Topic: and you thought skeptical feminist internet fights were bad...

[Movius]

There’s nothing quite like getting up first thing in the morning to discover service documents sitting in your hallway (or, if you’re in Australia or the US, poking out of your mailbox). This is what has happened to Australian political and skeptical blogger Jennifer Wilson (her blog is ‘No Place for Sheep’) yesterday. I have had a couple of these in my time, although interestingly, none since becoming a lawyer. This is presumably on the basis that lawyers know their own kind, and know what they can get away with.

Anti-porn campaigner and self-described ‘pro-life feminist’ Melinda Tankard Reist is behind the claim, and although the basis of the suit has not been revealed, Russell Blackford suspects defamation. I agree with him, although invasion of privacy may be an outside possibility. I say ‘an outside possibility’, for the simple reason that Australia has no tort of invasion of privacy, and for obvious reasons is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), where Article 8 provides a qualified protection for privacy and family life.

Via Skeptic Lawyer

Reaction from the 'offending' blog and some background on Melinda Tankard Reist

I believe I've mentioned Melinda Tankard Reist many times while stoking the fires of the vigorous and robust debates here. She's a good example of the harm caused by adhering to an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' policy.

[pandamonium]

Pro-life feminist? Is that like atheist Christian?

[Karyn]

Pro-life feminist? Is that like atheist Christian?

Actually no, but I get where you are going.

I'm too drunk to explain much further than that.

[pandamonium]

Pro-life feminist? Is that like atheist Christian?

Actually no, but I get where you are going.

I'm too drunk to explain much further than that.

I meant in the "rare" kind of way, not in the 'OMG THAT'S TOTALLY UNPOSSIBLE WTF' way, just to clarify. Or, in other words, something that at first sounds contradictory, but isn't upon further reflection.

[Movius]

Pro-life feminist? Is that like atheist Christian?

She's a conservative Christian that uses feminist rhetoric to push her point of view. With varying degrees of success.

[pandamonium]

Pro-life feminist? Is that like atheist Christian?

She's a conservative Christian that uses feminist rhetoric to push her point of view. With varying degrees of success.

Ew.

[Zytheran]

For those not living in Australia it probably needs pointing out that associations with religion when you are in the public spotlight are generally viewed in a very negative way over here. A bit like being an atheist in the USA, the bulk of the population simply won't really trust what you say once they find out you are an atheist. Australians will tolerate religion however if there is any suspicion it is motivating or driving your viewpoints it really turns people off.
I can imagine that Melinda does not want her religious views being common knowledge and would be concerned that people will listen to her less if they knew her religious background. She probably thinks that her feminist, pro-women etc. views have nothing to do with her religion and doesn't want her religion to be a distraction from what she is saying. She might have a point however I always find it difficult to imagine how a person could separate the *process* of accepting a set of irrational beliefs from the *processes* that lead to other beliefs.

[Movius]

For those not living in Australia it probably needs pointing out that associations with religion when you are in the public spotlight are generally viewed in a very negative way over here. A bit like being an atheist in the USA, the bulk of the population simply won't really trust what you say once they find out you are an atheist. Australians will tolerate religion however if there is any suspicion it is motivating or driving your viewpoints it really turns people off.
I can imagine that Melinda does not want her religious views being common knowledge and would be concerned that people will listen to her less if they knew her religious background. She probably thinks that her feminist, pro-women etc. views have nothing to do with her religion and doesn't want her religion to be a distraction from what she is saying. She might have a point however I always find it difficult to imagine how a person could separate the *process* of accepting a set of irrational beliefs from the *processes* that lead to other beliefs.

She was on Brian Harradine's payroll during his time in the senate. Pretty certain she knows what she's doing.

[pandamonium]

For those not living in Australia it probably needs pointing out that associations with religion when you are in the public spotlight are generally viewed in a very negative way over here. A bit like being an atheist in the USA, the bulk of the population simply won't really trust what you say once they find out you are an atheist. Australians will tolerate religion however if there is any suspicion it is motivating or driving your viewpoints it really turns people off.
I can imagine that Melinda does not want her religious views being common knowledge and would be concerned that people will listen to her less if they knew her religious background. She probably thinks that her feminist, pro-women etc. views have nothing to do with her religion and doesn't want her religion to be a distraction from what she is saying. She might have a point however I always find it difficult to imagine how a person could separate the *process* of accepting a set of irrational beliefs from the *processes* that lead to other beliefs.

Thanks, I was wondering why it was a big deal for her to hide that she's Christian. As a USian, I find that view both foreign and beautiful.

[Neon Genesis]

She's a conservative Christian that uses feminist rhetoric to push her point of view. With varying degrees of success.

Didn't Sarah Palin claim she was a feminist?

[worldslaziestbusker]

For those not living in Australia it probably needs pointing out that associations with religion when you are in the public spotlight are generally viewed in a very negative way over here. A bit like being an atheist in the USA, the bulk of the population simply won't really trust what you say once they find out you are an atheist. Australians will tolerate religion however if there is any suspicion it is motivating or driving your viewpoints it really turns people off.

A year and a half after Prime Minister Rudd the pious was angling for extra god points from the former supporters of PM Saint John and you think the public don't accept religious agendas?  Even the atheist PM we have now kow-towed to religious pressure, citing the alleged Judeo-Christian values of our society as reason for her failing to support a push for equality in marriage law.
The Australian public view all public figures in a negative light, and I agree that some folks, particularly among the lobbying bodies, are trying to keep their religious policies covert, but I don't think the voting public are averse to religion in their public figures yet.  Your circle of friends and acquaintances might not buy religious agendas, but there are still lots of votes in the religious sector and our politicians regularly play to that.

[Zytheran]

For those not living in Australia it probably needs pointing out that associations with religion when you are in the public spotlight are generally viewed in a very negative way over here. A bit like being an atheist in the USA, the bulk of the population simply won't really trust what you say once they find out you are an atheist. Australians will tolerate religion however if there is any suspicion it is motivating or driving your viewpoints it really turns people off.

A year and a half after Prime Minister Rudd the pious was angling for extra god points from the former supporters of PM Saint John and you think the public don't accept religious agendas?  Even the atheist PM we have now kow-towed to religious pressure, citing the alleged Judeo-Christian values of our society as reason for her failing to support a push for equality in marriage law.
The Australian public view all public figures in a negative light, and I agree that some folks, particularly among the lobbying bodies, are trying to keep their religious policies covert, but I don't think the voting public are averse to religion in their public figures yet.  Your circle of friends and acquaintances might not buy religious agendas, but there are still lots of votes in the religious sector and our politicians regularly play to that.

I was writing for the US readers who might not have experienced life without religion everywhere. Having visited the US for work and holidays a few times it makes a stark contrast to Australia which has very little bias against atheists. In all the surveys done the majority of US citizens tend to view atheism as worse than terrorism. Obviously the people on this board are an exception however the people on this board form a very small minority and do not represent the average American. Unfortunately.
Having spent most of my life in Australia I find the religious culture of the USA bat shit insane whenever I visit. It's really disturbing.
..and my background includes 7 years of religious schooling and spending time growing up in the country with farmers who were devout catholics, just like what Melinda grew up with in Mildura. And I've been in the union movement so I'm all aware of the links between the catholic church and the union movement.
However it's nothing like the overt religion in the USA.

[Desert Fox]

Even in the US, atheism is growing rapidly. . . One has to remember how homosexuality was looked at during the late 1960s to see how much things can change.

[worldslaziestbusker]

For those not living in Australia it probably needs pointing out that associations with religion when you are in the public spotlight are generally viewed in a very negative way over here. A bit like being an atheist in the USA, the bulk of the population simply won't really trust what you say once they find out you are an atheist. Australians will tolerate religion however if there is any suspicion it is motivating or driving your viewpoints it really turns people off.

A year and a half after Prime Minister Rudd the pious was angling for extra god points from the former supporters of PM Saint John and you think the public don't accept religious agendas?  Even the atheist PM we have now kow-towed to religious pressure, citing the alleged Judeo-Christian values of our society as reason for her failing to support a push for equality in marriage law.
The Australian public view all public figures in a negative light, and I agree that some folks, particularly among the lobbying bodies, are trying to keep their religious policies covert, but I don't think the voting public are averse to religion in their public figures yet.  Your circle of friends and acquaintances might not buy religious agendas, but there are still lots of votes in the religious sector and our politicians regularly play to that.

I was writing for the US readers who might not have experienced life without religion everywhere. Having visited the US for work and holidays a few times it makes a stark contrast to Australia which has very little bias against atheists.
However it's nothing like the overt religion in the USA.

Your initial post on the matter reads very differently to how you characterised it in your response to my post. 
I agree that Australia is less rabidly religious than the USA, but without a constitutional separation between church and state, I think we have the bum end of the deal in terms of religious influence and its acceptance. 
I have been spat on and yelled at for wearing a shirt with the word atheist on it, and had my car vandalised for having the temerity to defend my position in an argument.  Death threats and lots of reminders of my alleged eternal damnation have been the reward for my efforts in debates and online arguments.  I think the degree to which an atheist experiences grief for their atheism in Australia depends on the extent to which their atheism is known to others.  Gillard doesn't hide it, but doesn't go against the wishes of religious lobbyists, and still she receives censure from religious adherents for being godless, unmarried and childless.

While it is nothing like overt religion in the USA, religion is still widespread and accepted here, and we have no legal recourse to dispute it when it starts to meddle. 

[AxeGrrl]

While it is nothing like overt religion in the USA, religion is still widespread and accepted here, and we have no legal recourse to dispute it when it starts to meddle.

Sadly, the same is true here in Canada......where, in my province (Ontario), Catholic schools are still funded publicly.