The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Truth Wins, Feminists Lose

Posted on | January 25, 2016 | 102 Comments

 

In 2012, Canadian feminist Stephanie Guthrie (@amirightfolks on Twitter) decided to ruin Greg Elliott’s life, because (a) she didn’t like him and (b) he disagreed with her. Friday, after subjecting Mr. Elliott to a three-year ordeal, Ms. Guthrie’s destructive vendetta reached its final conclusion of failure in a Toronto courtroom:

Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared of two charges of criminal harassment that stemmed from his Twitter interactions with two Toronto women’s rights activists. Judge Brent Knazan’s lengthy decision dwelled on both the nature of Twitter and freedom of expression in a ruling that is among the first in Canada.
Elliott was cleared, in part, because — though the judge noted his words were sometimes “insulting and homophobic” — his tweets were not considered overtly sexually or physically threatening.
Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly accused Elliott of harassment partly based on his use of hashtags — a word, acronym or phrase after a number symbol used to create trackable conversations — they used. It was an assertion the judge found contrary to the open nature of Twitter. He said the pair may have felt harassed, but he couldn’t prove Elliott knew they felt that way, nor did the content of his tweets include explicitly threatening language.
Knazan also discussed the link between Twitter and freedom of expression. People must “tolerate the annoyance” of oppositional views as part of that Charter right,
“Freedom of expression represents society’s commitment to tolerate the annoyance of being confronted by unacceptable views…One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric,” he said, quoting from Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach’s book the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The judge also noted a lack of “reasonableness” in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence.

This is an important ruling because there is no First Amendment in Canada. Americans are prone to take free speech and freedom of the press for granted, and thus have been slow to recognize the menace to liberty posed by feminism (a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It). Feminists are notoriously intolerant of criticism, and have effectively prohibited opposition in academia, where Lawrence Summers was purged from the presidency of Harvard University in 2006 after he dared to suggest there are “innate differences” between men and women.

Having obtained hegemonic authority in academia, feminists are endeavoring to silence opposition to their radical agenda in every other venue. The persecution of Greg Elliott as a scapegoat was clearly intended to make an example of him, a form of terroristic intimidation using the power of government to crush him, so as to send a message: “Disagree with a feminist, and this will happen to you, too.”

Greg Elliott’s victory in Canada is important. Toronto Post columnist Christine Blatchford remarks of the ruling:

He was acquitted, not, the judge was at pains to point out, because he didn’t find Guthrie and Reilly credible when they testified they felt harassed and were genuinely fearful, but because that fear was unreasonable.

To fully explain how the case developed would require more space than I want to devote to it, but basically it’s this: In 2012, Guthrie was looking for someone to design a logo for her Toronto feminist group. Elliott, a graphic artist, sought the contract and met for dinner with Guthrie to discuss the project. Evidence indicates that, after meeting with Guthrie, Elliott developed a romantic interest in her, but she had a boyfriend. Elliot did not get the contract, but Guthrie continued friendly communications with him. However, to quote the judge’s ruling:

In the meantime . . . Ms. Guthrie had researched some of Mr. Elliott’s tweets. She concluded that opinions he had expressed showed that his philosophy was not compatible with her organization and that they could not use his skills. . . .
Ms. Guthrie testified that she was not being entirely honest in her courteous emails and tweets to Mr. Elliott. She testified that she feared him from the time she had dinner with him — as being “creeped out” is a kind of fear — but that she was wrestling with her feelings given that women are criticized when they express them.

There is no evidence that Guthrie ever explained her attitude to Elliott. Any man experienced in dealing with women in business can probably relate to Elliott’s predicament. Sometimes, a woman will exhibit unexplained hostility and any attempt to resolve the mystery — “Hey, why didn’t you answer my email?” — is futile, because this is just the way some women are. They do not differentiate between their personal feelings (e.g., Guthrie feeling “creeped out” by Elliott) and practical considerations of business life (e.g., the value of Elliott’s skill as an artist). And if a woman like that decides she hates you, she never bothers to explain why she hates you.

Elliott did not cope well with Guthrie’s mysterious behavior. Feminists use the phrase “male entitlement” to describe the attitude of a man who, failing to read a woman’s mind, continues to talk to her after she decides she hates him. The guy who fails to take a hint — however subtle the hint may be — is apt to be labeled a “stalker” or “harasser” if he continues talking to a woman who hates him. In his mind, he is doing nothing wrong, but he fails to realize that her hatred of him means everything he does is wrong. His mere existence offends her.

Once Stephanie Guthrie decided she hated Greg Elliott, the only “right” thing he could do was avoid her. Because she continued to be overtly courteous in her emails, however, Elliott did not realize the intensity of Guthrie’s hatred toward him. In July 2012, matters took a turn described in Judge Knazan’s ruling:

[Bendilin] Spurr, a young man from Sault St. Marie, Ont., put a video game on the internet that permitted players to punch a prominent American feminist [Anita Sarkeesian] in the face. It was graphic in its violence. Ms. Guthrie tweeted about it on July 6 as follows: “So, I found the Twitter account of that fuck listed as creator of the ‘punch a woman in the face’ game. Should I sic the internet on him?” . . .
Ms. Guthrie sent a tweet linking his local newspaper to a story about his work, and tweeted: “Sault Saint Marie employers, if you get a resume from @BendilinSpurr, he made a woman facepunching game…” She attached an article from the Huffington Post online site about the “sick” online game that invited users to beat up a virtual Anita Sarkeesian.
Everything happened rapidly at the moment that Ms. Guthrie says was the turning point. Mr. Elliott tweeted directly to Ms. Guthrie: “@amirightfolks He’s got 11 followers. Why bring attention to the guy? Media attention will only add to more ‘virtual face punching.’”
Mr. Elliott tweeted that it was revenge.
Ms. Guthrie replied, putting a period before Mr. Elliott’s handle: “.@greg_a_Elliott Because I think the Sault Ste Marie community should be aware there is a monster in their midst.”
The exchange was becoming heated, but was a logical and fair debate.
Ms. Guthrie had enough of Mr. Elliott, the discussion and his views. She tweeted to him: “@greg_a_elliott If you think it’s revenge, you’re not paying attention. I’ve had it with you [. . .]” She then blocked him from sending tweets to her.

Stephanie Guthrie decided to destroy Ben Spurr, Gregory Elliott objected to her attempt to “sic the Internet” on Spurr, and from that point onward, the conflict descended into online war. Guthrie and her comrade Heather Reilly filed harassment charges against Elliott, the prosecutor took the case seriously and thus began a three-year nightmare ordeal for Elliott. Lauren Southern concludes of the ruling:

Anyone following this case knows that Greg is only guilty of the crime of wrongthink. He was arrested for critically engaging with people who disagreed with him. It wasn’t any different from what people do on social media platforms every day. . . .
He never threatened anyone, and he never gave anyone reason to fear for their safety.
All he did was argue with people that hated him so much they demanded he be shut down.
I don’t believe Stephanie Guthrie or her cronies felt victimized for a second. We’re talking about people who have posted images of themselves drinking from mugs with “male tears” written on them, after all.
They wanted Elliott to pay for having challenged them, nothing more.

Exactly. The problem is that feminist monsters like Stephanie Guthrie have convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of “the crime of wrongthink,” and that such a thought criminal has no rights at all. The beastly cruelty that Stephanie Guthrie displayed in her crusade to destroy Greg Elliott shows how feminism has become an ideology of hate that attracts paranoid fanatics who view their critics with a dehumanizing contempt.





 

Comments