The Court Shot Heard Around the MRA World

Dateline: British Columbia, Canada
By: Pitbull
From: The Honor Network 

(Courts Takes Steps to Shuts Down Men’s Rights in Canada)
     Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)

Legislating form the bench has in a landmark case just shut down the BC Fathers Forum. Pierrette Bouchard, Isabel Boily, Marie-Claude Proulx, Her Majesty The Queen In The Right of Canada, and The Minister Responsible for the Status of Women Canada moved against Ken Wiebe and his supporters in the movement, which includes almost every serious MRA in the country of Canada. Following on the heels of attempts to shut down a conservative forum Free Dominion, which has now moved out of the country, and even a long established and respected newsmagazine MacLean’s, the PC forces backed by the courts have ruled from the legislating bench and made anti-feminism and other non-PC speech illegal. Below are the positions in the decision, and commentary from Pitbull.


The lawyers or counsels representing the government and pro-feminist forces were D. A. Gooderham, S. Gaudet & R. J. Danay.

At least some of the items on the website can fairly be described as stridently anti-feminist. The plaintiff testified that he is not opposed to feminism as such, but is critical of what he calls the “more extreme” feminist view. However, not all of the material on the website makes that distinction. One article refers to “feminist myths and tricks.” A portion of that article refers to men who express agreement with feminists and says, “You’re far from the first man to sell out their own.”

Here they fail to mention the fact that this is part of a discussion forum, which is open to many views from many sides, yet only the extreme views are brought forth. Since it is now officially on the record that members of these Human Rights Commission (Richard Bruce Warman) have sign on to such sites and acted as supporters and threaded extreme and hateful speech themselves (as defined in this new expanding PC code) we could have the commission both inflaming passions and then using the same passion as a reason to shut down the forum down. If pro-feminist forces can record threads that violate their own made code then they can shut down any forum they want by signing on recording their code violation and then bring the courts and commission down on any political opponents of their agenda by referencing their own threads as proof.

The report says that this discussion is being driven by a “masculinist lobby” that threatens to “overturn policies that protect women’s rights.” The term “masculinist” is defined first in a footnote referring to the work of another Quebec writer without quoting the definition, then in another footnote that refers to “groups that defend men, as a social group, in different spheres of life”. In the body of the report, “masculinism” is defined as “the equivalent of feminism, as a social movement that pretends to speak on behalf of all men.”… Dr. Bouchard testified that she used the word “masculinist” because she needed a way to name the phenomenon of males expressing resentment, anger or unhappiness. She adopted the term from an article written in French by a Martin Dufresne, which defined the word as “the discourse of demands formulated by men as men.” The Dufresene article in which the term is used is titled “Masculinism and sexist criminality.”

The term masculinist in the court records is super double speak as the opponents of men rights have their words to describe themselves, which seems to escape the proceedings, like for example MRA or MGTOW. Yet the need to use a French socialists term in an English speaking court seems more than a stretch, but this is the need to control even the language we speak, as this is very important to the new granters of free speech. Having their enemies use terms like Eskimo over Inuit & Punk Rocker over Alternative has been used in the past to frame images of the enemies in an unflattering light, and so to must the pro-feminist control words in describing others. The fact that a court that prides itself on being multiculturalist and respectful of others ideas seems unable to use the terms or name the movement calls itself.

For masculinists, who of course claim to speak for all men, women are primarily responsible for making men feel inferior…but even worse than “women” are feminists, whom masculinists ruthlessly attack. In particular, they denounce the “plot” that feminists, working in complicity with governments, judges, police officers and the media, have supposedly hatched against fathers and men accused of violence.

Well now that you are shutting down free speech forums and sites their fears of feminazis is obvious not well placed. Paranoia is a attribute when it in fact forces of governments, courts, human rights show trial commissions, and infiltrators/ trolls (as recorded in official records) are trying to bring down your avenues of free speech, with a whole assortment of trumped up charges at one end, and endless virus attacks on the other extreme. Those who charge others in the Ontario and BC Commissions get their fees for lawyers, travel expenses etc paid in part or in full, while defenders receive nothing (used to bankrupt their opponents), and of course these Commissions get to choose who they go after and thus stop MRAs from bankrupting others as they do them (very neat and tidy).

