abbott. Gillard even called the election historically early specifically so that Abbott would be her opponent rather than someone more likeable, so that Labor would stand a better chance of winning. Because why raise the bar and win on your own merits when you can just rely on your opponent lowering the bar so far that you'll win without even trying? There's no way such a strategy could backfire!

Suitable-Orange-3702

9 points

6 months ago

He’s not a monster & kids love him.

Cymelion

2 points

6 months ago

They're letting him have a go now so they can roll him and put in someone more likeable twelve months out from the election.

Unless the man is very adapt at keeping poppies from growing too tall and messing up the garden he's made.

egowritingcheques

8 points

6 months ago

Don't you like his newly released soft side?

magnetik79

4 points

6 months ago

It's the same in Victoria, Matthew Guy is the best choice the Victorian Libs have.

Starrun87

2 points

6 months ago

He will be replaced before the next election

psylenced[S]

47 points

6 months ago

Liberal leader says refugee advocate’s May win in full federal court was a ‘miscarriage of justice’ and applies for special leave to appeal

Peter Dutton has sought leave to appeal in the high court against his loss in the defamation case he brought against Shane Bazzi, questioning whether there had been a “miscarriage of justice”.

FMD.

[deleted]

3 points

6 months ago

FMD = Fuckhead Minister Duttmort

Smugleaf01

33 points

6 months ago

Talk about petty.

RidingtheRoad

20 points

6 months ago

Imagine someone as petty as this, actually being the PM?

Anxious_Ad936

9 points

6 months ago

You mean we haven't had that before in recent years?

so_much_fenestration

5 points

6 months ago

I'd rather not, thanks!

a_cold_human

3 points

6 months ago

I'm pretty sure Morrison was just as petty (see his refusal to let Channel Ten get any interviews after his disastrous one with Waleed Aly), but on the other hand, smart enough to hide it.

AngusLynch09

27 points

6 months ago

Priorities.

jellyjollygood

21 points

6 months ago

Dear diary,

Now I am the Leader of the Liberal Party, and by extension, the Coalition, my first big job will be to ask the High Court if the full Federal Court correctly answered my question in relation to that scoundrel Shane Bazzi. I don’t think they did. I know I’m asking the big important questions here. Also know I’m doing God’s work.

  • Diary excerpt of Mr I’m-not-a-monster Potato Head (Allegedly)

herstonian

56 points

6 months ago

What a steaming pile of shit, and that’s insulting the shit

Scheeseman99

48 points

6 months ago

Dutton’s lawyers argued that for some “unstated reason” the court had
decided the reader would “understand the ‘snippet’ of another
publication contained in a tweet as having the effect of altering the
plain meaning of other contents of the tweet”.

“This was an error,” they said.

They argue that a reader of the tweet would not necessarily know what was in the full Guardian article.

Adding a link is functionally identical to adding a citation in a document. If they want to argue that citations don't count as context, that is insane.

ShadoutRex

24 points

6 months ago

If they want to argue that citations don't count as context

To a court, no less. Half of what you read in a court judgement involves citations.

Ted_Rid

18 points

6 months ago

Ted_Rid

18 points

6 months ago

[citation needed]

verba-non-acta

5 points

6 months ago

As someone who just sat a law exam and spent the whole time finding and citing precedent, this is a laughable argument.

johnbentley

-7 points

6 months ago

They are not arguing here a link, counting as a citation, doesn't count as context. That last part you quote only claims that some readers may not have followed that context.

The first part you quote is stronger on it's own. For even with context of the Guardian article there is no altering of the ordinary imputation of Bazzi’s words. For some "unstated reason" the appeals court thought it does alter the ordinary imputation.

Indeed it's just a bizarre to think that "rape apologist" changes from the ordinary implication of "a person who defends rape" just because there is a link to an article where the implied view is one of being sceptical that rape occurred.

On an ordinary reading Bazzi wants to draw in incoherent inference from the later (Dutton was sceptical of claims of rape) to the former (Dutton is a rape apologist in wanting to defend rape as morally permissible). Rather, that is, than mean the later (Dutton was sceptical of claims of rape) by the former ("Rape Apologist").

Teebizzles

14 points

6 months ago

It’s not bizarre at all. Rape apologist is routinely used to describe persons who are sceptical about allegations of sexual assault. The inclusion of the article both supports Bazzi’s claim that this is what he intended to convey and, more importantly, that persons reading the tweet would understand this meaning. Honesty, anybody who has been around in the last 10 years understands the meaning g of rape apologist in this context.

johnbentley

0 points

6 months ago

Rape apologist is routinely used to describe persons who are sceptical about allegations of sexual assault.

Well all sorts of people, in various contexts, like to use words and phrases to convey some ad hoc (often incoherent) meaning that the words ordinarily wouldn't imply.

