Post 45 -- More on the weak petition to stop Roosh V from entering Canada on 'hate speech' grounds

Yesterday, I wrote on how the petition against Roosh V failed to meet the minimum criteria it claimed to be making: Roosh V was coming to Canada for the specific purpose of breaking the Canadian Criminal Code 319. Today I am going to add a few more quips to end the 'ridiculous' discussion around this. Claims require evidence, something Mrs. Parker-Toulson has been able to spout and but not provide, respectively.

Let's start with the first paragraph of this petition:

• "creator and administrator of the 'Men's Rights Activist' (MRA) hate website "The Return of Kings"."

Roosh V is not an MRA. He does not care about the core issues of men's rights, such as suicide rates, homelessness, gender sentencing gap, right to bodily integrity, or custody fairness. My claims come with evidence, as a quick Google search came up with Roosh V's forums and his personal post 5 Reasons I am Not A Men's Rights Activist. In this rant, Roosh V derides men who adhere to the MRM, pointing out all MRA's sexual inadequacy, failure to "learn the true nature of women", and limited scope on how to improve themselves. I believe it is more than safe, but entirely reasonable, to say that Roosh V is not an MRA.

Moreover, Roosh V is a 'Pick Up Artist' (PUA). He views view women as objects of obtainment. Their resistance, in his mind, is token and easily over ridden by a few simple linguistic tricks. Roosh V's existence revolves around getting women and telling other men how to get women--absolutely nothing to do with parental rights, genital integrity, or suicide rates of men.

• "Roosh V is coming to Canada specifically for the purposes of violating section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code."

I obliterated this claim yesterday. This statement presumes two things: first, Mrs. Parker-Toulson has knowledge of the future and knows exactly what will be said at the two gatherings in August by Roosh V; second, Roosh V will be using hateful speech which is not defensible under CCC 319(3). Neither of these statements meet the simple muster of a cursory assessment. Both presume knowledge which we do not have--Roosh V has not said anything on Canadian soil since the start of his world tour, meaning there is nothing anyone can claim he has said, let alone definitively claim it to be hateful.

• "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has identified both Roosh and his website as hate-based, and the hateful misogynistic views that he is coming to Canada to disseminate are likely to breach public peace."

The comedy continues! I will take this one in reverse order: Roosh V's views that he is going to disseminate in Canada are likely to breach public peace? The claim is now clearer; Mrs. Parker-Toulson has focused in on CCC 319(1), Public Incitement of Hatred. The law does not lay out examples or clear definitions of what constitutes hatred, only that the (subjective) 'hate' must be directed towards an identifiable group. There is no evidence of Roosh V causing large, systematic shifts in public safety prior to, during, or following his talks. Rather, and as I illustrated yesterday, it is likely the ilk of Mrs. Parker-Toulson or Ms. Gadouas who will protest the event in an aggressive, loud, and profane manner (see Post 44 for evidence of previous anti-MRA rallies). What's more, Roosh V's lectures are held in a private building and are for ticket holders only, meaning his discussion will be for only a small set of individuals and not, as Mrs. Parker-Toulson is attempting to claim, disseminated wildly across the nation.

To the SPLC issue. Mark Potok, who is a Senior Fellow at the SPLC and Editor in Chief of Intelligence Report, was interviewed on the David Pakman show back in May of this year. The interview opens with the crucial point which unequivocally undermine's Mrs. Parker-Toulson's claim that Roosh V and his network of sites as "hate-based".

Pakman: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did not designate [the 'manosphere'] as hate groups?

Potok: That's true. There was a lot of confusion at the time. Simply, we wrote an article that was very critical of the websites and many of the people behind them in the so-called 'manosphere', these Men's Rights Organization [sic]. But we did not list any of them as hate organizations and we haven't to this day. (Emphasis added)

The link provided by Mrs. Parker-Toulson on her petition in regards to the SPLC's view on the manosphere is critical of the stance taken by many different blogs and websites, even listing Roosh V by name on it. Strangely, the list also includes SAVE Services and Reddit's Men's Rights subreddit. Veering slightly off-topic: remember the art exhibition in Texas hosted by Mrs. Pamela Geller which displayed images of the the Islamic prophet Mohammad? Well, her anti-Islamic views have landed her and her AtlasShrugs.com on the official list of hate groups and labeled an "extremist" by the SPLC.

One final note on the SPLC. For all of its work during the American Civil Rights movement, it has been left floundering in a progressive landscape without the big targets of the 60s and 70s. As such, the SPLC has become more sensitive in seeking out new targets and less discriminate in vetting them. The systematic decline of the SPLC has resulted in it being removed as one of the FBI's hate crime partners. That should speak loudly enough, even for those not listening.

• hate hate hate hate hate

The word "hate" is thrown around a lot. I remember a time when my mother told me to be careful with that word. It is a strong word and, if it is over used, will lose its meaning. A lesson not learned by these petitioners. The central issue with determining hate is a definitive and predictable pattern of harm coming out of the communication. If Canucks fans deride Habs fans, does that constitute the Canucks as a hate group? No. If one man says women are stupid, does that mean all men who listen to him are part of a hate group? Again, no. The subjectivity of CCC 319's term "hate" is readily manipulated and massaged into a significant event by any interested party's will; if these groups which so greatly dislike MRAs organized and spread lies and falsehoods about the men associated with the MRA, does that mean those opposing the MRA are a hate movement in of themselves? Using the lose, flexible, and non-descript definition of hate employed my Mrs. Parker-Toulson et al. an argument could readily be made.

Really, I could go on, but the petition finishes as strongly as it starts. It continues to assert all MRAs are, essentially, rapists, adhering to the generalized view of women being "fundamentally inhuman". Mrs. Parker-Toulson even goes as far as to wrongfully contextualize--a feat when it comes to Roosh V's already miserable works--5 Reasons to Date a Girl with an Eating Disorder as "imploring men to sexually abuse women with mental illness".

The list of allegations goes on. Unironically, the essence of Roosh V's writings and beliefs are that women are easy to manipulate. With simple language and a bit of bravado, women will loose control of themselves and do whatever the man says. The fear Mrs. Parker-Toulson and this piddling petition is spreading echoes Roosh V: women are meek and stupid, unable to resist the charm and flawless techniques taught by Roosh V. You see, the women in Canada are stupid, credulous, and lack any agency, and we, the moral defenders of the nation, must save our gullible and aloof women from the certain threat of a man speaking to them.

Seriously, show some respect for the proud and strong women of Canada. They can handle a man attempting to hit on them. They are not scared of a man viewing them as a lesser--especially as young women are doing better in Canadian society than young men. Canadian women are tough. The groups doing the greatest disservice to Canadian women are the moral nannies and weepy feminists who value victimhood over independence.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi