Truth Wins, Feminists Lose

Posted on 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.





 

102 comments

  2. Yay our team! Conservatives lose because they are passive. Pushing back and fighting back actually works.

  3. Poor bugger, in this case 3 years of lawfare against the bloke because of hurty feelings?

    Isnt the process a form of assault against the man anyway? Instead of standing up for themselves these evil women have subcontracted the state to be their own private “mafia”.

    “…The arrest caused Elliott to lose his job after over a decade of employment as a graphic artist with the City of Mississauga. Elliott’s bail terms have restricted him from using the internet ever since…”

    If there was justice in the world the sea-cows involved would be sentenced to at least double that, instead they will suffer nothing, not a bloody thing. Oh and its cost the bloke around $100,000 moose dollars.

    “..Detective Banglid testified in court that Eliott’s tweets were never threatening. One of his alleged victims bragged in court about her vigilante Twitter attacks against people she deems to be “misogynists”. Evidence was introduced into the court that two of the alleged victims spread misinformation that Elliott was a “pedophile”. A large number of Elliott’s tweets used in evidence against him were purely political- what many observers see as protected speech. Elliott’s most offensive tweet was to accuse his alleged victims of having “fat asses”…”

    They should be given to ISIS as organ donors/sex slaves/mine clearance devices.

  4. The problem with your argument is that in Canada, where all this shit went down, there is no such thing as freedom of speech, so there can’t be such a thing as “protected speech”.

  5. We’ve all met women who think they are an aristocracy of talent, refinement and class just because a lot of guys will bang anything that moves. I’ve never met one who’s also a feminist, which must be far worse.

    By an amazing coincidence their refined talents, good tastes and judgments fade with age. What could possibly be the connection?

  6. 3?my neighbor’s mate is getting 98$. HOURLY on the internet?….

    A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
    4qeb………
    ??
    ??? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsTop/GetPaid/98$hourly…?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

  7. Harassment, lies, blocking traffic, sit-ins, die-ins, chants, hashtags, public obscenity, event crashing, preventing people from entering shops, and endless false accusations of “isms.” Why does the left love to try and “change the world” with these methods? Because none of them involve having the superior moral & logical argument. You can’t fight with what you don’t have. That’s for right-wing nutjobs!

  8. I would also add, the methods you mention support the Leftist’s delusion that he is being “heroic” without really risking anything. There is no question in my mind that these people see themselves as combatants in an epic struggle. They are small people desperately trying to feel better about themselves. In their hearts, they know they’re losers so they try to dress up as warriors on Twitter to stave off another night alone in their apartments drinking heavily and listening to Tracy Chapman albums.

  11. Yet, it cost him something like $100,000 to defend his rights, whereas her assault on his rights was paid for by monies expropriated from, well, him, and his fellow subjects.
    .
    My point is, she didn’t drag him through hell all by herself; and neither she, nor her enablers, will pay a price. Thus, and because they have an open line on to national fisc, they are free to do it again.

  13. and again…and again…and again…
    Wait,… people are given grants, that they may be “taught” how to do this… in institutionalized higher “education”?

  14. Wombat,

    What about defamation?
    It seems to me, that if it is true that these creatures spread misinformation “…that Elliott was a ‘pedophile’.”, it seems that they have defamed him and can therefore be the subject of a filing.

    I should learn to wait until after breakfast to read political/cultural blogs. This type of inhumane activity literally makes me sick— both by making me queasy b/c I don’t like to believe that the average person can so callously destroy another over such “small potatoes” and by “kicking awake” my ulcers.

    I’m speaking w/literal precision, and referring to real ulcer! I’ve come by my ulcers the honest way: I’ve earned them! (…sorry. Just couldn’t resist the reference. *wink&grin*)

    I have always been a sucker for Just Causes[sic upcasing] that are in the process of being lost! It is a sure way to “earn” your ulcers, though!

    There must be some (“creative” if necessary, but legal always) way that this Elliot fellow can be “made whole”, (… I think that’s the legal term is for it…,) by recouping his financial and job losses.
    *grunt accompanied by an exasperated & tired sigh*

  15. Do you mean, being that all the refinement, talents, et al., are illusory, that Reality thwacks them on the head in their later years… or that the self-delusion fails?

  16. CrustyB,
    Isn’t die-ins participation a one-time only affair for the participants?

    Before the scent of decay becomes overwhelming, I mean…
    ;~)?

  17. Yeah, well, she’ll always be nuts. If she’s spending her time doing this shit in the prime of her life what bitterness will she be feeling spending $200 a month on cat litter 20 years from now?

    Maybe she can make nice little macrame bonnets for her cats or 50 Shades of Grey corsets for them and sell them on a TinderCat dating app for mental cases.

  19. I did not realise this one of those deals where she had to destroy him for the crime of unrequited attraction.

    I hope this is a lesson to all men: don’t go near feminists for any reason. Don’t talk to them, don’t look at them, don’t try to work with them. Leave them to their onesie boys and their cats.

  20. Exactly. People who make their life-purpose to “change the world” are always dangerous to other people — especially when they have the deep pockets of the bureaucracy funding them — because “changing the world” almost always means using force and violence to compel *other* people to do what they’d never choose to do if left alone.

  21. Sure, she’ll always be crazy; but a certain class of people, the sort who are not content to let others live their own lives, find her and her ilk to be useful.

  22. I am confused about a technical point.

    The articles quotes “Ms. Guthrie replied, putting a period before Mr. Elliott’s handle: “.@greg_a_Elliott….”

    What is the significance of putting a period before his handle?

    Obviously, I am not a twitter user (because I want to avoid a world full of crazies like Ms. Guthrie).

  24. In a just world, his costs would be covered, he would be indemnified for loss of income, and this wench would lose her house, as would any private counsel she retained. When the legal profession is involved, justice is a rare accident.

  28. Now that the topic has arisen, I do believe there is a Tracy Chapman CD on a shelf somewhere… given me by a friend.

    Same friend that gave me some Indigo Girls.

    I haven’t listened to it yet because I do not have any cats.

  29. The legal profession has nothing to do with justice. It is about applying, interpreting, and manipulating law.

  30. Reminds me of the classic joke about the world’s most boring headline:

    “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative.”

    It also reminds me of Mark Steyn relating details from one of his legal brushes in Canada. One of his co-defendants asked an investigator “What about freedom of speech” and was told “Freedom of speech is an American concept and I do not have to consider it.”

    That sad thing here is that Elliot didn’t actually win. He just didn’t lose as much as his enemies wanted him to. Three years and legal costs is still a penalty he will never have erased.

  31. I don’t know about Canada. The U.S. has the “American Rule” about costs and fees. Everybody pays their own (absent a specific statute which reverses costs), which is a disadvantage in a society which gets its kicks from lawfare. In Britain and other Commonwealth countries, it’s a “loser pays” system.

  32. Instead of standing up for themselves these evil women have subcontracted the state to be their own private “mafia”.

    Excellent and accurate way to put it.

  35. The DA is at fault for taking this pile of poo to court to begin with. Are they elected in Canada? If so, this one should be unelected, like, yesterday.

  36. I haven’t had any pets at all since my then girlfriend forgot to feed my finches when I was on a week-long business trip.

  38. Exactly. That’s the point I was making above, and you made it much better — he didn’t actually win, he just didn’t lose as badly as the social justice wankers wanted him to lose.
    .
    As Steyn always points out: the process is the punishment.

  42. How do feminists manage to be at once fierce and cowards at the same time? I guess that neat trick is why there are no Third Wavers in military cemeteries. And if there was even one they’d probably build a frickin’ statue.

  46. The thing I find amusing about the fraud that is Third Wave Feminism is how they claim a special between-the-cracks insight into history and yet brutalize it like an Orwellian memory hole in order to buttress their phony intersectionalism. They routinely laugh at others for being anti-science and yet ask us to believe in fantastic claims about human sexuality that are more absurd than Atlantis or those old Chariots of the Gods books about aliens visiting Earth. It’s particularly disturbing this is so popular in the science fiction community where they’ll argue over putting spin on an asteroid but never stop to ask themselves how a woman’s breasts can amount to what they say is an irrelevant costume of sorts or how the next logical step in mankind’s evolution is the insanely self-serving lesbian idea the “gender binary” which allows us to survive as a species is obsolete with no discussion about why this might be the case or how it would benefit humans. I’d love to see a science show like Nova do an expose on this “academic” cult and put it in the dustbin of history where it belongs. It certainly has no more business being taught in colleges than do magic spells, unless you like the idea of a lesbian Hogwarts.

  47. “He was acquitted, not … 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.”

    “Reasonable” is a sexist term, invented by the Patriarchy to oppress women, to allow men to dismiss their point of view and deny their personhood. The only thing that matters is what those women felt, and they’re the only ones that can judge their feelings’ reasonableness. By invalidating their feelings, the judge has victimized them all over again. The war against women continues.
    (/sarc)

  48. The suit should never have been allowed to go forward. There were no actual threats, and the accusations were flimsy at best. (And that’s being generous.)

    That said, there are are few lessons here:

    1. Don’t engage political activists online unless you’re ready with an attorney.

    This includes any Soros-backed group including #BLM. Activists are hypervigilant, always looking for “racism”, “sexism”, etc. Imagine what would have happened if Elliot had engaged a group of young black Oscar boycotters and created a punching game with Jada Pinkett Smith or Spike Lee as its object. Elliot would have been photoshopped in a white sheet and his Twitter account would have been terminated in minutes. What Elliot experienced really isn’t a male/female thing: it’s an normal person/activist thing. Don’t think you’re safe because you’re talking to a male activist.

    2. Don’t assume you’ve been understood in the way you think you’ve been understood by others.

    Sometimes, people miss the obvious or see subtext you never intended. It’s best to be clear and be ready to clarify confusion. (This applies to normal people: activists make a career of misunderstanding you.)

    3. Twitter activism just sucks.

    That’s my own opinion, but I have had it with idiots who argue points online but don’t have the balls to stand up for anything really important.

  49. This is pretty sad and it’s not just happening in business, but in education. Teachers are now afraid of the students, and not to be funny but it’s #becausemicroagressions #becauseoffending
    You get the idea. How have we come to this, whether it’s Canada or the USA?

  50. Wombat, the same thing happens in this country…. and every time someone tries to bring the First Amendment into it, that magic word “private” is waved like a cross at a vampire to drive the First Amendment away. It ignores the fact that without the government as their hitman these harpies would be impotent.

Comments are closed.