Well… it’s good to be back. It’s been too long – way too long. Life over the past ten months or so has been absolutely insane and has really screwed with my ability to put the hours in in the way that I’d like, in the way that I should.
Truthfully, things are still nutty but I missed writing about the MHRM; I missed the guys and gals at MHRO, MHRI, and at my home, AVfM; I missed pissing off feminists and SJWs and, of course, I missed my blog.
But I’m not writing this merely to tell people that I’m back with my regular gigs. I’m proud to announce that I am now also a regular contributor to MGTOW Magazine. Click the link and go check it out. You can make up your own mind but what I can tell you is that the guys behind this are absolutely amazing, and, from a professional point of view, a breeze to work with; in fact they’re a lot easier to work with than many of the folks in the MSM. They have a mission in mind, and are steadfast in their determination to make MGTOW Magazine a success. I’m thrilled and humbled that I was chosen to help to make that aspiration a reality by contributing my meagre talents.
Please support them in any way you can. Share the stories on social media, tell your buddies and hey, subscribe to the mailing list, post in the comment sections and help MGTOW Magazine grow.
This is a video put up by Jonathan Taylor, the man behind the brilliant A Voice For Male Students. This is what feminism is doing to young adults in university. We’re ending up with zombified, brainwashed, morons. It has to stop.
A CURIOUS thing is happening at the National Post right now. Over the past two weeks, the National Post has printed four articles on rape culture. Rape culture, for those of you who don’t know, is the idea that we live in a society whereby rape is an accepted reality. Evidence that we are living in such a culture comes from our apparent comfort with sexualizing and objectifying women, the prevalence of prostitution and pornography, victim blaming, slut shaming, and trivializing rape.
Quite often, statistics and facts accompany the theory – with feminists and activists quoting numbers that are, on the face of it, pretty terrifying. While there doesn’t seem to be a consensus as to exactly how many women are being raped or sexually assaulted (advocates of the theory never include data on male victims,) what is clear is that the numbers are absolutely huge. Indeed, they’re so big that they’re simply not credible. Many noted academics, critics, and commentators such as Christina Hoff Sommers have repeatedly argued this point but to little avail. While critics of feminism have been effective in ripping the theory to shreds, gender feminists plow on regardless – safe in the knowledge that neither politicians nor the mainstream media have any interest in confronting their claims.
That comfortable status quo, however, might be about to change.
Over the past fortnight, The National Post has aggressively challenged the concept of rape culture. Barbara Kay, long noted for her rejection of feminist thought, wrote two articles in which she critiqued the spurious tenets of rape culture theory. Brian Hutchinson penned a piece in which he investigated the origins and veracity of foundational ‘statistics’ that underpin rape culture and, just two days ago, The National Post Editorial Board threw their considerable weight behind the push to openly scrutinize the idea of rape culture.
Kay sees the recent coverage as part of a greater awareness, and skepticism about the claims made by feminists.
I am very pleased to see the Post’s editorial board taking a definite stand on this issue[.] I think perhaps it is a sign that there is only so much fear-mongering you can generate without adducing evidence for it before public skepticism takes hold. According to rape culture claims, the risks to campus women of sexual assault are higher than the risk of any other crime on earth. And yet women walk around the campus seemingly blithely unaware of the terrible fate in store for them or their girlfriends (based on the one in four/five figure). There is a cognitive disconnect here, and ordinary Canadians are puzzled by it.
As well they should be – the idea that we live in a rape culture clashes spectacularly not only with official crime stats, but also with the dim view that society in general takes of sexual assault and rape – a point that Margaret Wente of The Globe and Mail recently explored, saying that,“[the] manufacture of “rape culture” is a triumph of ideology over substance. It has inflated a serious but uncommon threat into a crime wave.”
The key word here is inflated. Feminists routinely buttress their theories with statistics that are not congruent with reality; they use definitions and methodologies that result in a hopelessly skewed picture. No reasonable person – even for a moment – would believe the ‘statistic’ that one-in-four women are raped on university campuses, yet that is the conclusion that Mary P. Koss came to in her now infamous (and repeatedly debunked) survey in 1987.
Amazingly, 73% of the women that Koss characterized as rape victims, did not share that view – they did not think that they were victims of rape. 43% of these supposed rape victims went on to date their ‘rapists.’
Clearly Koss’ definition of rape is just plain wrong and an honest scholar would address that. Koss chose not to address the problem, however, and so have the countless feminist academics who’ve since mimicked her methodology. What exists as a consequence is a strange form of hysteria across college campuses, and, to a lesser degree – across society. Kay believes that the success of the feminist propaganda machine, in popularizing the myth of a ‘war on women’ is directly responsible for promulgation of rape culture.
Once you accept… that the urge to violence against women is a chronic and unabating evil, situated in the hearts of men, and ready to spring out at any opportune moment, you have created a moral panic with no basis in evidence, just a theory that violence against women is a continuum from a child’s stolen playground kiss on the cheek to the calculated rapes of women in Bosnia-Herzogovina. No amount of vigilance, therefore, is too much, and no woman is therefore really safe. In fact, a very tiny percentage of women are at actual risk of violence from men in our society, and of those who are, much of it is avoidable.
The recent debacle at Wellesley College in is a perfect example of this hysteria. American artist Tony Matelli’s temporary art installation – a statue of a fairly ordinary looking man sleepwalking in his underwear was deemed by students as an “inappropriate and potentially harmful addition to our community.” Admittedly – the statue is unusual – and at a stretch unsettling – but it’s a statue. It doesn’t possess agency and has nothing to do with rape. Yet, these staggeringly obvious facts did not deter Wellesley students from setting up a Change.org petition to have the ‘triggering’ statue removed from its location on campus grounds, which, depressingly, garnered some 988 signatories.
[T]hat is the point of it (rape culture) – to sow terror of men in order to convince authorities that women continue to need support, that the rape-crisis industry is not only necessary but in need of expansion, and therefore even more funding in this area is called for. The real beneficiaries are stakeholders in jobs created by the moral panic.
It is difficult to draw any other conclusion. Rape culture just doesn’t make any sense. It contradicts the general societal view of rape and sexual assault as a heinous crime; it contradicts how seriously the legal system views such crimes and relies on debunked, dishonest research. It also describes a picture that Kay says is completely at odds with crime statistics.
“The fact is that instances of rape have gone down in the general population. If they have gone up on campuses, there have to be other factors at work. Why has there not been more emphasis on facts and statistics around the phenomenon? Because the case for rape culture collapses when you start looking into the stats. Even if you multiply reported rapes by 100, you still don’t get figures that add up to a “culture.”
It is vital, according to Kay, to continue to put pressure on those that perpetuate such theories by asking questions, and demanding answers.
“[We should ask] the same questions we should ask of someone who promotes the idea that there are packs of stray dogs roaming the city and we are in danger of getting rabies from their bites: Show me the evidence. How many police reports of bites? How many hospital admissions for rabies? How many stories of bites and rabies turned out to be urban myths? Why are the rabid dogs only roaming around in this city and not in the nearby ones? Is “rabies” a misnomer in most cases for “infection”? Has “rabies” been redefined in this city and not in others? How is it that so many of the self-reporting victims were so drunk when they were bitten that they can’t remember feeling the pain of the bite?”
These are questions that feminists need to answer. There should be no more talk of ‘triggering,’ no more ad hominem attacks or appeals to emotion – if feminists want their theories to be taken seriously then they should be made to publically defend them. If they are not willing to do that then financial support should be withdrawn from programs that support such spurious theories. It is high time for a critical audit of rape culture theory, and the industry it supports.
AS REGULAR readers of AVfM are no doubt aware, the “Don’t be that Guy” poster campaign has once again raised its bigoted head. This time the campaign has made an appearance in Canada’s capital – Ottawa. However, while the posters did attract some media attention, it wasn’t nearly as much as previous occasions. What’s also of note is that for the first time the posters were torn down. It seems that someone at the University of Ottawa had had enough. While AVfM does not condone censorship, we certainly do understand the anger that motivates such action. Labeling an entire gender as potential rapists while simultaneously ignoring the realities of sexual assault and rape is clearly morally bankrupt. That is why we sent our tireless Director of Activism Attila Vinczer to Ottawa armed with glue, some “Don’t be that Girl” posters, and a gutful of FTSU attitude. AVfM spoke with Vinczer upon his return from Ottawa. Below are some excerpts from the conversation:
Hi Attila – so first off – how did you get to Ottawa?
Well, I drove to Ottawa. It took about four-and-half hours – got a nice present from the OPP on the way – a speeding ticket. I told the officer that I couldn’t accept his kind gift but, you know, he insisted.
What’s your take on the Don’t be that Guy campaign?
The Don’t be That Guy campaign is absolutely ridiculous. The message of that poster, of that campaign, is completely wrong. It paints guys in a way that men are like that – and they’re not. It goes hand-in-hand with the one-in-four nonsense. It’s a misleading campaign and stigmatizes men.
What happened when you got to Ottawa?
I met with William Mullins-Johnson, Janice Fiamengo, and Stephen Bindman. I have worked with Bill for years, who talks about wrongful conviction stuff – Stephen teaches a class to law students about wrongful convictions. We had lunch and talked about Elizabeth Sheehy and agreed that her proposals are just ludicrous. Bill helped me poster – we put out fifty Don’t Be That Girl posters – one of them was the one about the woman hitting her child and the glass ceiling poster. We walked about for about an hour-and-a-half – and went into the faculty of law where we put up about five or six posters.
Was there any reaction?
The posters instantly drew attention. We got a few snarky looks from students – particularly women – but it was pretty peaceful. We got a few, what I’d call condescending stares. There was a sense of passive hostility although nobody bugged us or bothered us – even inside the university. That was probably because Bill is a huge guy – he’s 6’6, 200lbs. We got a lot of posters up really high thanks to him. But what we noticed is that people actually stopped and read the posters – the creators (Men’s Rights Edmonton) did a good job in that regard.
Did you see any Don’t be that Guy posters?
We didn’t see any – I heard that they were being torn down, so they were long gone by the time we got there.
How did it feel to put up the Don’t be that Girl posters?
It felt very good to put up those posters – I felt we were balancing it out so that people were seeing both ends of the spectrum and we need to be persistent – someone needs to put these posters up consistently. Every time I go to Ottawa from now on I am going to put posters up. Although I’m going to use rubber gloves – the glue is very sticky. The guys from Men’s Rights Edmonton gave me advice on that one – they’re professionals.
Editor’s note: The following is a press release from the good people at CAFE. If you can, you should get this event. Hey – I’ll be there – that’s reason enough right? JB
From the Failure of Family Court to Equal Shared Parenting:
Moving Beyond the Gender Paradigm
Friday, March 21, 2014, 8PM
Ramsay Wright Laboratories, Room 110
25 Harbord Street
This event will occur on the campus of the University of Toronto
Hosted by the University of Toronto Men’s Issues Awareness Society.
Dr. Edward Kruk, author of the new book “The Equal Parent Presumption” and newly elected President of the International Council on Shared Parenting will join us at the University of Toronto Friday, March 21
Short talk description
The family law system is broken. It is biased against shared parenting responsibility, its adversarial system fuels parental conflict and family violence, and it is particularly damaging to the father-child relationship. But there is hope. The public overwhelmingly supports a new paradigm: the equal shared parenting presumption. Dr. Edward Kruk will discuss his research, put forward a new legal framework for equal parenting in Canada and comment on current legislative efforts to change the system for the better.