[13] A subsequent section of the report sets out a “typology of masculinist groups” that “are increasingly forming national and international networks and feeding journalists information.”

Well it is nice to see they have taken notice our efforts at the Honor Network and others to bring groups into cooperation. This must show others that this is the way to go for they are in fact keeping tabs on moves to bring organizations together.

These groups are categorized as follows:·Men’s Rights Groups, who argue that women have attained an equal position in society and hold more power than men in certain circumstances. These groups are said to focus on such issues as fathers’ rights in divorce and custody cases and opposition to equal opportunity programs. “The most conservative groups accuse feminists of being dictators (‘feminazis’).”·Pro-Feminist Groups, which generally support women’s causes and highlight “the plurality of masculinities,” but “overestimate the change that can be achieved by individual decisions arising from growing awareness, and consequently underestimate the strength of structures and traditions.”·Masculinist Therapy Groups, which deal with “men as individuals and their relationship to masculinity” and which hold a variety of retreats, workshops and discussion groups for men.· Conservative Groups, which argue for traditional social roles for men and women and emphasize the importance of the traditional family.

It is interesting how MRAs are portrayed in the above quote as just a few unhappy neo-Nazis sorts, when compared to the nicer (placed on a equal footing and divided into two parts) pro-feminist Manginas. They are found above in two parts as Pro-feminist Groups, and separately but not very different Masculinist Therapy Groups (IE questioning your masculinity and not hating feminism). I guess going camping entitles you to being two groups! This tries to makes pro-feminism, and those indifferent to feminism, bigger and more accepted by the mainstream (and it is obviously more friendly to the pro-feminist lobby’s liking). This has been a major complaint by MRA radicals, as there are forces in our ranks that push us to be moderate (and ask for our support), but do not support the radicals in any way shape of form (and opt out of actions called by the radicals). They want loyalty for moderates and give disloyalty to radicals.Here in the above quote we can see a bit of the strategy and tactics of the Pro-feminist lobby, in the longing of them to split the MRA movement and demand MRAs not be anything but pro-feminist (thus splitting our numbers and losing half our members, and becoming like confused communists with out Trotskyite and Maoists bickering over lines in a conference). This idea of splitting MRA men from their obvious allies can be seen in the Maxim: Conservatives have no friends to their right, and Socialist have not have any enemies to their left. Thus we have Red Tories in our Conservative Parties like former Canadian Prime Minister Joe Clack, as they defend Castro & Chavez. They in fact want MRA Radicals to have no friends to their right and MRA moderates to have no enemies to their left. By these steps (seen in their moves in this court case Quoted above) they wish to try to paint MRAs as just at the margins of society instead of right in the middle of it. They also keep bringing some kind of organized violence into the descriptions, but fail to give any proof of any violence.

It should be noted here that there is no evidence the plaintiff’s name appears on the B.C. Fathers website, although it does appear on the linked “Dick Freeman” site, where the plaintiff is identified as the B.C. Fathers webmaster. The B.C. Fathers website also states that it is hosted by Continuum Consulting Inc., which is a company operated by the plaintiff. Dr. Bouchard said she learned the plaintiff’s name from a list of men’s organizations obtained from another source. That list refers to B.C. Fathers and gives the plaintiff’s name.

Well maybe his name is held back for his fear of feminist court persecution, which certainly is a fear of many men, and has shut down blogs of men who fear loss of jobs, harassment, virus attack, jail time for inflated support demands and more. So pointing out the fact that such men are hiding their identity has less to do with any underhanded move as opposed to persecution that is in fact happening in the court proceedings is this example as we speak.

Three examples are given, including one identified as coming from the plaintiff’s website. After giving these examples, the report discusses the Criminal Code sections dealing with harassment and hate propaganda and their relationship to the Charter of Rights.Although masculinists compare themselves to their female counterparts, they usually fail to provide relevant data about women’s real situation. At best, some related data (frequently inaccurate or incomplete) are used to show how hard done by men are; at worst, women’s living conditions are passed over in total silence. Either way, the outcome is the same: the question of power relationships exercised at the expense of women is ignored.

 Wow, all the official government data provided from sources like the US, UK & Australian government in defense of men’s rights is officially inaccurate or incomplete in theCanadian courts view. How easily they dismiss MRAs long hours gathering data from often long government reports so as to give weight to their assertions. They dismiss them out of hand, as they do all traditions of free speech. Sheer arrogance!

Hate-Mongering (101)

(I guess the word “hate” is not a strong enough word to shut down free speech)

Some masculinist groups use the Internet as a vehicle for hate-mongering against feminists. This accessible and virtually universal medium gives them the opportunity to say and post almost anything. It is no accident that this medium is being used by those on the extreme right, pedophiles and pornographers.

 This underlining found in the quotes recorded in this article were not added by me, but are part of the official document. This is guilt by non-association in a government court case document! So all MRAs are extreme right-wingers, pedophiles and pornographers. This is very ironic as noticeable numbers in the gay community support organizations like NAMBA. What allows such evil statements as this to be read into the court record, with out a challenge by the judge? So now extreme rhetoric is now allowed to be part of the government view of the matter? So can someone take a few terrorist organizations and put them beside feminists, and they are of the same ilk, and this can be part of a court document?? This is banana republic stuff now! Unbelievable in a court of law.

Page three of the report, as part of the introduction, refers to an extensive network using the internet and says: “We have found a discourse of hate, often violent and unchecked, directed at women and feminists.” The report states that this “underground discourse” operates without any of the restraint shown in other media, adding: “This is one of the peculiar features of the internet; it enables extremists, racists, supremacists, heterosexists, misogynists and other individuals and groups from the right and extreme right to openly espouse their positions without restriction.”

Do these people have a mental block, as they missed feminazis, misandrist, terrorist, homosexualist (Namba), communists and other extremes of the left (including now government institutions found in Europe and Canada, that were only found in third world countries of the past)!

In a section discussing international economic forces that have led to a feeling of insecurity in segments of the population, states: “One American researcher (McCarthy,1998, cited in Lingard and Douglas, 1999) suggests that his economic insecurity may produce “a resentment politic” in the male population and promote a resurgence of the right wing, racism and various anti-feminist groups.”

Well duh?? If socialist governments take most or all of ones wealth through taxation (Sweden at one point had tax rates at 78%) then such an oppressed population is going to be money grubbing for you have made them do so. And if you take men’s rights, wealth, and most of all their access to their children and then you are bound to inflame the exact forces you say you are afraid of to violence (as you have given them no other choice). Do you don’t want money grubbing, unable to speak, revolts then do more of the same, and be sure to blame the men for this problem as they obviously started it all. Amazing leaps of thought that remind me of Orwell:

Here Orwell’s says it best, as he was aware of the far-sighted concept in 1984 – “Crimestop”: “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc*, and of being bored and repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”

It notes that the Criminal Code’s definition of “identifiable group” referred at the time to a section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin, adding that: “If the Anti-Terrorism Bill is enacted, the list of distinguishing characteristics will be expanded to include sexual orientation, sex, age and physical or mental deficiencies.”

In other words once they get the foot in the door look forward to an expansion of those who are hate speakers (IE enemies of the state).

In light of the growing use of the internet by masculinist groups to develop misogynist sites inciting violence and the growing number of discussion groups used to promote hatred of women, we suggest that a monitoring organization be established, similar to Hate Watch, but focused [sic] solely on gender social relations. It would be useful to maintain, publish, disseminate and update a list of misogynist groups.

This reminds men of that Marlin Brando movie (Zapata?) where he is once placed on the list for speaking the truth, and then when he attains power he starts to make a list of those speaking the truth. Hate Watch means Speech Police with badges (We don’t need no stinkin’ badges) that can again bring both those who violate the Hate Speech Law, and those who have had commissioners come on site and violate the hate speech law themselves, and then shut you down for what the commission head did on your site. Speech police, spanking police (family police) and ever more forms of police, with nothing better to do than take money and rights away from the population is a fast way to chaos.

Mechanisms must also be developed to ensure the safety of those who publicly denounce hate messages against women, specifically action against electronic mail harassment practices, defamation and infringement of privacy through Internet sites.

They are talking of a special secret service for the pro-feminist bureaucrats? I see the book Animal Farm and the black pig Napoleon and his Dobermans all over this with their dirty pig footprints. Will they become a praetorian guard defending defenseless bureaucrats or will they attack in the name of attacking to defend? Why so many kinds of police? They really are afraid of the gathering peasants.

The plaintiff alleges that the effect of all of these statements is to identify him as a hatemonger and a danger to women, to associate him with racists, extremists, pedophiles, pornographers and terrorists and to assert that he has committed criminal offences. In his testimony at trial, the plaintiff said he learned about the Bouchard report in the late spring or early summer of 2003. He said he was shocked and believed he was being put on a list of people who needed to be “watched or marginalized or criminally charged.” This was particularly serious, he said, because the document carries the logo of the government of Canada.

Well thank goodness they at least allowed the other side of the argument to get some words in here. He is right and we should all be shocked at what is being done to a once great country of Canada.

The plaintiff says he has never threatened or expressed hatred to women and has never condoned violence. However, he says he does criticize what he calls the “extreme elements” of feminism and uses the word “feminazism” to distinguish that extreme position from mainstream feminism.At the time the Bouchard report was published, the plaintiff said that he was working for the British Columbia government as an information technology contractor and was concerned the report, which was distributed to provincial officials, would affect his work opportunities. This was particularly so because he was working on a project involving the ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services, which works with SWC.

Again once again we have good reason for an MRA to hide his name and his political views as most governments have a hand in close to 50% of all jobs on the market (outside of the USA), and any male living in such a society can’t express himself and not run the risk of not getting half of all the jobs available, that demand party affiliation or PC only slogans to be shouted out at all the right functions.

She interpreted the words “stop it”, in the context of the image, as a threat and considered the image to be an example of “verbal violence.” The defendant Marie-Claude Proulx testified that she had a similar reaction when Ms. Boilly showed her the image. She said it was “as if the baby was telling me I don’t need you and I don’t care about you.”

 Well obviously “Stop it” is hate speech and he should be arrested and made bankrupt him by the proceedings immediately, spare no means to bring down this obvious terrorist animal. What a thin-skin effeminate sense of free speech we have now! However, counsel for the plaintiff argues that because the promotion of hatred is an offence under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 the defendants have stated as a fact that the plaintiff committed a criminal offence. An allegation that a person has committed a criminal offence, counsel submits, must always be regarded as an allegation of fact.

52] An allegation that a person is a hatemonger or spreading hatred can only be an allegation of a criminal offence if the alleged hatred is directed at a group that is identifiable on one of the specific bases set out in the section. The allegation in this case is that the plaintiff was promoting hatred of women and feminists. As the defendants clearly state in their report, neither women nor feminists are among the groups protected from hatred by s. 319(1). One of the recommendations of the report involves possible future amendments to the Code that would include women in the category of identifiable groups, but an allegation that the plaintiff has in the past promoted hatred against women or feminists or that he continues to do so cannot, by definition, be an allegation of fact that a criminal offence has been committed. In terms of the two part test discussed in Telnikoff, the statements are not capable, as a matter of law, of being an allegation of criminal conduct.

Let me get this right, if a feminist is a woman, then to attack feminist is to attack women, girls and babies. I feel safe already.

[68] Dr. Bouchard and her co-authors have testified that they were shocked and offended by the image on the plaintiff’s website. They explained that reaction in part as one of horror that feminists, like themselves, would be associated with Nazism and were particularly offended that a baby would be used to convey a message that they considered hateful and threatening to women.

Yes only feminist are allowed to use babies to push their policies and call other Nazis. Pro-feminist have the only right to violate their hate speech laws in the defence of hate speech prevention, “How dare these male losers peasants use such tactics against us, take them away guard and see that they are made bankrupt and penniless!” “They are lucking we didn’t give them a further tongue lashing.”

[76] In summary, I find that the plaintiff was defamed, but the defendants have satisfied the necessary requirements for a successful defence of fair comment. Having reached that conclusion, I do not need to consider the alternate defence of qualified privilege or to deal with the issue of damages. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

 And thus with a sweep of a gavel and a confusing use of legalese free speech dies in Canada, as they have now gone from shutting down right wingers, onto men’s rights, and have started on conservative forums. You may protest on a street corner and have a pro-feminist MRA site or a camp out, but as soon as you have a site that isn’t to their liking look out for they have any number of a dozen kinds of police and laws that only you can violate Yet if we get angry, say “Stop it” we can risk going to jail or be bankrupted. And they wonder how revolutions start! The shot herd around the MRA world.

For the full court decision in full click:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *