Belconnen, Baptists, and the lawyer’s letter

26 Jan

This is the paragraph in the letter I received from Ric Lucas of Colquhoun Murphy, describing the two claims his client, Melinda Tankard Reist, intends to use as the basis of a defamation action against me:

For instance you assert that Melinda Tankard Reist is a member of a church that preaches the second coming off [sic] Christ, the end time, evangelism and that sex filthies the human female and renders her impure. You claim that “Tankard Reist is a Baptist.” This is simply false, yet you have erected an entire panoply of criticism upon it. And you finish your attack by alleging without the slightest evidence that our client is “deceptive and duplicitous about her religious beliefs.

This is false and unwarranted, and seriously defamatory.

It seems to me that the primary “seriously defamatory” alleged offense is describing his client as a Baptist. My contested post is here.

Whether or not Tankard Reist worshipped at Belconnen Baptist church regularly or occasionally remains unclear. However, she did participate in a forum at that church in 2009 alongside speaker Sheridan Voysey. The forum was called “The Quest for God” and was part of the church’s “Inspiring Christian” series:


“Sheridan will speak at both 8.45am and 10.30am services as part of their ‘Inspiring Christians’ series, alongside Tim Costello, Melinda Tankard-Reist and others.”

This doesn’t prove MTR is/was Baptist, only that the Belconnen Baptist church thought highly enough of her to invite her to participate as an inspiring Christian. I assume that Tankard Reist at that time did not think as badly of Baptists as she apparently does now, given her intention to sue over being described as one of them. If she felt so badly about Baptists then, one would think she would be most unlikely to participate in that church’s events.

Tankard Reist was also associated with the Salt Shakers, a conservative Christian group founded by two Baptists in 1994. Again this does not mean MTR is a Baptist. However, it does indicate that she didn’t think badly of that religion, and she was willing to write for their journal. These writings are not available online, however I’m told they can be found in the State Public Library.

Tankard Reist also wrote for the Endeavour Forum. Here is their mission statement:

Endeavour Forum was set up to counter feminism, defend the unborn and the traditional family.  (“A feminist is an evolutionary anachronism, a Darwinian blind alley”.) 

Tankard Reist’s writings for Endeavour are not available online, but may also be found in the State Public Library


There’s plenty of information about Baptist beliefs on the internet. While I wouldn’t claim Wikipedia as a faultless source, in the matter of describing the beliefs of a mainstream religion, it’s hard to go wrong. It’s not rocket science.

However, better than Wikipedia is the information from the Baptist Union of Australia. Baptists, as I claimed, do indeed believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth, the second coming of Christ, and the end times when the righteous will be taken to heaven, and the unrighteous will be punished and condemned.

I am willing to concede that many Baptists likely don’t interpret the virgin birth as do I and many, many others. However, disagreeing on the interpretation of a story was not, last time I looked, grounds for defamation.

In my opinion, someone who has strong links to a religious community over a long period of time, and then attempts to sue someone who writes about those connections, is likely being evasive on some level. And I wonder what those Baptists think about their religion being used as grounds for defamation?

Ms Tankard Reist also requires a prompt apology and retraction by a signed letter, in terms to be agreed with this firm, and which should also be published on your blog “No Place for Sheep.” She also requires payment of her legal costs.

She reserves her right to damages for defamation.

We note that this is a concerns notice pursuant to s126 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 and is not for publication.


146 Responses to “Belconnen, Baptists, and the lawyer’s letter”

  1. Ray (novelactivist) January 26, 2012 at 8:00 am #

    It is very clear that Melinda has been building a support base amongst the religious right. Given that the religious right has resisted every attempt at progress for women this is nothing short of a betrayal of feminist principles.

    This is the true elephant in the room.


    • AJ January 26, 2012 at 8:20 am #

      While you are correct regarding Melinda building support among the religious right it is wrong to assume that every woman aspires to be a feminist. One of the joys of modern life to me is that women can be anything they choose making conversation a lot more interesting than just talking about feminism or religion ad nauseum. Ever spoken to a female artist? Call girl? Philosopher? Track Jockey? Jillaroo? You might not hear either feminism or religion mentioned even once!


      • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 8:24 am #

        I don’t describe myself as a feminist either!


      • Helvi January 26, 2012 at 8:34 am #

        AJ ,

        Yes, I talk to female artists all the time, a jillaroo visited me yesterday (I used to have a hobby farm), everyone thinks they are a philosopher, so ‘yes’ to that as well, I don’t have much call for a callgirl, but have known some practicing prostitutes…

        A track jockey? Sorry, have to say :NO.


      • Ray (novelactivist) January 26, 2012 at 8:34 am #

        I don’t assume that every woman aspires to be a feminist. The issue is that Melinda does. And if she is going to call herself, or allow herself to be called, a ‘feminist’ author, or a noted ‘feminist’, then people have a right to examine her feminist credentials.


  2. Hawkpeter January 26, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    There are names for this sort of thing; Bullying.

    Makes me think of an episode of the Simpsons…

    (Bart) “……so are you going to become a Methodist? are you going to become a Satanist?”

    (Lisa) ” Bart!…… I’m not going to become a Methodist”


  3. Hawkpeter January 26, 2012 at 8:09 am #

    Secondly, are official letters from expensive law firms always so crappily written?


    • Horse January 26, 2012 at 9:05 am #

      Was thinking exactly the same thing, Hawkpeter.

      He shouldn’t be paid for his writing skills, and demanding Jennifer does is the height of arrogance.


      • Hypocritophobe January 27, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

        Maybe he got HIS enslaved secretary to do it while HE was out playing golf with the boys?
        Or watching girly flicks at the local watering hole,
        The Fire and Brimstone.;-)

        Maybe MTR drafted it and HE signed it.


  4. gerard oosterman January 26, 2012 at 8:10 am #

    There are some weird churches around. I, during bouts of insomnia, used to switch on the TV very early in the morning. There was this church service with a parson/priest prancing around a stage. He was wearing a light coloured suit had a rather odious demeanor about him.
    The service would be interrupted by ads urging the viewer to buy either a large rowing machine or/and beauty cremes.
    The religious service would resume with thousands of followers in absolute rapture of this pastor/priest who would give the viewer absolute proof of the existence of God by ‘curing’ a lame or blind or deaf person. He would lay his hand on and…. wait for it… the person would tumble backwards only to be caught by burly men.

    So, there you are, proof of God by falling backwards into the waiting arms of well dressed men. Alleluia and the congregation swallowed it. They went mad and the swarthy dodgy looking parson/priest just wallowed in the admiration. It was spooky how so many just seemed to thrive on this dreadful ‘show’.

    Now, I don’t know about Baptists or of any link to any extreme evangelistic kind of religion but the one on the Telly sure was a strange cult-like religion. I was surprised that this wasn’t exposed for what it was.. plain voodoo… charlatan religion.
    Where on earth does all that come from?


    • Shockwave (@Shockwave) January 26, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

      There is a 1972 Oscar winning Documentary called Marjoe, on just this thing and how it’s all pretty much a con trick.

      88 Minutes long if you are interested


    • Bron January 26, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

      Sounds like Benny Hinn. He’s a complete charlatan. Even a lot of fundie Xtians can’t stand him.


  5. Ray (novelactivist) January 26, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Jennifer, the links don’t lead directly to the relevant information. I had to scroll down to find the information on the Belconnen Baptist church.

    It happened on the 29/9/09.

    “Sheridan will speak at both 8.45am and 10.30am services as part of their ‘Inspiring Christians’ series, alongside Tim Costello, Melinda Tankard-Reist and others.”

    Question is why Sheridan thought it worthwhile to mention Melinda by name? It’s the same reason he mentioned Tim Costello – acclaim by association. It means he thinks Melinda is an important figure. Now why would a member of the religious right think a feminist was important?


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 8:36 am #

      trying to fix that. site is resisting me.


    • Horse January 26, 2012 at 9:23 am #

      good questions/points, Ray.

      It seems to me that the religious are fixed on authority: seeking it, aligning with it, being it, or a combination of a couple or all of these.

      MelindaTankard-Reist certainly aligns or associates as much with Baptists as any other denomination/sub-group of Christianity, but probably enjoys a non-denominational tag for self-promotional and self-marketing purposes, for a number of outcomes.

      It seems to me that most, if not all, Christian main-stream/traditional denominations are made up of a mixture of individuals who continue to work and integrate well in our increasing eclectic society, with many using services their doctrine or brethren might frown upon, including contraception and abortion.


      • Ray (novelactivist) January 26, 2012 at 9:52 am #

        There are so many different types of Christian that the term becomes meaningless as a guide to what any individual believes. There have also been many good Christian feminists. The point is that Melinda does not appear to speak to progressive Christian groups but only to the most conservative. Why?

        I think it would be an interesting exercise to look at Melinda’s speaking engagements and see how many were at progressive events and how many were at conservative events.

        I actually think Melinda is non-denominational. But that for me isn’t the point. It’s which side she’s on – progressive or conservative.


        • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 9:56 am #

          Yes, I agree with your summation. But her outrage at being called a Baptist?


      • Horse January 26, 2012 at 10:42 am #

        It would be interesting to define criteria by which Christian groups/entities can be defined as “progressive” or “conservative” and, specifically, about how a mixture of different Christians might do that. The contraction of Christianity suggests there would be some pretty patriarchal types, but it would be interesting to see what the progressives look like and how they define progressive.

        MTR might enjoy dealing with all, and might enjoy trying to bring both groups to a common ground she outlines. It would be interesting to hear discussions concerning the notion that abortion will always happen – it is then a question of whether it is either as-safe-as-possible or less-safe.


      • Ray (novelactivist) January 26, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

        Her outrage is a tactic. She plays the victim to avoid the substance of her documented connections to the religious right.


      • Doug Quixote January 26, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

        It seems to me that Tankard Reist is now seeking a wider audience for her views, and does not want to be pigeonholed within a narrow minority sect, no matter how intrinsically worthy that sect may be.

        Her real whinge must be about the ‘duplicitous’ label; but to show that she does not hide her real affiliations she has to distance herself from the said sect. Duplicitous means “deliberate deception in behaviour or speech” or “tricky deceitfulness”.And I think I amongst many raised just that issue in response to Tankard-Reist’s ABC The Drum articles over the last year or more. See ABC archive under ‘Reist’.

        My view was and is that she is a right wing Christian, a “Taliban Christian” in feminists’ clothing, pretending to argue her right wing Christian banning and censoring agenda in feminist terms without admitting the real source of her views.

        Once she has successfully distanced herself from the sect, her claims that she is not duplicitous may even hold water.

        Perhaps after 5 years or so after publicly renouncing them, her claim may even be true.

        We wait with ‘bated breath for her public renunciation.


  6. eithniu January 26, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    Jennifer, great to finally know the details of this letter. Helps put perspective on this issue.

    By far, for me, the most inflammatory claim that you made and which the solicitor alludes to is – ‘ and that sex filthies the human female and renders her impure’. Where on earth did you come up with that one? Do you have founded evidence that any Baptist church in Australia preaches this. If not, then I would see this as a particularly obsence claim and very offensive particularly in the light of the work MTR has dedicated herself too in relation to the sexualisation and exploitation of girls and women. Whether one agrees with what she advocates or not your assertion in this particular regard was bound to get a reaction.

    Would you state that Tim Costello espouses the view ‘that sex filthies the human female and renders her impure’ because he’s a Baptist?

    BTW what does this mean – ‘We note that this is a concerns notice pursuant to s126 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 and is not for publication’ ?


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 11:26 am #

      My position is well documented in this post and the many others I’ve written. I see no reason to explain it to you all over again.


  7. Kathy January 26, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    eithniu: I too wondered about the addendum re the concerns notice. I know what a concerns notice is, and I’m familiar with the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act due to a previous job (although, I should state, I’m NOT a lawyer!) A concerns notice has to be in writing and “informs the publisher of the defamatory imputations that the aggrieved person considers are or may be carried about the aggrieved person by the matter in question (the imputations of concern ).” s126 (2) (b) Basically it lays out the grounds for the future action if the publisher doesn’t perform whatever remediation the notice demands (in this case, a retraction, apology and legal costs). It’s also typical, if unfair, that the notice reserves the right to sue for damages even if the remediation is performed.

    I don’t recall any stipulation under that Act that concerns notices are “not for publication” though, and I went back and re-read to make sure it wasn’t something I’d missed (doesn’t look like it). I’m not convinced that there is any power in this Act or another to bind a recipient of a concerns notice to keep it confidential – it’s not like this document is part of a court proceeding or a privileged relationship. Happy to be corrected by any actual lawyers reading, but I see this “requirement” to keep stum as basically unenforceable.

    Regarding the actual content of the letter, it seems that the two main heads of imputation are that Jennifer has written a) that MTR is a Baptist and holds certain beliefs implied or stated to go along with that and b) that she has been deceptive or duplicitous about this fact in public discourse. It strikes me that the second point hangs off the first: if MTR is not actually a Baptist and can be shown not to hold (or at least never to have espoused, which amounts to the same thing at law) the views in question, then the question of whether she has concealed her allegiance answers itself – she couldn’t have, because it doesn’t exist.

    I have no opinion on whether MTR is a Baptist; I don’t think there is sufficient evidence in the public arena to say one way or another. Having grown up in a church very similar to Belconnen Baptist in its theology, I would say that there is a wide range of ideas about what the virgin birth means, and its implications for female sexuality, even within conservative religious places.

    That said, I absolutely do think there is ample justification for Jennifer to state that MTR’s personal views and beliefs (some of them religious) are influential on her commentary and public positions, and to question that vigorously. It’s part of a healthy discourse in a healthy society. I also believe that defamation lawsuits, except in cases of what I’d describe as gross personal slanders (calling an individual a paedophile, for example), are often used simply to shut down debate and questioning, and I think that’s a shame, and reflects much more poorly on the “aggrieved party” than the “publisher.”

    I wonder if MTR would be willing to drop the action if Jennifer simply stated – as she has above – that she isn’t certain that MTR is a Baptist. If it isn’t enough, I suppose I’d ask why it isn’t, if the “factual error” has been corrected. Is Jennifer never to question or allude to MTR’s beliefs and background ever again, in any way? Because if that’s what they’re after, it strikes me as pretty unjustifiable stifling of free speech.


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 11:29 am #

      The “not for publication” is nothing more than bullying and intimidation.


      • Kathy January 26, 2012 at 11:31 am #



  8. Ray (novelactivist) January 26, 2012 at 12:03 pm #


    Just posted a response to the Klein/Hawthorne article at ‘Religion and Ethics’


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

      Good post, Ray. Have tweeted. Love the “matronise” and so do others!


  9. kvd January 26, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

    Dr Wilson, maybe you have accidentally changed the quite plain meaning of the letter writer’s words? To whit

    You claim that “Tankard Reist is a Baptist.” This is simply false...

    almost immediately followed by

    alleging without the slightest evidence that our client is “deceptive and duplicitous about her religious beliefs.

    This is false and unwarranted, and seriously defamatory

    Can you not see that the claim of defamation is connected to the second, and not the first of your quoted words? However ill expressed, it remains true that words mean something to lawyers.

    You then remark further on the “Baptist thing” but fail to address (and I can’t find if you ever have?) the latter “deceptive and duplicitous” statement. I hold no brief for either party in this matter and hope it is resolved amicably, but I politely suggest you are missing a significant point of difference in the wording of that letter.


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

      Please don’t make me tell you what to do with your polite suggestion. It isn’t pretty. I don’t delete opinions unless they are abusive. But if you think for one second I’m going to respond to this rubbish think again.


      • axman6Axman6 January 27, 2012 at 10:36 am #

        Hang on a sec, I also feel that kvd has a valid point. You don’t seem to have addressed at all the more pressing claim, that she’s “deceptive and duplicitous about her religious beliefs”. I don’t know the history of what’s going on here (found this through a post on the Canberra subreddit), but it seems daft to focus on whether she’s a baptist or not, and completely ignore the other claim, which is what’s much more likely to get you in trouble for defamation (I assume, I am not a lawyer).

        I’m putting this here because I feel that you’re doing yourself an injustice by not countering the more important of the two claims, and it looks as if you’re giving into their allegations by doing so. I just personally feel it would help your cause to give evidence to support your side, rather than treating someone who’s pointed out your mistakes as if they’re some filthy scum not worth listening to.


  10. Elisabeth January 26, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    Thanks for the encouraging me to join in, Jennifer. It’s comments like kvd’s above that send shudders through me. However seemingly polite and neutral. All this emphasis on the legal aspects at the expense of reflecting on the broad intent of the letter to you – basically to say sorry and to shut up – concerns me.

    To me this threat is bullying, as others have suggested, and a fierce attempt to maintain a silence. Even the fact that I’m anxious about commenting here in part because of the fantasy that it might reflect on me: that we who are seen to support Jennifer’s claims might be found guilty of libel, too, is the paranoia-inducing stuff I loathe. It does not allow for honest and open discussion. Then again bullying never does.

    That last sentence, particularly about not publishing the letter, confirms this. Don’t tell anyone, stew in your own juices and you will not have any more trouble, it seems to say. But you Jennifer are perhaps like the little boy in the story of the Emperor and his new clothes. You alert the people to the Emperor’s nakedness. There are many who thank you for it and others who cannot bear to upset the emperor or to shatter the status quo of those illusory and grand clothes.


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

      I’m so glad you came here! Please don’t be concerned – I am legally responsible for publishing comments on the blog so you are protected.

      As you point out so well, these threats have a ripple effect – they don’t just affect me, they affect a lot of other people. There are bloggers who will be afraid to write, because of this defamation threat against this blogger. The threats are insidious. The intention is to silence, and to make an example of me to other bloggers.

      Thank you for commenting and leaving such a warm message.


    • Jolly January 27, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

      I think that’s a bit unfair on kvd. Jennifer has elsewhere characterised the letter as bullying, but this post is focussed on the idea that MTR found the Baptist claim defamatory in itself. What part of kvd’s disagreement with this is at the expense of the threatening nature of the letter (and perhaps even the whoel defamation law setup)?

      I read the quotes from the letter in the same way kvd does. (Although, if had to give that message myself, I’d sure hope I’d communicate it more clearly!) Then again, I had not heard of MTR before and tend to read legalistic things through a fairly mathematical lens. Jennifer no doubt is used to emphasising parts of an argument differently, and clearly was already convinced by previous actions that MTR was likely to be duplicitous about religious affiliation, and so reads it differently.


      • Jennifer Wilson January 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

        Elisabeth is referring to a comment by kvd that I deleted.


      • Jennifer Wilson January 27, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

        Jolly, these are issues that I hope MTR’s lawyers will see fit to enlighten me on, and I’ll pass that on. Until such time, the letter is open to interpretation and will resonate differently depending on the information and experience the reader brings to it.


  11. nicole jameson January 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Hi Jennifer,

    I note that MTR also spoke at a men’s conference last year. Does that make her a man?


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

      No she’d need a penis for that. and balls. and a few other sexual characteristics. Don’t make an idiot of yourself here again.


    • gerard oosterman January 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

      Before keen lawyers try anymore potental litigation, I would like to declare my credentials as a man with one penis and two balls. I have never been to a Baptist church or to a talk or workshop given by MTR.


      • Hector January 26, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

        Thanks Gerard. Protect your assets!


    • Julia January 27, 2012 at 1:05 am #

      Big difference between choosing to belong to a church and being being born a male. She wouldn’t need undergo such a drastic operation for the first.


      • paul walter January 27, 2012 at 1:39 am #

        Well, my crown jewels are still in the pouch they came in and the external fitting still remains valuable,especially for those times when you’re caught short with only a gum tree in sight, so MUST be a heathen.


      • gerard oosterman January 27, 2012 at 8:43 am #

        After confessing to the man of the cloth (rustling) the ultimate but capital sin of ‘ self sullying’, at the early teen stage, I used to hold off for a week, ten days at the max… and then… copiously. Became an enthusiastic heathen steeped in eternal sin ever since.


  12. Kathy January 26, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    OK, if Nicole’s riposte above is exemplary of the kind of insightful commentary you’re getting from MTR supporters, Jennifer, my sympathy for you just increased tenfold. It must be exhausting to be assailed by straw men at every turn.


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

      It is. It’s mind numbing.

      I just want make a general comment here to everyone. There are questions that I won’t be addressing unless or until I have to appear in court and address them. This doesn’t mean everyone else shouldn’t, but I won’t take part in some discussions.

      Also I’m not going to speculate about what lawyer’s letters mean, or what the legal process might consist of. Again, that doesn’t mean everybody else can’t.

      I’ll read everything though. It’s often most interesting. Thanks. Jennifer.


    • nicole jameson January 26, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

      I’m sorry but we are having an ARGUMENT here, rather than a diatribe. You would know that in arguments, the following is an example of a non sequitur:

      1. X is invited to speak at a Baptist church event.
      2. All Baptists believe Y.
      3. Therefore X is a Baptist, and believes Y.

      On this logic, if Melinda were invited to speak at a men’s group, that would make her a man.

      Back to the drawing board on this one, I’m afraid!

      kind wishes, N


      • Ray (novelactivist) January 26, 2012 at 1:47 pm #


        You misrepresent Jennifer’s argument. Understand what she is saying before you attempt to deconstruct it.


      • Kathy January 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

        Perhaps, if she’d actually said that.

        In fact what she said was:

        1. X was invited to speak at an event at a particular Baptist church (in this case, Belconnen) as an inspiring Christian
        2. X did so
        3. Therefore, X may or may not be a Baptist, but has been willing to engage in fora organised by them, and be represented as an inspiring Christian (to quite Jennifer directly: “This doesn’t prove MTR is/was Baptist, only that the Belconnen Baptist church thought highly enough of her to invite her to participate as an inspiring Christian”)

        The accurate, but much less zingy, analogy would be:

        1. X is invited to speak at a Men’s conference as a person with worthwhile things to say about subject matter Y
        2. X did so
        3. Therefore, X may or may not be man (in this case, not!) but is willing to engage in fora organised by them, and be represented as … (whatever she was described as in the material for that conference).

        And yes, we are having an argument. I don’t do diatribes. I’ll engage in good faith and don’t at all mind being vigorously disagreed with – the more the merrier. That doesn’t, however, mean I don’t recognise a straw man when I see one. Recasting a person’s statements as absurdist absolutes in order to knock them down via analogy is pretty much a classic strawman.


      • Horse January 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

        the thing is, nicole jameson, you have posted rubbish to justify rubbish (as you knew with your non-sequitur point); none of what you posted is logic, or an [unnecessary uppercase] argument.

        Also, the “kind wishes” thing is sheer ‘weasel words’.


      • Horse January 26, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

        is this you, nicole?


  13. nicole jameson January 26, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    I haven’t recast Dr Wilson’s statements as absurdist. Look again. All I’ve done is to point out that the logic on which her statements are based, are easily used to absurdist effect. Nice to see, however, that we can all agree that MTR is not a man.

    Kind wishes have been hard to find this last couple of weeks, but mine are genuine I’m afraid.

    @Horse – good googling there. Reckon I’m the one in the middle?


    • Mata Hari January 26, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

      so really gorgeous and delightful to know you have such honest generosity of heart Nicole and have uttered such a well meaning, unbiased and pure suggestion and blessed with your ‘kind wishes’…


    • Horse January 26, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

      Nicole, you haven’t recast Dr Wilson’s comments as absurdist, but you have, by your own admission, used faulty “logic” as a red-herring tangent, to “little effect” (how’s that for an attempt at a conciliatory softening of your stance against yourself :^) ).

      Yes, we can agree Melinda is not a man (would that matter?), and you are not her in that photo.

      We can agree Melinda is a person who is passionate about a number of things; a lot share the same level of passion, and often about the same things!

      I am passionate about choice around reproduction, even about choice to carry to term, yet ask that passion for choice at the other “end” of the reproductive choice also be recognized, including choice for abortion always being for a safe, medical, legal abortion as early in gestation as possible, via *choice* from all the appropriate best-medically-available options –

      I do not believe it is appropriate that non-medical people counsel or advocate for or against methods of abortion – that is for Colleges of Specialist Obstetricians & Gynecologists procedures and ethics committees to do, using current knowledge; not for people like Susan Hawthorne (PhD) and Renate Klein (PhD) to do in a gish-gallop style article on a national broadcaster’s religion portal, using ideas they cooked up a decade ago and simply rehash as they do here –

      I can appreciate your kind wishes might have been genuine, but such genuineness got lost in the adversary; a distraction, such as from vigilance for sexualisation that might affect my 11yr old daughter.

      Kind wishes. Keep fighting the good fight.


      • Horse January 26, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

        I also ask that ALL human beings acknowledge that ….

        .. some/many women will continue to chose abortion, whether it is

        a/ legal & safe, relative to the country in which it is being sought; or
        b/ illegal, backyard and much less safe.

        To not acknowledge that is, to me, to lack empathy for women now and into the future.


      • nicole jameson January 26, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

        Why would you assume that? And why would it be relevant anyway?


      • Hypocritophobe January 27, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

        @ Mata hari,

        Judging by Nicoles evasion/avoiding the question, you can ‘safely assume she does agree with all of that.
        A simple denial would have sufficed,but her Brethren are watching so she cannot do that.They’d throw out of the nest.

        However her silence is a familiar betrayal of their own ethos as espoused at Saltshakers.
        MTR is also betraying her own principles by way of the same ethos.
        I quote directly.

        “Christians‬’ Silence
        For a Christian, being silent is the same as endorsing immoral behaviour.”

        So MTRs silence to Jennifer is an endorsement of immoral behaviour.


      • Hypocritophobe January 27, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

        Mata Hari, at the site you posted a link to

        ,is a story of a poor Melbourne woman who went missing.
        She was later found murdered.
        Her husband (father of two) has been charged.
        BOTH of the couple were Christian converts.
        The Saltshakers have not even had the courtesy to update the page,after what appears to be an anti Muslim smear on their (Saltshakers) behalf:
        Fears are held for her safety, and her husband and family fear that she may have been abducted or killed by Islamic extremists – since there is a death penalty for apostates who convert from Islam (see this article* on Answering Islam).(*A link is posted)

        Why is that the christian religious crusaders get away with inciting hatred so easily,and yet also demand the right to silence others when they are exposed.

        Using this murdered woman and her shattered family to bag Islam to further their own agenda is another opportunistic low act.
        Not updating it and removing that link is totally irrresponsible and inflammatory.

        But that’s the way they roll.

        Apologising AND updating the story AND removing the link is the least they should do


      • nicole jameson January 28, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

        @Hypocritophobe “Judging by Nicoles evasion/avoiding the question, you can ‘safely assume she does agree with all of that.”

        A lot of assumptions going on around here.


  14. Marilyn January 26, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

    If Melinda wants to play with the grown up girls she needs to stop acting like a petulant whiney brat.


  15. gerard oosterman January 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

    So what do lawyers do when the opposite happens. Someone in the public sphere, dispensing kindness, tolerance and benevolence?
    Jennifer has ‘allegedly’ kindly asked for insight in someones beliefs which happen to be, at times and on some issues, different. For the light of me, I can’t see that ‘allegedly’ finding someone having leanings towards a certain church, or having different views on issues a basis for defamation. Au contraire – in the spirit of Australia Day- more a reason for lawyers recommending a reward or a favourite mentioning. Perhaps, A Jennifer Wilson Award ( J.W.A) in perpetuity or a “Fighting for Free Speech” award.( at the very least)


  16. Hector January 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    It seems to me the points engaged here are simple:

    1. Tankard is pursuing a social/religious agenda. Nothing wrong with that.
    2. She is not willing to face the scrutiny and public argument that should inevitably follow. Everything’s wrong with that.
    3. She has engaged lawyers in an attempt to shut down what is in effect a peripheral debate around the main argument. Whether she’s a Baptist or not is immaterial, but apparently to her it is embarrassing. Why is this so?
    4. Lawyers will happily sue anybody if it makes them money. And it always does.
    5. They are adept at writing “fright: letters to those their paying client would wish to silence. Sometimes they write frightful letters (in appalling English, I mean). But they get money for that too.
    6. Tankard is a public figure (she has made herself one). If it’s too hot for her in the kitchen, she should effect an immediate exit from that premise.


  17. Hector January 26, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    That should be Tankard Reist of course.


  18. Duke M January 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    Just to pick up on the theme of religious authoritarianism
    people might be interested in the wonderfully quirky backed-by-evidence analysis of the mindset by bob altemeyer from
    the university of Manitoba. You’ll find yourself smiling, nodding your head and despairing all at the same time. Well worth a read!
    Duke M


  19. Tez aka Terry January 26, 2012 at 8:01 pm #


    I have only just found you via News With Nipples and just want to say, right on sister! I am so tired of right-wing conservatives hijacking feminism. I became a feminist activist in the 70s and 80s in part so that people like you could continue to expose patriarchy in whatever form it took. I think MTR’s action against you is contemptible.

    We 70s and 80s feminists paid a high price for our politics, some of us even losing our families and/or suffering violence at the hands of detractors, and I am appalled that in the 21st century you are being threatened with financial ruin for speaking out. (And if this should go to court, I for one, will be more than happy to contribute to a defence fund.) MTR and the lawyer who wrote the letter should be ashamed of themselves. If MTR had any real understanding of what feminism is all about, then this is the very last thing she would threaten another woman with.

    I thank you so much for standing up and speaking out, you are an inspiration and I would proudly march arm-in-arm with you in any real feminist protest.


    • Jennifer Wilson January 26, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

      Thank you very much, Tez for your generous comments.

      This is a fight being fought on many fronts, free speech and feminism among them. If it goes to court it will be an interesting time for bloggers.

      Defamation actions are vile, MTR must have plenty of money behind her to contemplate it as they are incredibly expensive.

      We’ll wait and see. She can do nothing for up to 12 months and just leave the threat hanging there. Sucks, eh.


  20. Mindy January 26, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    “She can do nothing for up to 12 months and just leave the threat hanging there. Sucks, eh.”

    Makes me wonder if the defamation law is designed to make people apologise and be silenced. Certainly looks like it.


  21. paul walter January 27, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    A fair bit of sense here from most, and complete nonsense from Nicole and the anally-retentative Kvd.
    Kvd, STILL cant see how it is “defamatory” to call some a Baptist, when that info has been common knowledge even at Wiki itself, till the revisionists recently removed all trace of the info, like some thing out of 1984.
    Tankard Reists affiliations have been public and common knowledge for many years, what has people puzzled is why our heroine would suddenly object to being called a Christian.
    Is it because her form of Xtianity is of a conservative sort and this sort of “Xtianity” has developed a bad reputation both locally and in places like the ‘States as being a driving force for harsh, exclusionist conservative politics, as well as a willing dupe for it?
    Now, if I call you and Nicole “tennis balls”, does it mean I’m going to get some sort of nastiness in the mail in the future, for using a term that, in itself is no more offensive than adding the fact that someone a “baptist”, as informational context.
    Not quite the same thing as calling unfairly someone a racist pig or F–g c–t, is it?
    instead of manufacturing objections to freedom of speech, what about starting to recognise the threat to it- a far more critical issue than your solipsistic pedantry, I’d think, unless you’re a closed minded Tea Party type.


  22. Julia January 27, 2012 at 12:56 am #

    I read an interview in another place where, among other things, MTR states she was brought up in north western Victoria and was a member of the Uniting Church along with her family.
    This made me think.
    The Uniting Church is an amalgamation of some protestant denomination..Pressbuttons and Methylated Spirits (to use old nicknames) being two. I was told by a Baptist pastor that the Baptist Church, while operating under it’s own name, also is part of the amalgamation, as too are Churches of Christ and Anglican among others. Each uses the registered trade mark … a dove & cross in a circle. They each have their own way of doing things but agree on some universal tenets.

    In the town where I live the Uniting Church (Methodist) employs a Baptist minister.
    At one stage some years ago, there wasn’t enough members to keep the local Baptist church viable and, after months of casting about, it was decided that the congregation had most in common with the Churches of Christ…in that the only difference was the C of C performed communion at every services whereas the Baptists only held communion once a month. So for almost 10 years most of the Baptists were affiliate members of C of C. with others attending Uniting (Methodist or Prebyterian), some went Anglican and some became Life Ministries (pentecostal or whatever the call themselves nowadays).
    Eventually a married couple moved to the area and managed to gain enough of a following to re-open the Baptist Church. The above mentioned pastor, while still ministering to his Methodist congregation, often preaches sermons at the Baptist church as well as Anglican, Presbyterian and others denominations. He also heads the Ministers Association which has representatives from all the main faiths. And there’s Baptist ministers employed in other non Baptist churches in some of the surrounding towns. They’re all pretty much of a much around when it comes to the message preached. Of it’s original membership there are five…I repeat…five Baptist Bible College trained & accredited ministers who work as School Chaplains in this area. They also tend to give sermns & talks at various denominations.
    Baptists were the first to allow women to become pastors enjoying equal status with the males pastors(though most women seem to choose to become Pastoral Care Workers which is a different job with less pay less authority).
    BTW…Martin Luther King was, I believe, a Baptist. And it was Baptists in the Carribean who first stood up, faced violent opposition, against the slave trade. Which makes one wonder why MTR is so vehement aginst being associated with them.

    The other line of thought is:
    I knew a woman a while back who decided to change from Uniting (Methodist) to Anglican. She was required to go through an fairly onerous process of resigning as a baptised Uniting Church member before they would allow her to be recognised as no longer one of their parishiners (sp?) and giving her the go-ahead to join the Anglican Church.
    If MTR is, as she claimed, not affiliated with any particular denomination…did she actually resign her membership? Or is she still “officially” still one of them despite no longer attending services…assuming, of course, her parents had her christened into the church as a child?
    Not that any of this has much bearing on the legal shit but mildly interesting during an idle couple of minutes.


    • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) January 27, 2012 at 12:17 pm #

      The focus upon any religious denominational affiliation of MTR, or the lack of it, at the centre of the #MTRsues saga is intriguing. The centre, the driving force of that saga, has been the taking of (first?) resort to the threat of defamation action as a means of silencing she who must remain nameless (Jennifer Wilson, @NoPlaceforSheep) as a public voice. That is what all the alleged ‘twitter hate’ erupted over: overwhelmingly, revulsion at that threat.

      Here are the words MTR’s friend, and pocket* biographer, Miranda Devine** puts in Jennifer Wilson’s mouth*** in this respect:

      “Tankard Reist is “of the religious right and
      a member of a church that preaches the second
      coming of Christ, the end time, and evangelism”,
      declared her nemesis, obscure North Coast blogger
      Jennifer Wilson, who describes herself as a

      “She’s a Baptist, and attends Belconnen Baptist
      Church. She is anti-abortion. She is deceptive and
      duplicitous about her religious beliefs. What does
      she have to hide?”

      Well, unluckily for Wilson and her digital chums,
      Tankard Reist has nothing to hide. She is avowedly
      pro-life. She is not a Baptist, and does not attend
      any church.

      But, along with two thirds of Australians, Tankard Reist
      was brought up Christian, attending Uniting Church
      services as a child in Mildura. She says: “I have no
      denominational affiliation, but I have friends and
      supporters of every faith and background.

      “I speak at a lot of different churches because this
      is a message that crosses the usual divide”.”


      “…crosses the usual divide.”


      Crosses the usual divide. What does Miranda Devine mean by that? I would posit that Miranda is referring to the historic division as between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity in general, rather than to the relatively much less significant, but nevertheless recognised, divisions within historical Protestant Christianity itself, divisions frequently to do with smaller matters of church governance and the like.

      Just in case anyone thinks that I am attempting to ressurrect old sectarian divisiveness, I plead that there exists no need to do so. Miranda Devine, on behalf of her friend, Melinda, attempts that herself. Miranda goes on to say:

      “. When Cannold and other abortion enthusiasts warn
      darkly of Tankard Reist’s dark “past”, they are
      talking not just of imaginary membership of a
      Belconnen church, but of her 12 years working for
      Tasmanian independent Senator Brian Harradine.
      The Catholic senator held the balance of power
      for three years under the Howard government.

      To Christophobes, Tankard Reist’s association with
      Australia’s most influential anti-abortion politician
      marks her as suspect.

      For the record, I am Catholic and Tankard Reist is a friend. …”

      Suspect not just to those you would label Christophobes, Miranda, I suggest, but equally if not more so to that great majority of persons who would class themselves as at least nominally adherent to either Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or any particular flavour of Protestant Christianity. I would further suggest that it is MTR’s 12-year association with Harradine that marks her as suspect for being fully supportive of what is a Vatican position (and implementing a Vatican agenda), as distinct from one held by most nominally Catholic persons, or indeed one held by most who could be called Christian in widest generality.