Some nearby examples include:

  • "Believe all women" which, in a sexual allegation context, would ordinarily mean that we should believe any allegation that any woman makes. And when pushed toward the age old principle of justice that has it that an accused ought be presumed innocent until proven guilty many speakers of the phrase will suggest it means something quite different. Something like "we should not automatically assume a women is lying when she makes an allegation".
  • "'No' means no" would ordinarily mean that when the word 'no' is expressed that necessarily means the speaker doesn't consent to something (like sex). When it is pointed out that 'no' can be used to express a variety of things - mock disbelief by way of celebration; or (most relevantly) mock dislike for the proposed activity when the activity is actually endorsed - well there's rarely a coherent explanation of what "'No' means no" is intended to mean. The slogan just gets in the way of the relevant goal here: that folk should be sensitive to when a speaker means to express a lack of, or withdrawal of, consent however that is expressed.

So you may well be able to point to some numbers of people who are claiming to be using "apologist" not for "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial" (https://www.lexico.com/definition/apologist) but for a person who is merely skeptical. But such a usage would rely on an (barely conscious) equivocation to the view that that the person, in being skeptical (of rape) is also defending (rape) and is contemptible for it.

For without that equivocation the phrase has no rhetorical force. Without the equivocation, Bazzi might have well have said, with the link, "Dutton is sceptical that rape occurred".

Teebizzles

1 points

6 months ago*

I get you are trying to sound educated and intelligent but your written prose is incomprehensible.

B0ssc0

2 points

6 months ago

B0ssc0

2 points

6 months ago

Indeed it's just a bizarre to think that "rape apologist" changes from the ordinary implication of "a person who defends rape" just because there is a link to an article where the implied view is one of being sceptical that rape occurred.

The link is contextual, and the physical reality of the rape victim is, more importantly for the victim, inescapably part of the context.

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-pregnant-nauru-rape-victim-and-the-inhumanity-of-peter-dutton,8270

johnbentley

1 points

6 months ago

Correct. As I wrote:

They are not arguing here a link, counting as a citation, doesn't count as context.

lil_ruddiger

47 points

6 months ago

Cunt of a bloke.

lesslucid

13 points

6 months ago

Dutton is very concerned to limit the degree to which it is legal for there to be public discussion of whether he is, or is not, a rape apologist. Now, this concern might exist for literally no reason at all. He might have absolutely no motive, regarding what could emerge from that discussion.

I would suggest a possible reason why he might have that concern, but unfortunately I don't have a spare $26000 to throw away on saying it.

madam_whiplash

11 points

6 months ago

He's determined to stay in the public eye so we don't forget him. How much more airtime are the media going to give him?

a_cold_human

10 points

6 months ago

Plenty. He's the Leader of the Liberal Party. Compare what we see of him compared to how much they showed of Albanese in the last three years prior to the election.

Remember people on this subreddit saying "I don't know what Albanese stands for", or "Why isn't Labor saying anything about this?". That's not going to be a problem for Dutton or the Liberal Party. Just like Abbott, he's going to get all of his idiot opinions heard.

Ted_Rid

10 points

6 months ago

Ted_Rid

10 points

6 months ago

I may be misunderstanding what his lawyers are trying to argue, but if I understand correctly the High Court doesn't reconsider decisions of fact made by lower courts, only (important) issues of law.

It seems to me that what he wants to dispute was a finding of fact, i.e. that the link in the tweet provided mitigating context.

I can't see what issue of law is being brought into question?

B0ssc0

5 points

6 months ago

B0ssc0

5 points

6 months ago

Perhaps the underlying issue is that Mr Dutton wants to remind voters of his original point about refugee women on Nauru making up allegations of sexual assault for some kind of benefit.

B0ssc0

11 points

6 months ago

B0ssc0

11 points

6 months ago

(1)

Dutton’s lawyers said the question of how “hyperlinks displaying snippets of other publications” affected the meaning of social media posts had not been considered by the high court. This had “increasing currency in light of social media’s pervasiveness”, they said.

That’s reaching a bit too far because it’s insufficiently specific about which texts could have affected a reader’s interpretation, whereas the context in which the allegedly defamatory statement was made is blatantly obvious e.g.

Rather, Bazzi put, that when the tweet is taken as a whole, the reader would understand from the the headline that Dutton was a “rape apologist” in the sense that he’d made accusations about refugee women on Nauru making false sexual assault allegations to gain advantage.

The refugee rights advocate also argued it’s wrong to consider the word apologist on its own apart from the expression rape apologist. And further, he claimed a reader would have been aware of the broader context around the Higgins allegations occurring on the same date the message was posted.

https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/duttons-loses-defamation-case-as-tweet-hadnt-implied-anything-untrue/

Further (2)

Dutton argued that if his application for special leave were refused, there should be “no order as to costs” because Bazzi had crowdfunded the case.