This presentation will examine fathers’ and mothers’ perspectives on their children’s needs in the divorce transition, and their responsibilities in relation to those needs, as well as their views on the responsibilities of social institutions to support divorced parents. Fathers’ and mothers’ views of the salient issues regarding post-divorce parenting, with a focus on the process and outcome of child custody determination, are examined. It will be argued that both non-residential fathers and mothers experience the harmful effects of existing child custody laws and socio-legal policies, and speak strongly to the need for family law reform in the direction of an equal shared parenting presumption. Both women and men support the establishment of such a presumption in equal measure, as both mothers and fathers are at risk of becoming disenfranchised from their children’s lives via “primary residence” judgments. The need for inter-sexual dialogue on the matter of parenting after divorce is urgently needed, and divorce scholars, practitioners and policy makers are urged to abandon the dominant gender paradigm in regard to the legal determination of parenting after divorce.
About Dr. Edward Kruk
Edward Kruk is Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of British Columbia, specializing in child and family policy. He has practiced in the fields of welfare rights, child protection, school social work, hospital social work, and family services. He is currently teaching and practicing in the areas of family mediation and addiction.
Edward’s first book, Divorce and Disengagement: Patterns of Fatherhood Within and BeyondMarriage, was the first in-depth study of the experiences of divorced fathers and the phenomenon of father absence after divorce. His second book, Mediation and Conflict Resolution in Social Work and the Human Services, explores the application of mediation in eighteen fields of practice, with a focus on theory and practice relevant to each field. His third book, Divorced Fathers: Children’s Needs and Parental Responsibilities, examines fathers’ perceptions of their children’s needs in the divorce transition, and parental and social institutional responsibilities to those needs. His new book, The Equal Parent Presumption: Social Justice in the Legal Determination of Parenting After Divorce, based on emergent trends of egalitarian parenting and non-adversarial conflict resolution, outlines a “best interests of the child from the perspective of the child” and a responsibility-to-needs approach to post-divorce child and family policy.
He writes a popular monthly blog, “Co-Parenting After Divorce,” for Psychology Today, and he has been cited as “Canada’s leading child custody expert” by two national newspapers. He was recently awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal for his service and research on the best interests of children of divorce, and was elected as the inaugural president of the International Council on Shared Parenting.
He is a founding member of the Bounce Collective, a group of progressive West Coast DJs known for their diversity of musical styles, and all-night dance parties.
For a full bio please see http://www.edwardkruk.com. For more on the International Council on Shared Parenting please visit twohomes.org/en_html
Note: This post is reprinted here from the good people at A Voice For Men. Tickets for this event are being snapped up pretty quickly so buy early to avoid disappointment. JB
On June 27 and 28, 2014, a first ever conference of its kind will be held in Detroit, Michigan. A Voice for Men’s International Conference on Men’s Issues will feature the most noted collection of activists, advocates, writers and thinkers of our generation ever gathered into one place to discuss the issues of men and boys.
Presenting at the event will be Dr. Warren Farrell, Robert Franklin Esq, Sen. Anne Cools, Dr. Paul Nathanson, Erin Pizzey, John Hembling, Karen Straughan, Carnell Smith, Mike Buchanan, Paul Elam, Tom Golden, Dr. Tara Palmatier, Barbara Kay and Dr. Miles Groth.*
Your master of ceremonies will be Vladek Filler.
On the evening of June 26, there will be a press conference and panel discussion headed by AVFM News Director Robert O’Hara, and including live AVFM News Department participation from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia and India. AVFM News Europe’s Lucian Valsan will be joining that discussion live via Skype. Local media will be invited to attend, where they will hear the thoughts from our news people across the world on the treatment of men in news media.
Also, on June 26, Dr. Warren Farrell will be conducting a limited seating workshop. Details on this event will soon be available here.
For those traveling to Detroit for the conference, which is being held at the Doubletree Downtown Detroit, a special web page to book room reservations will soon be made available through this site, and will be emailed to all ticket purchasers.
Finally, the first 100 persons who purchase tickets to the event will be gifted with a free copy of Dr. Warren Farrell’s 21st anniversary edition the Myth of Male Power in ebook. Once your ticket it paid for, within 24 hours you will be emailed instructions on getting your complementary copy of what is still the most seminal work on men’s issues ever written.
Tickets are $219.00. Purchases are limited to six at one time, with a maximum of 300 tickets being sold.
I’ve decided to finally bite the bullet and publish a blog. For what seems like aeons, friends have told me, nay – urged me to put a blog together – ‘you’re so funny! You’re so clever! You’re a great writer – you should write a blog!’ they all told me. Well, not all of them; that’s perhaps an exaggeration on my part. Some of them told me that.
One of them.
In any case, since I was inundated with this request, I decided, finally, to do the decent thing and publish a blog. What you’ll find here is a kind of hybrid blog. In my work as a journalist for A Voice For Men (AVfM) and other equality organizations I write fairly serious, grown-uppy type articles that are of interest to equality activists. I intend to re-publish those articles here – kind of as a one-stop-shop for those who like my work.
What I’m also going to do is write exclusivecontent for those who visit here (the red font means I’m serious.) This content will be quite different to the content that I currently put out for AVfM et al in that it will be a lot more personal. I will write from my own perspective in a first person style with a focus on issues of importance to men and boys.
So – welcome – I hope you enjoy what I put out here and look forward to your feedback. Have a look around – although much like a new house, there are a couple of things that I’m still working on. You can expect to find some new sections in the next while – photo and meme galleries AND I’m going to put together a nice list of resources for those interested in really getting to grips with the issues.
Finally – a note to feminists. You are just as welcome here as anybody else and are just as free to comment, disagree, and voice your opinion as anybody else. But do bear in mind that there are no ‘trigger warnings’ here and that free speech, rational argument and LOGIC trumps how someone might feel.
The Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) has become used to opposition. Since its formation they have come under sustained and unprovoked attack from those who wish to maintain control of the political gender discourse in Canada. Their opponents have ranged from bit-part, anarchist politicians to prominent feminists and, of course, ideologically driven student unions. CAFE, in insisting upon a more inclusive, civil debate, has been ridiculously labelled as a hate group. This message, however, has lost almost all traction over the last year or so; indeed it seems that only those convinced of their own ignorance still believe this sham. The overwhelming majority within the Canadian media now accept the quite obvious fact that CAFE are neither a hate group, nor composed of misogynists. And that message is spreading.
Yesterday’s announcement from Ryerson University President Sheldon Levy, that the university will absorb the cost of the extra security for CAFE’s upcoming event is not only extremely welcome but a recognition of CAFE’s status as an organization dedicated to expanding the debate on gender issues – particularly as they pertain to men. In a statement released to the National Post, Levy described the ludicrous imposition of a “security fee” as a “barrier to freedom of expression.”
Levy’s announcement comes as a stinging rebuke to those within the Ryerson Student Union (RSU) who, in an act of malice designed to stifle free speech, levied the unprecedented fee on CAFE for extra security at the event. The lecture, featuring YouTube sensation Karen Straughan, is slated for February 6 and was put into jeopardy when RSU called a meeting between CAFE representatives and Ryerson security, just days away from the event. At the meeting RSU told CAFE that they believed that there was a security risk at the original venue of Mattamy Athletic Centre. Consequently, they decided to move the event to the Chang School of Continuing Education to a far smaller room – and to hand CAFE a bill for $1,600. As has been widely reported, this act was a transparent attempt to disrupt the event and cause financial damage to CAFE. Neither Ryerson nor RSU have divulged any information to the media relating to these supposed security threats.
It is clear that RSU feel that bullying and harassment are legitimate forms of direct action. However, the timing of Levy’s announcement is extremely serendipitous; RSU is in the midst of annual elections and Levy’s decision will act not only as a reminder to RSU as to who is really in charge at the university, but also as a stiff object lesson. Silencing those you regard as your opponents is never acceptable. Levy’s remarks – that ‘the cost was a barrier to freedom of expression’ will no doubt anger those within the student union – but in truth, it should shame them.
RSU need to reflect upon their actions. The idea that freedom of expression is a right that applies only to those with whom we agree is deranged, and ultimately dangerous not only to the reputation of Ryerson University – but also to Canadian society. It is worrying that Rajean Holiett, who has in the past made grossly inaccurate, incendiary statements regarding the MHRM, is likely to win the RSU presidential race. It was Holiett who was instrumental in denying three Ryerson students the right to form a men’s issues group at Ryerson in March of last year. Holiett, speaking to Ryerson University Television (RUTV), pointedly referred to CAFE’s men’s group at UofT, as something he didn’t want to see at Ryerson. “They, like, talk about rape in very problematic ways and blame survivors and rape victims for their raping. These are things that we didn’t want to bring to our campus; I didn’t think that student union resources were best spent on these kinds of conversations.” If Holiett is successful in landing the top job in RSU, it is likely that Ryerson will see RSU attempt an even more draconian clampdown on free speech there.
However, with Levy’s effective denouncement of RSU’s anti-free speech antics and the growing recognition that CAFE and the wider MHRM are in fact legitimate, it is unlikely that Holiett et al will find a receptive audience for further repressive actions. It would be better for all involved if they simply stopped, and tried listening. It is, after all, how we learn things.
RYERSON STUDENT UNION (RSU) kicked off their annual elections amid a buzz of activity yesterday – while an undercurrent of controversy brews at the former polytechnic. A number of RSU veterans are taking part in this year’s election, which runs until February 5, with Rejean Holliet widely regarded to land the top job of RSU President. The campus, ordinarily hectic, was especially frenetic in recent days with eager campaign helpers running to and fro, soliciting votes, handing out flyers, all friendly, all smiles. Campus campaigners have mastered that fine art of grabbing the attention of passers-by – BIG smile, tilt head to an almost impossible angle, BIG wave, move towards – but not directly into intended victim’s path – and top it off with a saccharine sweet HI!!! before asking that question – the question that every single pedestrian trying to get somewhere dreads “do you have a minute…?” Some, however, eschew this method and go even further making a veritable pantomime of the approach – doing whatever they can to attract eye contact and spark conversation. Some ask bizarre questions; some make weird noises; some even walk directly into the path of oncoming human traffic.
The cheerleading and glad-handing on campus, while not as polished and somewhat more effusive, still doesn’t differ all that much from the real world, political kind. Just like real world democratic politicking – there is an urgent need to engage the electorate because, obviously, there is a need for votes. There is a need to present the best possible image – to be picture perfect. But just like real world politics – the truth is never pristine; the truth is often hidden behind hyper-managed public images. And those truths, those agendas, are often very, very dirty indeed.
On February 6, the day after elections close, Karen Straughan will speak at Ryerson. Hers is the first in an ambitious series of eight lectures at eight different Canadian universities being promoted by CAFE throughout 2014. Straughan aims to address a number of topics with her time at the lectern, not least of all, free speech on Canadian campuses.
Ryerson achieved national notoriety last year when they summarily dismissed an application for a men’s group at the Toronto campus. Justification for the ban came from RSU President apparent Rajean Holiett – who said in interview with campus newspaper ‘The Ryersonian’ in October 2013 that “what we saw happening at the University of Toronto (UofT) is that these men’s rights groups were creating very problematic and unsafe spaces for women-identified folk on the campus. They would create conversations that blamed female victims and survivors of rape for their rape.” Holiett’s claims are not only extraordinary but are patently untrue. Holiett, to be blunt, is relying on scare tactics to silence the voices of those who oppose the hegemonic stranglehold on gender discourse at Ryerson, and other Canadian universities. And, there’s likely more to come.
RSU, again, are choosing to play their UofT trump card, this time citing security concerns because of past flashpoints at the UofT campus – flashpoints that were deliberately created by feminist protestors. CAFE staged a number of academic lectures at UofT that were violently disrupted by feminists – lectures by Dr. Janice Fiamengo and Dr. Warren Farrell being the most notable examples.
And now, with Straughan’s lecture just days away, Ryerson administration and the RSU have smacked CAFE with a $1,600 security fee to host the event and have shifted the venue from the Mattamy Athletic Centre, to a 7th floor room that holds just 100 people at the Chang School for Continuing Education. Both of these moves are deliberately designed to cause as much disruption as possible. RSU, and Ryerson’s administration simply want CAFE to go away. For all of their talk about inclusion, diversity, and equality, RSU is a blinkered, ideologically driven organization that is not interested in propagating a truly inclusive environment. Their modus operandi is to reject criticism – to reject differing points of view – to spread mistruths about those with whom they disagree and ultimately to bully and harass.
RSU and Ryerson administration are aware that CAFE has made significant strides with their efforts at UofT – effectively garnering public and media support behind their efforts. It has reached the point where feminist protestors now longer employ their fascist, bullying tactics. The tide, at least at UofT, has turned.
Yet, this change has come at a cost. It is likely that more radicalized student unions and supine administrations will ape UofT’s example and try to penalize CAFE with ‘security fees.’ Of course, the intent of these fees is extremely transparent – not only to the wider MHRM but CAFE themselves – it is an attempt to cause as much financial damage as possible.
If this is to be avoided then CAFE must take decisive action and if necessary, legal action. A situation must not develop where CAFE or any other group who seek to address men’s issues are singled out for such treatment.
George Bernard Shaw famously said that ‘democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.’ Of that there is little doubt and the situation is unlikely to change at Ryerson, at least not any time soon. However, it is hoped that by the time the next batch of RSU hopefuls appear next year that the idea of men’s rights is no longer an issue, and that groups like CAFE continue to make further gains on, and off-campus.
A GROUP of women, featuring a radical feminist, a religious zealot, and an ultra-conservative MP have banded together in a bid to block porn on Canadian Internet Service Providers (ISP.) Winnipeg Conservative MP Joy Smith, radical feminist Gail Dines, and evangelical ‘policy analyst’ Julia Beazley hosted a meeting on the subject for parliamentarians and other ‘stakeholders’ in Ottawa recently.
“If we can get a man on the moon, certainly we figure out a way to protect children from unwanted porn’ said Smith, who is set to table a private member’s bill that would automatically block user’s access to online, fully legal pornography. Smith’s bill is effectively identical to legislation recently enacted in the U.K., which in 2014 requires internet users to register with their service providers to access legal, adult material.
Gail Dines, the founder of the radical ‘Stop Porn Culture’ group, and a sociology professor at Boston’s Wheelock College described pornography as a “public health emergency situation.”
(from left to right) Smith, Dines and Beazely at the MP’s offices
According to Tom Copeland, chairman of the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, the conversation is nothing new.
“The discussion has gone on forever and a day, mostly it starts around child pornography and what can be done to combat it and whether or not Internet service providers can play a role, or should play a role,” Copeland said.
“And then every once in a while somebody decides, ’Well, we need to take this further, it needs to include general pornography sites’ —which aren’t illegal — ’it needs to include hate sites.’ It needs to include any number of sites that somebody all of a sudden has a burr in their britches about.”
Efforts to introduce legislation have traditionally been thwarted by ISPs and civil rights campaigners who point out that numerous, free alternatives are available to those who wish to block access to pornography on their own, or children’s computers.