      The Vatican, flying under the radar to implement its agenda, in the shadow of a communally, on both sides of the “usual divide”, undesired resurgence in Australia of what could be labeled ‘sectarianism’. MTR being the Vatican’s heretofore useful bellwether?

      Could it be that such a public perception, once such long-term association was to be revealed, could explain MTR’s evident sensitivity to any public questioning as to both any denominational affiliation (or the lack of such), and to any suggestion as to deceitfulness and/or duplicity was such seen to be not forthcoming?

      Mirand Devine’s piece, if we are to take it at face value in speaking on behalf of her friend, may very well have established by admission a defense of truth as to what Jennifer Wilson wrote, should the matter be taken any further, which hopefully it wont.

      I for one, whilst I have rarely participated in online discussions of the sort normally generated by either Jennifer Wilson**** or MTR, had no idea as to MTR’s 12-year stint of having worked as a staffer for Harradine. I can understand, if someone was to have held such a position but also subsequently wished to build political credibility with people across the entire Christian spectrum, that it would be a matter of extreme sensitivity were they to be seen to have had such a work history whilst having confirmed denominational associations other than those of conservative Roman Catholicism. By the same token, the holding of acknowledged Catholic ‘qualifications’ whilst doing so would tend to reduce the public credibility of such a person in any post-employment subsequent advancement of a Vatican agenda in any other public, and/or political, capacity.

      All of which, taken together, only emphasises the importance of response to Jennifer Wilson’s (repeated) calls for MTR’s engagement in public debate with respect as to the basis upon which MTR has pursued the public causes she has. In the circumstances, I can see how some might see such failure to more fully debate or disclose to have been deceptive and/or duplicitous.

      It was learning of the attempt to silence Jennifer Wilson’s blog that got me posting here. It is a form of payback for Jennifer’s vigorous support of OnLineOpinion last year during an attack that had been mounted upon the revenue of the site in an attempt to force the taking down of certain articles and posts. An indirect beneficiary of that support was Bill Muehlenberg, whom I understand to be a Baptist pastor.

      Sisters, you should look at where what I suspect is a Vatican agenda might take you, and sooner than you might think. Brazil could be described as a ‘catholic’ country, could it not?

      * ‘pocket’ as in ‘pocket battleship’. A German warship of the H-tl-r Tyranny epoch designed to be just within the limits of the law with respect to size and gun calibre limitations imposed upon Germany under the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1.

      ** This is Miranda Devine’s piece from which I have quoted:

      *** Herein are the words as written and published by Jennifer Wilson on her blog, ‘No Place for Sheep’:

      **** Here, however, is one of those few: . Jennifer Wilson is ‘Briar Rose’. Link is to the last post – viewers will have to scroll the thread.


      • Horse January 27, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

        Some of the issues among the Protestant denominational have been mentioned in posts elsewhere here, but there seems to have been increasing fluidity of movement of individual Christians among them, & there certainly seems to be fragmentation into hard conservative and conservative units, all with varying alignment.

        It would seem desirable to be unaligned as Melinda T-R seems to be.

        It would be interesting to know what Melinda T-R now feels about the outcomes of the past activities and policy-outcomes she was associated with while working for Harradine.


  23. paul walter January 27, 2012 at 8:06 am #

    It’s Methodist rather Baptist, at least as a younger person, now, according to some (and I do have a vague recollection of such an article, some time in the past) .The Uniting church has had an improving social comment record over recent times, as conservatives desert for Pentecostal cabaret elsewhere, for the older wowser hell-fire and brimstone stuff.
    All are (were?) subsets of more Calvinist protestant fundamentalism, itself part of the Protestant contestation of Roman Catholicism’s worldly “indulgences”.
    I seek an understanding on the alliances of public figures on the basis of an understanding that two types of Christianity operate in the world today and that there is a similar cleavage right throught out Xtain denominations.
    The gentler sort relates more to the NT, is less literalist and less preoccupied with sex and guilt, and involves Catholic lay workers in poor countries defining their stance on “Liberation Theology” for the poor; also many Jesuits, the best educated of the Catholics sidelined by the now dominant right wing Opus Dei faction of that organisation. Opus Dei are conservative and obsessed with the perils of socialism (supported Franco and Falangist dictatorships in Latin America), “modernism” and the usual sex’n guilt and scientific denialist stuff, along the lines of the American fundy Evengelicals, who likewise have a bad reputation for interfering in democratic and humanitarian processes in the USA (bombing abortion clinics, obsessing over contraception and p*rn), whilst progressives both Protestant and Catholic, worry more over war, third world famines and the effects western austerity economics on our own communities. Of Christians these are the ones who might have turned out for the Occupy protests.
    Now if people like Tankard Reist want to claim they are Christian, or not, that’s fine with me. But if I think they are fundy rather than moderate Christians, am immediately brought to contemplation of politics, in particular the weird politics in operation in the USA just now, which smacks of Talibanisation, theocracy and ultra conservatism loaded toward oligarchies at the expense of the ordinary folk- just like back in the old days of the Roman Empire.
    Then I think of the clerical martyrs to the Nazi regime, Niemoller and Bonhoeffer, who,increasingly disturbed, observed the fate of the Jews, Communist etc, and eventually ended up suffering the same fate, for what they confessed, was a lack of proactivity on their part.


  24. Hawkpeter January 27, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    So once sectarianism enters the debate it can only be a matter of time before Godwin’s Law has a serious chance of coming into play.


    • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) January 27, 2012 at 8:49 am #

      Working on that, Hawkpeter. Hope to have a post up soon. Intend walking a very fine line, he he.


    • Jennifer Wilson January 27, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

      No! Not Godwins Law! I forbid it!


      • Gruffbutt January 30, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

        What about Python’s Law?

        ‘He’s not referring specifically to makers of cheese. It’s a reference to all manufacturers of dairy products.’

        (Meant for a previous thread, but I can’t keep up with you lot.)


  25. Hoffmann January 27, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    Speaking of violence,intimidation and threats:

    How violent is the history of pro-life fanatics?

    Do people ‘like’ MTR influence these fanatics or not.?

    Or do the pro-lifers self-absolve themselves, of all connectivity to such reactions?

    How many pro-lifers were salivating at the thought of a young QLD couple being their pin up case in their intrusive mission, to ban choice for women/girls?
    Do the people of Australia have any rights to question the motive and connections of people influencing public policy or not?

    Have we no right to enquire simply because a lawyer says so, based on ‘sensitivity of fact’?

    The recent coven of vocal, paid, soapbox, women crawling out of the woodwork calling themselves feminists must be delusional,to ignore the true history in order to gain favour.

    It shows, yet again, how much influence the tentacles of religion in politics have,over even the ‘so called’, ” I’m not religious but” mob.And hence forth influence on government policy.

    Strange indeed how these hypocritical banshees are so thick on the ground in the media workplace.(Relevance deprivation syndrome,anyone?)
    Most of them are past their use by date as well.(More relevance deprivation syndrome,anyone?)

    There are plenty of strong successful independent girls and women out there DESPITE the influences of the sold out,self appointed matriarchs.

    And the more MTR keeps up this campaign the more damage she does to her own credibility,relevance and brand.The more media banshees squealing in her defence the more affiliated (with her) they look.

    Maybe there is a God/s?
    Maybe she/he/they/it appreciates the irony.


  26. gerard oosterman January 27, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    There is another law apart from the Reductio ad Hitlerum one, and that is; that in any discussion on any subject, especially on the internet in Australia, sooner or later this one props up:
    “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, This has overtaken:” Ah, but you are nothing but a latte sipper” with a variant used in Queensland but meaning the same ;’Ah, you are nothing but a chardonnay sipper.”
    They are known as; Big T-Bone laws.


    • AJ January 28, 2012 at 10:34 am #

      Interesting comment Gerard, I have certainly heard and experienced the effect of that from both sides. It generally comes from those trying to implement an idea from the ivory tower and have became disenchanted with the implementation on the ground, I could have been accused of being a “latte sipper” 15 years ago. Viewing things from the other side of that fence was a real eye opener and made me very aware of the disconnect between those that propose policies rules and plans and those that have to live by them. Its no wonder at all to me that politicians and to some extent academics and public servants become despised and mocked by the general populace when you see the lack of consultation between those devising and those that live by the results


      • gerard oosterman January 28, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

        The popularity of the Big T-Bone law is taking off: The latest on Twitter,” Ah, but you are nothing but a ‘clean-skin’ sipper”. I wish we would reach the level of; “Ah, but you are nothing but a lawyer!”
        That would really be a good Big T-Bone law.


  27. Lola January 28, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    Having had a little peek at her blog, it seems that she has little to say for herself, preferring to let others do the writing, and just putting their thoughts up – but only if they agree with her.
    I thought a blog was supposed to be about the persons thoughts, feelings and (dare i write this??) beliefs and activities.
    A cypher sues over defamation in cyberspace?


    • rubiginosa January 28, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

      Exactly right and nicely put Lola, but cipher is my word.


      • Lola January 29, 2012 at 11:39 am #

        Sorry rubiginosa. Can we share it?
        Unlike MTR, I was bought up to share, and I feel you may have been too :P.
        The best thing about all this is that people are becoming aware of the methods MTR uses, her lack of methodology in her research and her blog – I remember from my days at UNi – steal from one and it’s called plagiarism, steal from many and it’s called research.

