Australia’s spiciest defo case is slowly grinding its way through the NSW courts. As I’ve written previously, a flamboyantly homosexual MP has taken one of Australia’s most notorious political bruisers to court. All over a tweet graphically describing gay sex.
When I first wrote about this, I suggested that Mark Latham might go for a truth defence against Alex Greenwich’s defamation action. After all, offensive it may have been, but it was also a not-inaccurate description of what gay men do. Really, it was just as offensive as the average Julian Clary joke, even if lacking the wit.
Instead, it turns out, Latham has opted for a defence of honest opinion.
Mark Latham will argue he was offering an “honest opinion” when he posted a graphic and homophobic tweet about his parliamentary colleague Alex Greenwich earlier this year, court documents show.
The New South Wales One Nation leader will defend himself against a defamation action brought by Greenwich over the tweet and subsequent statements to media, according to a defence briefing made public on Tuesday.
The document was lodged with the federal court this week after Greenwich filed an extensive statement of claim in June, in which the Sydney MP argued he had been subjected to “threats, repeated jibes, hatred, homophobic comments and contempt and ridicule” as a result of Latham’s comments.
In fact — and this will be another platform of Latham’s defence — the chattering classes and fellow pollies, even Latham’s party leader, could hardly restrain their orgy of cooing sympathy for Greenwich.
Latham’s tweet, which was later deleted, attracted widespread condemnation from across the political spectrum, including from the premier, Chris Minns, and One Nation’s federal leader, Pauline Hanson, who called for Latham to apologise.
But Latham’s defence points to these “statements of support for Greenwich and criticisms of Latham across politics and the media” to argue that Greenwich’s reputation was not seriously harmed.
It should also be borne in mind that, childish as it may be as a defence, it was Greenwich who picked the fight in the first place. Something Latham’s lawyers haven’t failed to note.
Latham posted the tweet in response to an article about LGBTQ+ protesters being targeted outside an event where he was speaking. Greenwich was quoted in the article calling the former federal Labor leader “a disgusting human being”.
In the now-deleted tweet, Latham said “disgusting?”, and made gratuitous comments about a sexual act […]
Latham’s team will argue the initial comment posted on Twitter – the platform now known as X – was an “honest opinion” and related to “a matter of public interest”, being comments Greenwich had previously made about Latham.
“Greenwich is an openly gay man who has participated in homosexual sexual activities, material that was set-out in specific or general terms in the primary tweet and is substantially true,” the defence reads.
Now, here comes an interesting twist from Greenwich’s lawyers.
Greenwich’s lawyers have alleged the tweet was defamatory because it implied the politician was “not a fit and proper person to be a member of the NSW parliament” because he “engages in disgusting sexual activities”.
The Guardian
So… they’re saying that gay male sex is a “disgusting sexual activity”?
Good luck with that one.