Dr. Collins explains that while the Let Women Speak organizers did not invite neo-Nazis to their rally, the reality was that the neo-Nazis claimed to be there to support and protect the event. He highlights statements made by the neo-Nazis equating trans people with paedophiles and claiming that they had infiltrated institutions. Collins draws parallels between these statements and comments made by UK activist Kellie-Jay Keen and former NSW Liberal candidate Katherine Deves. Deeming had previously rejected these comparisons during cross-examination. Collins describes the video footage of the neo-Nazis as “utterly chilling” and argues that mainstream political parties should denounce such extremism unequivocally.
Despite the disturbing nature of the neo-Nazi presence at the rally, Collins alleges that rather than condemning it, Deeming celebrated the Let Women Speak event, drank champagne, and entertained conspiracy theories suggesting that the neo-Nazis were actually police officers or trans rights activists pretending to be extremists. Deeming had denied supporting this theory in court. Collins emphasizes that the appropriate response for a member of a mainstream political party in the face of such extremism is to denounce it loudly and clearly. He criticizes Deeming for her response to the neo-Nazi presence at the rally and argues that her actions were inappropriate given the circumstances.
Collins’s statements in court underscore the seriousness of the situation and the need for clear and unequivocal condemnation of extremist ideologies. By highlighting the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric used by the neo-Nazis at the event, Collins emphasizes the importance of confronting and rejecting such views. He points to Deeming’s apparent dismissal of the neo-Nazis’ statements and her embrace of conspiracy theories as evidence of her failure to address the situation appropriately. Collins makes a compelling case for why mainstream political parties should distance themselves from extremist elements and actively denounce hate speech and violence.
The court proceedings shed light on the complex and contentious issues surrounding free speech, activism, and political extremism. Deeming’s response to the neo-Nazi presence at the rally raises questions about how individuals and organizations should navigate such situations. Collins’s arguments highlight the need for vigilance and clear moral leadership in addressing extremism and hate speech. The case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by those who seek to uphold democratic values while also confronting the darker aspects of political discourse. The outcome of the trial will likely have significant implications for how similar situations are handled in the future.
As the trial unfolds, it becomes increasingly clear that the Let Women Speak rally and the presence of neo-Nazis have stirred up heated debates and controversy. The conflicting accounts and interpretations of the events surrounding the rally demonstrate the complexities involved in addressing extremism and hate speech. Collins’s testimony underscores the importance of taking a firm stand against such ideologies and condemning them unequivocally. The case serves as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by extremist viewpoints and the need for vigilance in confronting them. The outcome of the trial will be closely watched as it has broader implications for how society grapples with these issues moving forward.