        And Jennifer – self care, self care, self care!


    • Jennifer Wilson January 29, 2012 at 8:45 am #

      I don’t know why it didn’t occur to Tankard Reist and her lawyers that I’d discuss their threats with my online community? They can’t be very tech savvy, otherwise they’d have worked out that in five seconds the story would be all over the www. Not so easy to threaten people who are in cyber communities!!


      • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2012 at 9:43 am #

        This cut and pasted from Bernard Keanes blog.

        (Now you know {in case you didn’t b4}who ‘CATHY’ (over at ABC religion is) is Jennifer:)

        “Sherry Cathy
        Posted Friday, 27 January 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Bernard, by way of update, you might like to read Renate Klein and Susan Hawthorne’s article on the ABC Religion and Ethics website. In particular, read the posts from Jennifer Wilson. You might like to revise your opinion of who is claiming victimhood status in this debate. You will also notice that Wilson’s points are embarrassing in their lack of logic. Anyone who has jumped to her defence in this matter should make sure they read what she is actually saying. It might cause them to think again.”


        • Jennifer Wilson January 29, 2012 at 10:29 am #

          Oh, OK. Thats who she is. Thank you, for letting me know. 🙂


      • Horse January 29, 2012 at 11:25 am #

        Note “Sherry Cathy” has commented twice on Keane’s Crikey piece, the first on
        Wednesday, 25 January 2012 at 8:02 pm
        “Bernard, taking your advice, I will call you out on your inaccuracy. I am not conservative, as anyone who knows me would attest. I can only assume you used the descriptor as an insult. Exactly what I was talking about in the SMH article. Disagree with my arguments all you like, but give the uninformed insults a miss.”

        Lots of first-person-pronouns there.

        There is also commentary about her views at news with nipples –


      • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) January 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

        Perhaps it did occur to them.

        I don’t know whether it would stand up legally as of any use in MTR’s suit (was one to actually proceed), but, in a manner consistent with much of the inversion that has characterised much of the media comment upon this matter, perhaps the lawyers were hoping for real defamation to arise out of response to the news that defamation was alleged.

        I trust I have made myself sufficiently obscure. (WSC-sometime back when. This is all Newspeak and Ministry of Truth stuff, remember.)

        OTOH, perhaps MTR’s lawyers were only thinking so far as intimidating Jennifer Wilson into silence, and removal of all reference, direct or implied, to MTR from her blog, and thus from public view. Perhaps never in their wildest dreams did they imagine Jennifer would turn and fight, refusing their demands in totality. (See Saburo Sakai’s account of the bravest pilot he ever met. Paragraph 3)

        If it was the latter, one would be encouraged to think that there had existed before Jennifer Wilson first commented on the Sunday Life piece, some other promotion of the public image of MTR that Jennifer’s comments were seen as in some way threatening.


  28. Hypocritophobe January 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    @ the ever so shy/meek/ nicole:
    You seem to suffer the same syndrome as MTR.
    What’s next? Play the victim card?

    Just say stuff and run. ‘Oh no they picked on me.’…

    Why so fearful of answering a simple question about whether you support the very things you say you support.

    So now it moves from assumption to a regularly repeated pattern,modus operandi,if you will.

    It’s like verbal arson,with similar damaging outcomes.
    Only in this case MTR started the fire herself.
    Her allies are trying to suppress the flames with petrol.(vitriol)
    The lawyers are fanning the flames.
    (The internet now has a front row seat for the fireworks.)
    Do you truly believe that this self combustion, will self extinguish?

    As the two ‘so called’ professionals over at the ‘allegedly unbiased’ ABC Religious forum,have duly noted:

    The Unbelief article has been around since 2007.
    That’s over 5 years whereby MTR could have taken steps to have it edited or removed, or even publish the refutations of each point in that document.

    Even more curious as to whether you support the behaviour at Saltshakers as noted in my earlier post.As below.*(It is another example of just how easily the Saltshakers wilfully start fires, with zero respect to the victims of or their families)
    Hopefully the children, now essentially orphans, will find peace in the loving arms of their own flesh and blood and not opportunistic Christian crusaders)

    *Hypocritophobe says:
    January 27, 2012 at 9:50 pm


    • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

      @ nicole jameson

      Speaking of assumptions,

      Have you ever met ………………..

      Marchoness :
      27 Jan 2012 5:45:14pm
      ‘ill informed commentator’? More ***assumptions and assertions***. Regardless of your public lamenting and machinations it would seem MTR has chosen to express her concerns about your conduct through a legal conduit. That is a right open to her as it would be to any other citizen – including yourself. Thus your public rantings are not relevant nor dignified. To go public to try force a person to engage publicly with your style of ‘views’tells us more about the blogger than the allegedly offended party. I hope for both your sakes it is sorted but I think the point remains that you followed a course of action and MTR clearly feels the matter warrants a response through a legal person. Regardless of how you might feel she is free to do that.



  29. paul walter January 29, 2012 at 8:00 am #

    Neat state of play from Bernard Keane at Crikey; can sort wheat for chaff and you wonder why are some so blind when he can untangles it so easily.


  30. Doug Quixote January 29, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Good day Jennifer.

    I’ve spent an idle half hour looking at the article and comments under The authentic feminism of Melinda Tankard Reist. Particularly I draw your attention to an exchange between you and “Marchoness” on 26 and 27 January.

    My forensic legal skills suggest to me that you were in fact debating directly with MTR in the guise of ‘Marchoness’. She may use other pseudonyms, but those posts had the ring of authenticity to me. One particular clue is the way she takes issue with being called an “ill-informed commentator” and another is the very name itself : “Melinda Tankard Reist / Marchoness”

    There is more I’d rather not detail, but read the comments carefully and see her mind for yourself.

    Best wishes,



    • Helvi January 29, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

      DQ, your forensic/detective skills have been pretty spot on in past,but as I know nothing about Marchoness (one post here?) and having read MTR’s articles only on the Drum , I can’t say if you are on the right track here 🙂


    • Jennifer Wilson January 29, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

      Woo Hoo! I like that idea DQ! I’ll go back an have another look.


  31. Hypocritophobe January 29, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    Not sure I can agree, DQ. As delicious as the idea is.

    ( Best NOT to comment here JW )

    It’s only a matter of time before someone exposes the pseudo/s she uses on line,especially those against her critics.

    People are terrible at keeping secrets and hackers are terrible at walking past a challenge.

    As for Marchoness,see above.


  32. Horse January 29, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Not sure about DQ’s proposition – seems it would be a very contrary action, in a number of ways, including to MTRs position. Might be someone who has published primarily and commented separately elsewhere


    • Hypocritophobe January 29, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

      I lean towards loyal supporter, paying back in kind, (see above.)

      What will follow?
      Feigned outrage or silence?


  33. Hypocritophobe January 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Innapropriate metaphor Anyone?

    Photo Caption MTR Article ABC Religion.

    I’ll quote, you judge:

    “The intensely personal attacks against Melinda Tankard Reist serve the porn and prostitution industries, which would be delighted to see an influential critic cut to her knees.”

    It must be so hard to get good editorial / proof reading staff,these days.


    • Jennifer Wilson January 29, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

      It’s stupid, IMO. Like she is the only one standing between us and our destruction by the porn industry. LOL


  34. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    More posts up, over at the ABC Book launching, advertorial for sold (bought) out Drs and pseudo-feminist wowsers,anti-choice crusaders and Harradine groupies.

    Pay particular attention to Kellsy,freshly shunted from nipples.

    Knees all grazed.Hope she’s not late for school.


  35. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2012 at 12:13 pm #

    It seems the tones and attitudes of Kellsy are reminiscent of Marchoness, and strangely aligned ‘almost’ perfectly with those of Nicole Jameson.

    My,my what a coincidence.

    Speaking of Nicole………………


  36. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

    Quick Poll:

    Is it ‘possible’ Harry = MTR???

    See here.


    • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm #


      Try ‘Meg’ as well as Harry.


    • Doug Quixote January 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

      No, Hypo, “Harry” is a bloke :

      ” it involves the death of your child not just the woman. Do you really believe we have exactly zero say in what a woman does with her body?”

      I’d guess that ‘his woman’ had an abortion over his protests.

      Sad, and deserving of sympathy; but no-one said it was easy . . .


      • Helvi January 30, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

        DQ, some men on the Drum write very convincingly under female pseudos, I also know at least on female who writes also as a male.
        It’s the style of writing that gives them away. Not knowing Harry or Marchoness, I can’t comment on them.


  37. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2012 at 5:19 pm #

    Sorry DQ, I’ll need a little more convincing that a female would not pose as a male (and vice versa) on the webosphere.
    I do appreciate the input though.

    And I doubt that is only ‘stooping’ which those with fundamentalist views would use as smokescreens.
    I find it ironic that they have the gall to criticise anonymous comments from their anonymous high horses, and don’t have the courage of their convictions to come here (and elsewhere) and state their highly principled views, as though they meant and believed in them.
    Some would say gutless trash.
    Not me,though.

    The ABC could do well to tighten up the terms and conditions for the Drum etc. now that the lawyers can see a cash cow all over the net.

    One registered pseudonym per one actually identified human being would be a good start.
    Those with blogs/articles on the Drum are disallowed to post under pseudonyms on blogs within their field of interest??(Not sure how to phrase that)
    And maybe posters having to quote sources for substantial statements made online.

    Or just a blanket no rules at all policy.?????
    The whole lawyer thing will stuff things, in the end.
    It also opens a can of worms,if said lawyers have been indulging and it comes back to haunt them midstream in a court case.I hope them there lawyers have their houses in order.
    Its like a snake eating its tail.


  38. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Why did Marchoness feel it was important to state this over at Aunty, I wonder.

    “Gosh lucky I avoided being labelled an hysteric for commenting on a blog devoted to ‘lambasting’ anyone that takes the fancy of a ‘blogger’. The loaded assumptions in many of the responses are rather incredible.”

    There’s that assumption word again.

    Gosh that was lucky!
    ; )


    • Jennifer Wilson January 30, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

      where did that comment appear? I missed it.


      • Hypocritophobe January 30, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

        Right Here.

        30 Jan 2012 12:25:45pm

        I am not a blogger. I make no claims to be a blogger. By her own definition Jennifer Wilson’s self-indulgent blog site is about ‘lambasting’ anyone. Hardly the credentials of one with rigor. And it would seem her target of anyone is extremely narrow, almost to the point of obsession. It’s amusing the suggestion that public machinations and lamenting are a sign of ‘unduly emotive’ responses. Gosh lucky I avoided being labelled an hysteric for commenting on a blog devoted to ‘lambasting’ anyone that takes the fancy of a ‘blogger’. The loaded assumptions in many of the responses are rather incredible. My main point, and remains that, is that legal redress is open to everyone and whether you agree with MTR or not, the ability to address a concern – even from a self styles ‘lambaster, through a legal conduit, is a right. Oh and if having the title Dr means the blogger is more qualified than MTR then I assume Renate Klein is more qualified and has more credibility for ‘rigor’ than Wilson since Klein used to be an Associate Professor at Deaking University. Or is the argument selective? No response needed. Bloggers are all rather boring really and might find it useful to actually live life rather than write about others lives.


        And take it from me,”if” my recent experience IS anything to go by,the comment filtration system over there sure seems to have been tuned for a certain polarity/quantity of said polarity of responses.


  39. Hypocritophobe January 30, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    How on earth was it possible for the Marchoness and Oxford posts to comment on each other given the pace at which the place uploads.(Just after noon and 30 minutes apart)
    And the content so similar.

    Looks to me like someone forgot to change suits or pressed the button too early.

    And Oxford says” I am male’.
    So am I Oxford only I and most men say men,not male.

    The smell of rodent fills the air…

    Shape shifters, they’re everywhere.
    Speaking in Tongues.

    It’s very odd indeed.


  40. Nikos February 1, 2012 at 12:09 am #

    *sigh* and it only gets worse – Gina Rhinehart is making a play for Fairfax – as getting the likes of Bolt & Devine (aka MTR’s ‘friend’) on to the Herald Sun & Channel 10 wasn’t enough! Keep fighting the good fight Jenifer! We need you to kep reminding us all that we’re living in 2012 & not 1812!!!!!!


  41. Sheridan Voysey February 1, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Hi there.

    I’m coming into this discussion late and, since I’ve moved to Oxford, haven’t really kept up with the hoo-hah surrounding this in Australia. But since I’m mentioned in this post I though I should add some clarifications:

    1. ‘The Quest for God’ topic was the name of my talk, not Melinda Tankard Reist’s, at the Belconnen Baptist series. Neither was it the title of ‘the forum’ as a whole, as you’ve said. Melinda spoke on another week so I didn’t get to hear what her topic was.

    2. Personally, I have spoken for a variety of denominations. Speaking for the Lutherans, Pentecostals or Seventh Day Adventists, for instance, doesn’t make me a Lutheran, Pentecostal or Seventh Day Adventist. Neither does MTR speaking for the Baptists automatically make her ‘a Baptist’.

    3. And if MTR was a Baptist, what is so wrong with that? There seems to be a subtext to these posts that the Baptists are some strange fundamentalist sect. Where are you getting your information from? (You suggest searching online to find out about Baptist beliefs. That will bring up wacky American sects like Westboro Baptist real quick, and they have no identification with any formal Baptist denomination. Thankfully, you also link to the Baptist Union of Australia’s site – a much better source of information!)

    You state: ‘Baptists, as I claimed, do indeed believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth, the second coming of Christ, and the end times when the righteous will be taken to heaven, and the unrighteous will be punished and condemned.’ Actually, that is what *all* Christian denominations believe, as evidenced by the earliest Christian Creeds (ie the Apostles and Nicene creeds). Sure, some groups take some aspects more literally than others, but we are not dealing with anything other than historic Christian doctrine here. I can point you to a raft of denominations and churches that hold to exactly this. That doesn’t mark the Baptists off as strange, as this post seems to imply.

    Also, Baptists put a strong emphasis on freedom of conscience, and welcome people anywhere along the faith path. There will be many individuals sitting in Baptist churches who may have different views from the official Baptist Statement of Faith.

    In my experience, Australian Baptists are some of the most open-minded believers I’ve come across, involved in a multitude of interdenominational and non-denominational activities and more open than many to invite those from other denominations and viewpoints onto their church stages.

    4. It sounds like MTR might be a Christian. As someone has previously mentioned, where is the crime in that? If it is true, the fact she’d speak at Belconnen Baptist assumes it was never something she felt she should hide anyway.

    Just my thoughts, and I do again want to emphasise that I’m only going off the information in this and a previous post and haven’t kept up with the whole discussion.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 2, 2012 at 6:34 am #

      Just quickly as Im on my way out the door – MTR has threatened me with with defamation on two counts. 1. I’ve said she’s a Baptist and she isn’t. You’ll have to ask her why that is considered defamatory. and 2. I’ve said she’s deceptive and duplicitous about her religious beliefs.

      I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Baptists, it isn’t me that’s threatening someone with defamation about using the name. and as you say, they are a broad church. I can only use what the Baptist Union state are their beliefs. If they aren’t, then somebody needs to change that or explain a little more. I find the Baptist/Christian beliefs very strange. They are normal to believers but we aren’t all believers and from the outside they sound odd. But I wouldn’t sue anyone for holding them.

      Thanks for commenting,it’s good to hear from you.


  42. Hypocritophobe February 1, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

    Hello Sheridan,

    Why would MTR fear confirming her faith?

    Does she? It does look like it.
    Now the following points are based on her chosen positions of ‘social commentator,political lobbyist and contracted educational lecturer.

    * The community has a right to know who she is and what makes her tick. (Those lobbying for change in -policy/business practise and behaviour /and for womens rights have a moral duty of disclosure)

    *In Australia 2012 the connections and motives of political lobbyists are something the public has a right to question.

    (With due respect nothing you said can and will change the reality of public accountability on this issue.)

    *MTR is not only a political lobbyist she has access to children via educational institutions.

    *The material MTR finds offensive was still available until recently. It is dated ‘circa’ 2007.
    Why would it take so long to set the record straight?

    *Why would MTR (Christian or not) ‘allegedly’ so heavily committed to women or girls, NOT want to debate communicate/challenge Wilson-or anyone else in this field?
    In over 2 years (of articles seemingly offensive to MTR) what,if any,efforts has MTR undertaken to seek resolution with Baxter,Wilson anyone else on this issue?

    *Conviction to a cause for women and girls? Where is the public two way adversorial dialogue which confirms her commitment?

    If they (MTR, her followers,anyone) want (demand) CHANGE, they need to ;

    Put it (proposition/s) out there openly.

    Prove their case with strong, independent evidence.(Science based when necessary)

    Consider all interest groups and impacted demographs.

    Accept the eventual outcome.

    That’s how it works.
    It’s called Democracy.
    We (society) have no duty to justify/modify the status quo to appease their demands.

    No matter how important they think they or their missions are, they have NO legal/moral extra rights.

    Personally I’d like to see MTR and supporters practise what they preach and not hide behind the robes of a ‘use as required religious deity’.(using online anonymity)
    I think it devalues not only their cause, but also all manifestations of faith.
    In closing I’d ask that you visit here:

    .. and look at the caustic tirade directed at Wilson by a ‘character’ hiding behind the name of “Kellsy”
    This is atypical of the majority of posts directed at Wilson (from the MTR camp) since the threat of legal action.

    No words from MTR to calm Kellsy(or others) down.Just silence.No words anywhere for her supporters to play the ball either,and yet that’s just what they demand in return.

    Tolerance to the MTR brand seems to look a lot like the wide mouthed frog joke.
    (Insert the pucn line here…………)


    • Doug Quixote February 2, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

      Don’t expect Christians to sift the evidence and argue logically. When push comes to shove they will always retreat behind “Because God says so” and “it is stated in the Bible”

      Democracy doesn’t come into it They are right and you are wrong.

      Why? “God is on my side”, of course.



  43. Hypocritophobe February 3, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    Surely there’s one out there with scruples?


    • Doug Quixote February 3, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

      Yes, and up to a point they will engage and argue logically. But in the end, it will be :

      ” I am right . God told me so. So there!”


  44. Hypocritophobe February 3, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    In fact that :

    ” I am right . God told me so. So there!”

    pretty much translates directly to;

    “Holly (Christ lives within)”

    Do you think this Holly person could be so narcissistic they actually think they are the reincarnation of JC?