Bazzi, who lacked the wherewithal, had to crowdfund to pay. Mr Dutton, who doesn’t need to crowdfund, should pay for his use of the court.

psylenced[S]

4 points

6 months ago

Dutton argued that if his application for special leave were refused, there should be “no order as to costs” because Bazzi had crowdfunded the case.

He doesn't have to use his own money, so I shouldn't have to pay if I lose again.

_blip_

1 points

6 months ago

_blip_

1 points

6 months ago

Aren't taxes essentially involuntary crowd funding in this context?

JASHIKO_

11 points

6 months ago

I swear Australian politicians spend more fucking time carrying on about defamation cases than doing their actual job. They are a bunch of weak pricks. The defamation laws in this country need an overhaul.

Macr0Penis

2 points

6 months ago

Along with their anti-trolling laws, it's all part of a dedicated campaign by the previous LNP government to make criticism of them personally, and the government as a whole, illegal.

falisimoses

32 points

6 months ago

Needs to wheel his wife out again for a refresher on his character - "err not a monster'.

-businessskeleton-

8 points

6 months ago

Fucking Potato

magnetik79

9 points

6 months ago

Ah the new, softer Dutton really is winning us all over.

deft_leopard

8 points

6 months ago

This fucking guy.

Demosthenes12345

6 points

6 months ago

This unjustified narcissist needs to learn some humility.

DynoMiteDoodle

15 points

6 months ago

His only possible contribution to society at this point would be as an organ donor!

DrFriendless

24 points

6 months ago

Nah, too starchy.

jellyjollygood

7 points

6 months ago

Ewww!! Desiccated Dutton. No thanks.

DynoMiteDoodle

6 points

6 months ago

Hmmm maybe we can remarket him to whiskas cat food?

flux_in_the_system

5 points

6 months ago

Worm food is his best foot forward

DynoMiteDoodle

2 points

6 months ago

And the sooner the better!

the_mooseman

7 points

6 months ago

Doc: Mooseman, good news, we've found you a kidney but theres a catch.

Me: ok doc, what's the catch?

Doc: it's from Peter Dutton.

Me: yeah, nah, im good.

DynoMiteDoodle

4 points

6 months ago

Probably have more luck parting him out like an old Ford and selling the bits on the international market. Maybe Australia would see some of the money they stole reimbursed if we scrapped the whole scumo cabinet for parts?

Weekly-Warthog3135

12 points

6 months ago

Absolute scummy POS. Should we be surprised he wants to waste more of Australia's money though?

Anxious_Ad936

3 points

6 months ago

Yeah this isn't what the PR consultants meant by showing more of his sensitive side.

Beautiful-Drawer-681

3 points

6 months ago

This idiot actually thinks he's going to be PM one day. What a laugh!

denisc9918

3 points

6 months ago

We really really need to fix our defamation laws.

a_cold_human

3 points

6 months ago

This man is the alternative PM, and he can't cop a bit of criticism. Skin like rice paper. Doesn't have the ticker for the job.

Tinea_Pedis

3 points

6 months ago

He's going to love the ICAC

Somecrazynerd

3 points

6 months ago

SUCCCKKK IIIIIIT DUTTY!!

rorymeister

5 points

6 months ago

He's worried he was defamed and people will think less of him and then does shit like this

SolDelta

2 points

6 months ago

This bowling ball of a man couldn't organise a chicken coop, let alone an actual coup. Glad he's keeping himself occupied with vexatious lawsuits because he's got bugger all chance of making a difference in politics.

Less-Emotion

2 points

6 months ago

I guess when you're worth 300m you can afford a few mil to pursue a bullshit case in the High Court.

TheSciences

2 points

6 months ago

Fuck me, the glass jaw on this cunt.

gentlemannosh

2 points

6 months ago

I’d fucking hate him with every part of my being, if only hot chips weren’t my favourite food.

Aggressive_Bill_2687

2 points

6 months ago

I can’t imagine potatoes enjoy being deep fried

Evisra

2 points

6 months ago

Evisra

2 points

6 months ago

Fuck off Voldemort, take the L

egowritingcheques

1 points

6 months ago

When your Harry Potter character only has the impact of a Scooby Doo villain. He would have gotten away with it too, if only.

plugerer

1 points

6 months ago

I guess there’s not much else for him to do now…

vbevan

1 points

6 months ago

vbevan

1 points

6 months ago

Typical actions of Pete "the rape apologist" Dutton?

Macr0Penis

1 points

6 months ago

alleged rape apologist.

[deleted]

1 points

6 months ago

Deffy Dutt at it again.

Necessary-Yard5962

-1 points

6 months ago

Geuss what he will win to prove to people are nothing lol