Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Petitioning Melinda Tankard Reist

johnboy 19 January 2012 23

No Place For Sheep blogger Jennifer Wilson has directed our attention to an online petition asking Canberra social activist Melinda Tankard Reist to stop suing her.

We call on Melinda Tankard Reist to stop her current legal action against No Place for Sheep blogger, Dr Jennifer Wilson. As a public figure, we feel it is important for Melinda Tankard Reist to be completely upfront about her religious background and connections, so that people can fully understand how she has come to her publicly stated conclusions.

We feel that Melinda Tankard Reist, in having her lawyers threaten defamation proceedings against Jennifer Wilson, demanding an apology and withdrawing material, as well as having Jennifer pay for Melinda’s legal expenses, is trying to stifle open and frank debate on the internet, as well as Jennifer Wilson’s right to free speech.

If Melinda Tankard Reist truly has the courage of her convictions and her faith, she would engage in meaningful debate with Jennifer Wilson, rather than attempting to silence her through legal actions, which are completely disproportionate to any offence Jennifer Wilson may have caused.

You can read Jennifer’s original blog here:
http://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/01/10/the-questions-rachel-hills-didnt-ask-melinda-tankard-reist/
Read the Sydney Morning Herald’s coverage: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/all-of-a-twitter-as-legal-threat-to-blogger-adds-spice-to-the-public-battle-20120117-1q4r5.html
Read an opinion piece from the Herald Sun supporting Jennifer Wilson: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/unholy-row-for-feminism-high-ground/story-e6frfhqf-1226246796771

Just letting you know.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to
Petitioning Melinda Tankard Reist
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
HenryBG 1:36 pm 24 Jan 12

Waiting For Godot said :

What MTR thinks about pornography and feminism is irrelevant. It is her attempts to muzzle her critics which is truly disturbing. The Net is the place for the robust, no-holds discussions which used to take place in the pub and over the back fence. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Many fringe groups try to use this tactic in order to stifle any dissent.
Think Scientology.
And then there’s a fringe of the homosexual lobby which has developed a well-oiled machine for suppressing opposition by attacking your advertisers, eg,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/oversensitivity-can-only-compromise-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1226000416817

astrojax 11:21 am 24 Jan 12

Gantz said :

Why is it that in every photo I have seen published of this woman, her head is tilted?

Check it out

to the right?

Waiting For Godot 4:59 pm 23 Jan 12

MTR brought all this on herself by threatening legal action against a critic. That’s what set everybody off and resulted in all the abuse. If there is anything the online generation hate it is anybody threatening their freedom of online speech with fuddy duddy, old fashioned lawsuits.

What MTR thinks about pornography and feminism is irrelevant. It is her attempts to muzzle her critics which is truly disturbing. The Net is the place for the robust, no-holds discussions which used to take place in the pub and over the back fence. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Gantz 4:03 pm 23 Jan 12

Why is it that in every photo I have seen published of this woman, her head is tilted?

Check it out

Erg0 3:51 pm 23 Jan 12

creative_canberran said :

MTR’s gone nuts in CT: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/social-media-a-freefire-zone-for-hate/2427979.aspx?storypage=0

She derides the fact that social media lacks the filters of traditional media. What a nutter.

It really just seems to me that she preferred not to know what people thought of her. Either that or she’s severely misestimated the audience for the average political/social issues blog.

Skidbladnir 3:34 pm 23 Jan 12

creative_canberran said :

MTR’s gone nuts in CT: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/social-media-a-freefire-zone-for-hate/2427979.aspx?storypage=0
She derides the fact that social media lacks the filters of traditional media. What a nutter.

MTR’s article is mostly a list of her conclusions without providing support for them (and strangely the CT has put up a disclaimer “…The opinions in the above article do not relate to this legal action” so I guess its purely coincidental that they’re giving her coverage.

On the other hand, Crispin Hull has at least put up (both in the CT and his own space) something coherent.

The whole story got kicked off because Dr Jennifer Wilson called out Rachel Hills on her slightly hagiographic (and fairly non-critical) piece being coincidentally in-line with Rachel’s upcoming book, and was pointing out to readers that people claiming moral authority for their opinions and criticisms should always be subject to “Spot the bias inherent in the source” and “Who\Why is this person trying to influence my understanding?” questions, none of which were present in Rachel Hills’ piece, so Dr Wilson took some of that onto herself.
(Admittedly without running it by any legal team first, which may have saved her the trouble).