    • Doug Quixote February 4, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

      Probably not, but the pseudonym indicates a serious mental disorder. Some sort of God complex : think Jim Jones (Jonestown) think David Koresh (Waco). Perhaps not quite that perverse, but close.

      “Christ is Within”? If it wasn’t so potentially dangerous it would be funny.


  45. Hypocritophobe February 4, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    I wonder if Priest paedophiles try the ‘god made me do it ‘ ‘ god wants this to happen’ as their first defence strategy.?

    Have you seen the film Holy Smoke?

    Looks like the ABC Mods are having a long weekend.
    Not much movement from yesterday AM on.

    I can smell a coup in the air in Canberra.The last thing Labor wants/Australia needs is Abbott getting in.
    If Rudd does a comeback,I reckon the Libs would have to install Big Mal.
    Just to even it up.


  46. Hypocritophobe February 4, 2012 at 7:55 pm #

    It seems the Saltshakers have put a belated update correcting their campaign to slur Islam,
    At my original post here,
    Hypocritophobe says:
    January 27, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    Mata Hari, at the site you posted a link to

    There was no update.It now appears at the top of the page .
    Why not edit the whole story to tell the truth and remove the ‘anti Islam’ bits, at the same time.?

    Getting bored watching people re-write history without having the honesty to acknowledge it.

    Very suspect.


  47. Hypocritophobe February 4, 2012 at 9:26 pm #


    This is the “Holly” persona starting to weave a tangled web.Many online posters do this to un-expose their true IDs.
    It is pure bullsh*t to throw people off the scent using fictional scenarios to either get people to reconsider their current perception of them,or gain the upper hand in a discussion.

    When this tactic fails, they revert to “nasty,vindictive” again.
    “Holly (Christ lives within) :

    03 Feb 2012 11:47:25am

    You are demonstrating the inherent problem of rigid feminism that assumes what another believes and practices in their lives, as Jennifer Wilson has also displayed.
    You have resorted to the nonsense rhetoric of Spinifex Dreaming and others who are completely out of touch with the way a modern woman of faith addresses these issues.
    I can assure you I am no ‘submissive little wife’, quite the opposite extreme. My husband is one of the most loving affectionate self giving men one could ever hope to land. If I am tired, he does the housework without my asking. I still receive flowers, chocolates and champagne. If anything, I have been overindulged all of my married life.
    I have stated repeatedly in this forum that I am for gay marriage and therefore the now traditional gay family. So you have assumed my position again repeating a fundamental lack of inclusiveness in your feminist views.
    Unfortunately your first assumption is also off the mark, as my daughter had an abortion yesterday of her own choosing for personal reasons and I respect her final decision, although understandably we shall all go through a state of grieving.
    So you are sadly very mistaken on all counts, reflecting an outdated judgmental mode of thinking of another woman leading to your exclusionary and intolerant behavior to other women judged solely on the fact that they have a different set of beliefs to yours. This is the same unthinking exclusionary tactics that Dr Wilson has employed against women of faith and unfortunately it is being confirmed and highlighted by her supporters and suggests a rethinking of the feminist movement is long overdue.

    This is what a littany looks like?

    And you’re right DQ.To attach such a venerated character(not by me) as JC to their fake ID is “weird.”
    If this Holly person were truly the character she has created and portrayed up till this post,she would NEVER admit such personal stuff,as quoted above.
    It would be betraying her daughter,betraying her argument and betraying her heroin.

    Flowers, chocolate, champagne,husband?

    Give us a break Holly.


    • Doug Quixote February 4, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

      I read that post over at the ABC site, and it struck me then as a rather strange piece of fiction, obviously intended to divert and defuse, if not convert, “Lynne” or otherwise the benighted readers.

      Most readers, one supposes, reading an article under “Religion and Ethics” might be predisposed to sympathise with such a biography.

      Devious, aren’t they?


  48. Hypocritophobe February 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    Deceptive + duplicitous = devious.?

    Yes to move from one liner sanctimonious twaddle, to to a “whole packet of Fantale wrappers” soap opera, in one blog is a tad over the top.

    To move from “never ever acceptable” to “sometimes ‘OK”, shows the voting intention,too.


  49. Spinifex D February 4, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    You will enjoy the answer then, Hypo. Once it passes Aunties moderators.
    She may boast of her “landing” a good catch in the “Traditional Marriage stakes…but really hasn’t a clue about fishing.
    But then live bait rarely does, however much it wriggles.

    I don’t know who Lynne is. If anyone does, give her a hug from me.


  50. Hypocritophobe February 4, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    “Once it passes Aunties moderators.”

    You mean ‘if.’

    Take it from me, many have tried…………………………..

    Here’s hoping.

    For someone who knows little about the piscatorial pastimes,she sure does smell like she does a lot of it.Maybe she’s been rifling through the rubbish skip behind the local chippy,for a second hand snapper head, and a slice of mouldy wholemeal to,bless into a feast,to feed the 400 orphan children she keeps in her basement, for the annual school play, nativity scenes?



  51. Spinifex D February 4, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

    rofl @ your poetic description. Does the name of the chippy start with M?

    Yeah I did mean “if” it passes. also how long they keep the comments open … though that’s not a problem considering their feeding grounds


  52. Hypocritophobe February 5, 2012 at 12:26 am #

    Glad your lips curled.Spin.

    The Chippy is whoever you would like them to be.

    The feeding grounds of religious obedience are indeed, as a famous scholar wrote:
    “a wasteland of brainwashed,spiritless misery….devoid of a connection to the very core of us all,man beast and other.
    The natural world around us..”


  53. Ann O'Dyne February 5, 2012 at 6:14 am #

    ‘Nick Cohen’s You Can’t Read This Book was published last month, its theme censorship and free speech. There’s a short interview with him here:

    Do you see a correlation between religion and censorship?

    No. I don’t think religion poisons everything. My argument in the book, however, is that respect for religion is different from tolerance. I think the problems arise when religion claims dominion over men’s and women’s bodies. It’s like saying, about a political creed, you must respect it and not criticise its fundamentals. That is what every dictator in the world does.
    Which country holds the best laws on free speech?

    As I say at the end of my book, if you have a chance to pass one piece of legislation in any country, make it the US First Amendment. It separates church from state, which is vitally important; it also gives freedom from religion, freedom of speech and freedom of press.’
    I read that at Normblog and thought it had some relevance here.


    • Doug Quixote February 5, 2012 at 9:35 am #

      The USA’s constitutution has been made to work by numerous Supreme Court decisions over the last 150 years.

      It is not the words or wording of the Constitution and its Amendments as such; many nations have copied it or “improved” on it and still managed to be authoritarian or even totalitarian.

      The separation of powers needs to be real and not just a form of words. We in Australia have no equivalent to the first amendment yet we have a vigorous and vibrant democracy. see, for example

      That being said, a First Amendment style statement of rights is a good place to start.


    • Jennifer Wilson February 7, 2012 at 6:49 am #

      This is brilliant, thank you very much for the link. I want to read this book and very soon.


  54. Hypocritophobe February 5, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    MTR has embraced the 5th with both arms.


  55. paul walter February 6, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

    I’d say its spooky to justify the colonisation of another person on nothing better than an inherently dodgy suite of metaphysical or specifically theological gone ideological imperatives.
    As Jane Fonda said, “keep your rosaries of my ovaries”.
    If you’re a man, you will see that if the system collars women’s bodies, it can’t be long in coming that ours are taken over in some way or other also.
    Is fertility the precedent that re-establishes feudalism?


  56. 730reportland February 10, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    I am now of the mind Reist will do the `Full Mitchell`.
    No `writ` will be issued, just 12 months of menace.


  57. Jennifer Wilson January 31, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

    Ahahahahahahah!! We’re advertising fodder now for the Opera House to sell tickets to a Germaine Greer event! Oh this is all so feckin funny!


  58. Horse January 31, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    Threaten to sue them for a % of revenue if you get sued ….



  1. Belconnen, Baptists, and the lawyer’s letter « No Place For Sheep | Secularity - January 26, 2012

    […] Belconnen, Baptists, and the lawyer’s letter « No Place For Sheep. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. By Colin Mackay • Tagged feminism, law 0 […]


  2. Who can call themselves a feminist? | Ideas At The House Blog - January 31, 2012

    […] by Rachel Hills unleashed a storm in the blogosphere. When Melinda Tankard Reist’s lawyers wrote to blogger Jennifer Wilson seeking retraction and apology for writing that Melinda Tankard Reist was “deceptive and […]


  3. Melinda Tankard Reist Unfoxified « - March 4, 2012

    […] Wilson Gets 1st Letter […]


  4. Drs 4 Family “disingenuous” about their religious beliefs says critic « No Place For Sheep - May 14, 2012

    […] religious beliefs.” I’m glad for his sake he said “disingenuous,” and not “deceptive and duplicitous” and he didn’t call anyone a Baptist, probably avoiding defamation threats, unlike me. Those […]


  5. Who can call themselves a feminist? | Ideas At The House - July 14, 2012

    […] by Rachel Hills unleashed a storm in the blogosphere. When Melinda Tankard Reist’s lawyers wrote to blogger Jennifer Wilson seeking retraction and apology for writing that Melinda Tankard Reist was “deceptive and […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: