Here's a lengthy article by Jennifer on this issue.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/30/3418912.htm

I have written this reply in two parts given that it is over the allotted word limit.

Part 1

A number of the responses here assume that I have not addressed what they consider to be the real issue. This issue is defined by Forrest, Poirot, briar rose and others as fundamentally about the defamation action Melinda Tankard Reist has taken against Jennifer Wilson for labelling her a Baptist. This is not, to put it bluntly, what I consider the central issue to be. At the very least it is not the subject matter of my article. The MTR controversy does not all boil down to Jennifer Wilson, even if this was a trigger for the ensuing debate.

I have written a piece addressing the furore that emerged over MTR regarding whether or not she is, or can call herself, a feminist. On this matter I concluded that she can and engaged in a discussion on what I think are some of the reasons this exclusion took place.
Elsewhere http://wheelercentre.com/dailies/post/8e2f5fb15b3a/ I have talked about what I think is the deeper issue, and that is the challenge MTR poses to the prevailing liberal view on porn. She is directly challenging this industry and, as a result, the dogs are barking. She is being attacked personally rather than having her arguments engaged with substantively. It is this, I believe, that she is challenging.

While it is true that Jennifer Wilson is a central protagonist in the defamation litigation (she’s the recipient!) and I agree this must be an awful experience; this is not the only intellectual, social, political or moral issue at stake. I am not trivialising JW’s experience. I am saying it is beyond the scope of the present discussion.

Part 2

This point [MTR "vrs" JW] has been addressed by many of the other articles I mention in my piece. Everyone who has followed this story knows this sequence of events and the role that Jennifer Wilson has had. Indeed there is an entire twitter thread dedicated to it #MTRsues. I didn't need to or want to repeat what is already known.
I made a separate point regarding feminism and the exclusion of MTR. I also ask questions about group think and its impact on the level of debate.

It seems that some of the replies here assume that such a discussion is either irrelevant or missing the point (notably their point rather than the one that I, as the author, chose to write about). My point is this: some of those who have made comments here may think the debate between and among feminists is irrelevant, but I do not. In addition, an opinion piece is by definition partial. Charges of failing to cover “the issue” miss the point, which is precisely to move away from adversarial thinking on this matter.

PetraB

"The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of the following attributes:
• sex
• relationship status
• pregnancy
• parental status
• breastfeeding
• age
• race
• impairment
• RELIGIOUS BELIEF or RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY"

Now if someone is attacked or defamed publicly for their RELIGIOUS BELIEF or RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY, then they are liable under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

Of course that act is routinely dismissed by many who want to label others names such as “religious nutters” or god-bothers” etc, and I can remember making a complaint to a university recently that was harbouring a feminist, and this feminist had labelled someone a “god-botherer”, which was directly outside of the anti-discrimination policy of that university.

I must admit I have no great level of trust or respect for any self-proclaimed feminist, but I do have a particular dislike for Leslie Cannold, and it is disappointing that any liable action is not directed in that direction.

"Elsewhere http://wheelercentre.com/dailies/post/8e2f5fb15b3a/ I have talked about what I think is the deeper issue, and that is the challenge MTR poses to the prevailing liberal view on porn. She is directly challenging this industry and, as a result, the dogs are barking. She is being attacked personally rather than having her arguments engaged with substantively. It is this, I believe, that she is challenging."
Posted by PetraB, Wednesday, 15 February 2012 12:33:12 PM

I completely disagree that a/the(?) "deeper issue" is "the challenge MTR poses to the prevailing liberal view on porn."

I disagree there is a "prevailing liberal view on porn". I also disagree that "the dogs are barking" over MTRs challenge to porn.

What evidence shows there is a "prevailing liberal view on porn"?

What evidence is there that MTR is being attacked personally over her challenge to porn?
.

@petraB
I find your explanation entirely disingenuous. I most certainly did not attack or even refer to Reist's position on pornography in the blog post that provoked her defamation threats. The threats are entirely based on questions about her religious beliefs.

I refer you to this article published on ABC religion and Ethics site today which clearly presents the issues for which I am being threatened with defamation. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/02/15/3431296.htm

As this is without any doubt at all the crux of the matter, I am appalled that you consider it morally and ethically outside the scope of your attention. I take it you are morally and ethically supportive of the employment of the law against a woman who asked questions everyone is entitled to ask and to expect to have answered, by someone who has sought to establish themselves as an arbiter of society's morals.

I am not, for your information blindly "pro porn." I have on several occasions publicly agreed with some of Reist's positions on various matters. Therefore I am the last person you ought to accuse of attempting to silence her on these on these or any other issues.

When I question where she is coming from, it is with a great deal of concern, and because I think it matters that we know this. I am perfectly capable of discrediting the views I disagree with, without needing to resort to questions about her religion. Unlike Reist, I use evidence to support my disagreement.