But as to the actual claims made, I didn’t really hold a high opinion of MTR beforehand.
She was clearly arguing from a place I didn’t place much value on, and evangelicalism was never my flavour.
As to her recent actions, I don’t agree with them in that silencing critics rather than arguing them into submission is unstable ground indeed, and strong opponents can help make your own arguments stronger. If she was acting like an adult, maybe she would have tried to talk it out instead of threatening defamation.
But since the legal action she’s taken has given national publicity of the claims against her, increased direct scrutiny rather ceased public of scrutiny of her views, and potentially linked her own name with the defamatory allegations in the minds of the public, all at the expense of one of her legitimate academic critics, what few shreds of media respect she had earlier seems to be evaporating.

p1 11:01 pm 22 Jan 12

creative_canberran said :

MTR’s gone nuts in CT: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/social-media-a-freefire-zone-for-hate/2427979.aspx?storypage=0

She derides the fact that social media lacks the filters of traditional media. What a nutter.

Blag posts are not really that different from crazy people sticking hand written manifestos up on community notice boards at the local shops.

creative_canberran 9:42 pm 22 Jan 12

MTR’s gone nuts in CT: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/social-media-a-freefire-zone-for-hate/2427979.aspx?storypage=0

She derides the fact that social media lacks the filters of traditional media. What a nutter.

Bussie 9:33 pm 22 Jan 12

Diggety said :

Jennifer Wilson supported the defamation case against Andrew Bolt, but when she copy cats Bolt’s actions, has a cry when someone asks her to back up her facts or face legal action.

Bolt wasn’t done for defamation. Wilson didn’t accuse MTR of falsely claiming to be indigenous but otherwise the two cases are exactly comparable.

Diggety 6:24 pm 22 Jan 12

Jennifer Wilson supported the defamation case against Andrew Bolt, but when she copy cats Bolt’s actions, has a cry when someone asks her to back up her facts or face legal action.

A ‘hypocrite’ is what we call such an individual.

I hope MTR sues the t!ts off her. Either that or get them both in a ring and femi-fight it out; in the nude.

I-filed 2:06 pm 22 Jan 12

News columns by Miranda Devine and Anne Summers over the weekend shed some light.

Devine: “Tankard Reist has not sued – yet. She has asked for some factual clarifications. She is not a Baptist or a fundamentalist Christian.”
Trashing a citizen because of their religious belief makes me very uncomfortable. The blogger who raised Tankard-Reist’s ire, one Jennifer Wilson, apparently thinks there is something wrong with being a Christian.
I am an atheist, but I would stridently defend Tankard-Reists’s right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Summers runs a stern line against Tankard-Reist: “It is impossible to be pro-life and a feminist.”

Pro-lifers don’t necessarily argue that abortion should be banned. If “pro-life” encompasses my attitude: “Abortion is unpleasant, is in fact killing a foetus, and should be a last resort, but women who feel they have to do it should not be stopped” – then by all means call me a pro-lifer. I don’t see how that approach should prevent me from identifying as a feminist.

HenryBG 6:46 pm 19 Jan 12

Lol!
Just found this comment elsewhere:

Melinda Tankard Reist is treating her own beliefs like some kind of itchy genital rash that she does not wish the public to know about.

It’s a shame, really, as MTR has done great work against the stupidity of children’s beauty pageants and she’s not a bad foil for the rather unappealing pro-prostitution Patten/Swan mob.

HenryBG 6:02 pm 19 Jan 12

phil m said :

Since when was a threat of defamation proceedigns considered to be “current legal action”?

The write up on the pertition seems to contradict itself.

I noticed that. I think it’s part of an effort to build up as much Streisand effect as possible. Serves her right.

It started as one obscure blog pointing out that she’s involved in some way with a fundamentalist christian sect, and now national newspapers and umpteen other more widely-read blogs have made far more people aware of it than would ever otherwise have been the case. Wotta looser.

The funny thing about being accused of being a fundamentalist christian is that it sounds plenty defamatory to me. Unless you were proud to be a fundamentalist, which MTR plainly isn’t.

Who remembers Jason Donovan suing (successfully) the NME for calling him “gay”?

phil m 5:38 pm 19 Jan 12

Since when was a threat of defamation proceedigns considered to be “current legal action”?

The write up on the pertition seems to contradict itself.

Mysteryman 4:01 pm 19 Jan 12

Ok… so I read the offending blog entry. I don’t really think there is anything there worth getting upset about. It’s a blog by a left-wing atheist with strong feminist leanings. If she wasn’t being sued, I doubt many people would really care what she had to say.

Deref 3:53 pm 19 Jan 12

I call on Melinda Tankard Reist to stick her head in a bucket three times and pull it out twice.

bearlikesbeer 3:39 pm 19 Jan 12

What is this “right to free speech” you speak of?

Mysteryman 3:18 pm 19 Jan 12

Who is this Melinda person, and why should anyone care what she thinks/does?

johnboy 3:02 pm 19 Jan 12

petition link fixed!

EvanJames 3:01 pm 19 Jan 12

The petition itself is here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mtrsues/

And HenryBG, you’d be surprised to learn just how often bullying people into silence works. One of the terms of the deal is that you don’t talk about it, so it is indeed silent.

Reading the blog article in question, there are no grounds for defamation as what teh blogger has written is true, and since the subject is a public figure, it’s fair comment and in the public interest.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site