Category Archives: News

MGTOW Magazine

BY Jim Byset

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.

Jim

How much are our soldiers worth?

BY Jim Byset

IF YOU’VE EVER wondered what value the Canadian government places on the lives of its servicemen, you can wonder no longer for today, we finally have an answer. Canadians now know how much each of those lives are worth.  We now know what the government thinks of those men who put their lives on the line in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. We now know what the government thinks of those men who return from foreign countries having experienced the horrors of armed conflict. We now know what the Canadian government thinks of those men who’ve had their arms and legs ripped from their bodies, or who’ve returned home with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD.) We now know what the Canadian government thinks of those men who, with nowhere to turn, take their own lives in a last act of hopelessness.

That value is one shiny new penny.

At least, that’s how it might appear to Denise Stark, mother of Cpl. Justin Stark, who took his own life in a Hamilton, O.N. armoury in 2011 following a 7-month tour of duty in Afghanistan. Stark’s mother received a cheque addressed to her deceased son, marked ‘CF (Canadian Forces) Release Pay’ on February 28 of this year to the value of one cent. Stark’s mother, according to New Democrat MP Wayne Marston, was left in a ‘fragile state’ because of the incident. It is not yet clear exactly why the Public Works department sent the cheque, but its issuance has caused widespread outrage.

Canada’s Minister of National Defence Rob Nicholson made a public apology to Stark’s family, and described the cheque as an “insensitive bureaucratic screwup.” In fairness to Nicholson, it is exactly that and it is unfair to lay the blame squarely at his feet for this mess. As defence Minister, Nicholson would likely have very little input into the more mundane aspects of the force, such as payroll administration.

Yet, while Nicholson has promised to look into the matter, it is all-too-easy to view the incident as symptomatic of governmental indifference.

In March 2013, the Department of National Defence (DND) published a report comparing male suicide rates within the Canadian military, with those of Canadian society generally. The report offers the conclusion, based upon ‘crude data’ that CF suicide rates are actually lower than those found in the general population, and that military deployment is not a risk factor for suicide. It is a conclusion that is extremely difficult to reconcile with recent events, especially given the breathtaking paucity of data and limited research present in the report.

Part of the problem is that CF reporting on suicide does not include those who have retired from the military, nor does it include reservists. The Canadian military regards these as civilian deaths and tracks female suicides separately. There doesn’t seem to be any practical justification for this approach; in fact, given the extremely dangerous and sometimes horrific nature of military service, all suicides, whether they are vets, reservists, females or male regulars should be included in the report. To do otherwise offers an incomplete picture of the reality of suicide and in this regard, the Canadian military has its head planted firmly in the sand.

Indeed, the report is noteworthy not only for its restricted scope, but also for its utterly dismissive tone. It’s easy to forget while perusing the numbers and comparing deployed with non-deployed, solider with civilian, that these are human beings. Yet, nowhere in the report is this simple fact mentioned. Nowhere in the report are there any recommendations to help reduce suicide rates. Nowhere in the report does the reader derive any sense that suicide is an issue that the Canadian military is taking seriously. The term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) does not feature anywhere in the report.

Last January, opposition leader Thomas Mulcair wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper urging him to take “urgent action” to address the “crisis” of suicide in the Canadian military. Mulcair, describing attempts to improve veteran’s access to mental health services said “it is clear that these efforts have not been sufficient.” In response, the government issued a press release saying it was working with the Canadian Armed Forces to address the issue.

Yet, the clock is ticking. Last week saw the suicide of yet another CF vet, dispiritingly – the tenth solider in recent months to take his (or her) own life.

Sgt. Ronald Anderson, 39, died of an apparent suicide at his home in Doaktown, N.B. Anderson was deployed seven times overseas with two tours of duty in Afghanistan, serving 21 years in the Canadian military. Anderson, who is survived by his fiancé and four daughters, had been diagnosed with PTSD, according to his father, Peter Anderson. Indeed instances of PTSD seem to feature in almost all cases of soldier suicide. Another common factor in soldier suicides is that the overwhelming majority are male. In fact, of the last ten Canadian solider suicides that took place – two were women – a number that mirrors closely the male-to-female suicide ratio of 3:1 in Canada generally.

If more suicides are to be avoided in future the Canadian military must begin by addressing the problem honestly. To regard veteran suicides as civilian deaths is little more than a transparent attempt to deny the devastating impact that military service can have on an individual’s psyche. The disproportionate impact of suicide on male soldiers requires an approach that is sensitive to the needs of male soldiers. Male-centred counselling and psychiatric services should be a top priority.

Currently, the DND is struggling to fill vacancies for mental health professionals. Jacqueline Rigg, the director general civilian for Human Resources Management Operations at DND claims that the remote location of many Canadian military bases creates difficulties in attracting and retaining staff. While there is no doubt that the DND faces challenges in filling these vacancies, the time for excuses is over; the DND is facing a crisis and must do everything in their power to make sure that all Canadian soldiers receive adequate mental health services.

To do otherwise is to reinforce the message expressed by the penny paycheque sent to Denise Stark – ‘your sacrifice is as good as worthless.’  This is a message that the Canadian public will not abide.

Ryerson President puts manners on student union

BY Jim Byset

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.

No Free Speech On Campus

BY Jim Byset

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.

Who is the real troll here?

BY Jim Byset

IT WOULD be funny if it wasn’t true. It would be funny if so much wasn’t at stake. It would be funny if the Canadian justice system wasn’t mollycoddling and indulging the childish, whiny, bullying behaviour of feminists. However, unfortunately, it is true – the trial of Toronto artist and father-of-four Gregory Alan Elliott really is happening.

And it is a disgrace.

If you’re a Torontonian, it’s likely you’ve come across Gregory Alan Elliott’s work at some point. Elliot’s art is featured all over the city – from Kensington market to Bloor and Landsdowne. It’s also just as likely that you don’t know who the guy is – but he’s a prolific and talented street artist with a clear artistic philosophy of self-individuation, truth, and love. But what really sets Elliott apart is that unlike other graffiti artists – he actually signs his work – with his real name. ‘I wanted to challenge graffiti artists around the world; the concept was to tell them and challenge them by signing my full legal name all in caps. If you sign it you take responsibility for it.’

Taking responsibility is a concept that means a lot to the father-of-four.

Elliott is facing charges of criminal harassment for the supposed ‘crime’ of sending some tweets to Toronto feminists Stephanie Guthrie, Paisley Rae, and Heather Reilly. If found guilty, Elliott faces up to six months in prison – with the verdict having far-reaching implications for freedom of speech in Canada. This is the first trial of its kind in Canada and is a test case for setting precedent in this area. If Guthrie et al are successful then the interpretation of the criminal code is expanded to include online activity. This in-itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If people receive legitimate threats, and feel threatened as a result – it is a criminal act, regardless of the medium. The problem arises however, when one examines the facts of this case and the specific criminal code in question.

Canadian criminal code 264 defines criminal harassment. Its definition describes a number of potentially criminal behaviours, such as stalking, repeated communication, and threatening behaviour. In order for these behaviours to be considered criminal – they must cause the complainant to ‘reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.’ In this particular case then, the prosecution faces two burdens of proof – the first that there was a form of behaviour that matches any one of the criteria laid out in the code, and that that behaviour was sufficient to cause the complainant to reasonably fear for their safety.

The Crown’s case, in both instances, is thinner than paper thin; indeed it is barely a wisp – and this is the reason why this case is so dangerous.

Should the Crown succeed in this reckless prosecution then not only is the interpretation of the criminal code expanded to include online harassment, but it is also expanded in terms of how personal safety is understood. It is important to note that not one of Elliott’s tweets or virtual communications is threatening – even by the most liberal interpretation of the word. Indeed, so unthreatening is Elliott that the officer in charge of the case, Toronto Police Detective Jeff Bangild, said in testimony last week that he found no tweets from Elliott that were threatening – none – among thousands. Just to be clear – this is from the officer in charge of the case.

If Banglid’s interpretation of the evidence is accurate then the prosecution’s case rests on selling the idea that this repeated communication, by itself, caused fear. This is almost impossible because the internet does not operate according to the rules of more traditional communication. It is extremely easy to block, or ignore people online. It is not like receiving multiple letters through the post or constant phone calls at three in the morning. It’s nothing like that. Consequently, the prosecution will have to demonstrate that Guthrie and her pals were genuinely frightened despite the fact that nothing Elliott did was actually threatening and that they could easily block him and ignore his tweets. They’re going to have a particularly difficult time with Guthrie given her constant boasting of having a folder on her computer full of death threats. Guthrie has made this claim on a number of occasions – one such occasion being the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG) meeting held at the Onatrio Institute for Secondary Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto last year. Guthrie made the claim to a room full of freshman and feminist activists at a meeting whose purpose was to spread lies about the MHRM and to call for militant action against those that support men’s human rights. One has to wonder if death threats don’t frighten her – then why would the non-threatening, repeated communication from a man she dismisses as a ‘troll?’

*****

It may surprise some to learn that Elliott and Guthrie were at one time friendly. Elliott was sympathetic to some of Guthrie’s causes and at one point offered his considerable talents as a graphic artist to help with one of her campaigns. Things changed though, when con artist Anita Sarkeesian was the target of an online game that encouraged players to virtually beat the crap out of her. Guthrie and her pals, unfazed by Sarkeesian’s shady past (and the anger within the gaming community at her questionable exploits,) doxxed the game’s developer Bendilin Spurr, and openly attempted to destroy his reputation, employment prospects, and even his romantic life in his hometown in Ontario. Elliott spoke out against Guthrie – labelling her behaviour as bullying and dangerous. What followed was a barrage of abuse between Guthrie, her feminist cohorts, and Elliott.

There was abuse on both sides but as the tweets make clear – Elliott was the victim of a concerted effort by Guthrie and her friends to bully the artist. Indeed, when one looks closely at the date stamps on the tweets – one can clearly see that Guthrie, Rae, and Reilly appear to adapt the same ‘communication strategy’ with Elliott on certain dates. For example, on September 9 2012, all three switch their message from open communication to attempting to create the appearance of actively ignoring Elliott. It is, however, extremely transparent from the tweets that this is a deliberate strategy – likely in anticipation of an action on their behalf (Elliott was arrested just two months later.) It is a pattern that marries well with defence attorney Chris Murphy’s assertion this week in court that Guthrie and her feminist stooges are guilty of deliberately manufacturing the entire debacle in an attempt to harass and discredit Elliott. Murphy alleged that in a meeting in Summer 2012 a group of feminists, including the three complainants got together to hatch a plan in which they would target Elliott’s followers and set up a parody account – both of which they did. (They created the parody twitter hashtag #GAEhole to refer to Elliot and openly called for people to shun him online.)

The internet has become an ideological battleground with feminists imposing their agenda on the unwilling and censoring dissent wherever it arises. Feminists, with Rebecca Watson as the figurehead, have ruined the atheist community. Feminists, with Anita Sarkeesian as the figurehead, have ruined the gaming community.  Feminists, with Adria Richards as the figurehead, have ruined the coding community.  Feminists, now with Stephanie Guthrie as the figurehead, are looking to do even more damage to the social media community.  (Feminists have also ruined the wikipedia community and are currently trying to ruin the WordPress community.)

Their modus operandi is becoming increasingly transparent – group together, time an ‘action’ and hurl as much mud as possible. The truth doesn’t matter to them. The idea of personal responsibility, of doing what Gregory Alan Elliott is willing to do – to sign one’s name to one’s actions, does not matter to them. It is time for this cowardly, disgusting behaviour to be highlighted – and punished. It is hoped that the criminal court of Ontario finds Gregory Alan Elliott not guilty.  It is overwhelmingly likely that they will, and it is further hoped that this will see an end to the public whining and private scheming of over-privileged feminists like Stephanie Guthrie, Heather Reilly, and Paisley Rae.

Joy Smith Continues her attack on men

BY Jim Byset

JOY SMITH has been in the news a lot lately.  She just recently held meetings at her offices in Ottawa with religious crazies and radical feminists in a bid to futher demonize male sexuality by censoring internet porn.  Now, the Conservative MP for Kildonan-St. Paul has continued her attack on men by positing the idea that male buyers of sex from prostitutes should be criminalized, but not the sellers.

Joy Smith wants to tell men and women when and how to have sex

It is hardly surprising that Smith should think this – given that she is incapable of formulating any worthwhile, original ideas herself.  While meeting with her group of radical fringe collaborators earlier this month she presented her idea of making internet users register with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to access freely available, legal, adult material.  The thing is, the idea is not hers.

It was already tabled in the U.K. where it now set to fully roll out in early 2014.  In fact, such is Smith’s fanaticism that while speaking to the National Post she made the astounding (and frankly unbelievable) claim that she “got a letter from a young boy 10 years of age telling me he was addicted to porn. It just brought me to tears.”

Smith’s statement today is in response to news that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC) has declared current laws on prostitution unconstitutional.  Her statement however, is little more than another pathetic attempt to demonize male sexuality by aping the legislation of other feminist zealots.  This time, she’s chosen to copy the efforts of feminist legislators in Sweden, who in 1999 made it illegal to purchase, but not to sell sex.

One has to wonder what they’re putting in the water in the constituency of Kildonan-St.Paul.  Here’s the statement – get your sick bags ready:

“The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Criminal Code offences around prostitution are unconstitutional. This ruling leaves police without important legal tools to tackle sex trafficking and organized crime and does not reflect a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision which stated that the elimination of prostitution through law was a valid goal.

Despite this ruling, the debate around prostitution is hardly settled. There are those who wish to legalize and normalize the industry, those who wish to criminalize all aspects of the industry, and finally those, like myself, who recognize prostitution as an industry that is inherently harmful to women and girls and therefore must be eliminated.

I am convinced that the most effective route to tackling prostitution and sex trafficking is to address the demand for commercial sex by targeting the buyers of sex. Countries that have legalized and regulated have seen sexual exploitation, human trafficking and violence towards women and girls increase drastically. In fact, a 2012 comprehensive  study of a cross section of up to 150 counties revealed that legalizing prostitution increased sex trafficking. In contrast, countries like Sweden and Norway, which have adopted the Nordic model of prostitution, have seen a significant decrease in prostitution and sex trafficking.

The Nordic model of prostitution is effective due to its three approaches: explicitly criminalizing the purchase of sexual services, a national awareness campaign to educate the public that the purchase of sexual services is harmful to women, and finally strong support programs for those who seek to exit prostitution.

Many police services across Canada have already shifted to policing models reflecting the Nordic model approach that women, girls and vulnerable populations are victimized and profoundly harmed by prostitution. The Toronto Police Service, Canada’s largest municipal force, mandates their Sex Crimes Unit Special Victims Section to recognize ‘sex workers as victims first.’ Vancouver Police Department’s Counter Exploitation Unit acknowledges ‘that Aboriginal women are over-represented’ among prostituted women and focuses on assisting ‘young people escape from the sex trade.’ The Winnipeg Police Service’s new Counter Exploitation Unit has also adopted ‘victim first’ driven investigations.

The harm caused by prostitution to women, girls and vulnerable populations has been well documented by women’s and First Nations organizations. During the June 13, 2013 Supreme Court of Canada hearings, the majority of interveners that were directly opposed to legalizing and regulating prostitution represented women’s organizations such as Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, Native Women’s Association of Canada, and Vancouver Rape Relief Society. These organizations presented compelling evidence to the Supreme Court of Canada that legalizing prostitution would place women, girls and vulnerable populations at much greater risk of exploitation.

Even the buyers of sex recognize the harm caused by prostitution to women. A 2012 Canadian study on the buyers of sex called Buyer Beware, found that of the 20 men interviewed, 8 of the men indicated that they acknowledged that women were most harmed by their act of buying sex and another 10 of the men felt both the woman and the buyer were harmed. Result – 90% of the men who bought sex recognized the women involved in prostitution were harmed by act of prostitution. The same study revealed that all 20 sex buyers would warn a first time sex buyer against engaging in prostitution due to the harm caused.

Prostitution must be eliminated because it dehumanizes and degrades humans and reduces them to a commodity to be bought and sold. Legalizing prostitution is a direct attack on the fundamental rights and freedoms of women, girls and vulnerable people. In the same regard, continuing to criminalize the women and vulnerable populations being prostituted creates barriers that prevent them from escaping prostitution and entrenches inequality.

Let’s be clear: those who advocate either approach ignore mounting empirical evidence and will find themselves on the wrong side of history and women’s equality.

As a nation, we must ensure pimps remain severely sanctioned and prostituted women and girls are not criminalized and instead given meaningful escape routes out of sex work. Most importantly, Canada must focus on the real root of prostitution by targeting the buyers of sex.”

Zealots to ape Brits: plan to introduce censorship to Canadian ISPs

BY Jim Byset

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.

Study finds that fathers are necessary after all

BY Jim Byset

GROWING up in a fatherless home could permanently alter the brain structure of children making them angry and even violent, Canadian scientists have warned. According to new research, children raised only by a single mother are at a higher risk of developing ‘deviant behaviour,’ such as drug abuse.

Dr. Gabriella Gobbi, who undertook the study alongside colleagues at the medical faculty at McGill University in Montreal Q.C., said: “This is the first time research findings have shown that paternal deprivation during development affects the neurobiology of the offspring.”

The research was conducted using California mice (who, like humans, have monogamous relationships and raise their young together) and compared the social activity and brain structure of youngsters with two parents, to those growing up only with mothers.

According to Gobbi and her team the findings have direct relevance to human society. Francis Bambico, of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, who contributed to the project, said: “Because we can control their environment, we can equalize factors that differ between them. Mice studies in the laboratory may therefore be clearer to interpret than human ones, where it is impossible to control all the influences during development.”

The brains of the fatherless mice developed in a different fashion, with the main changes seen as defects in the prefrontal cortex – the part of the brain that regulates social and cognitive activity. The study concluded that mice raised without a father demonstrated signs of ‘abnormal social interactions’ and were much more aggressive than mice raised with both parents.

The prefrontal cortex as found in the human brain
The prefrontal cortex as found in the human brain

“The behavioural deficits we observed are consistent with human studies of children raised without a father,” Dr. Gobbi said. “These children have been shown to have an increased risk for deviant behaviour.” According to the report, published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, daughters raised in fatherless families were at higher risk of anti-social behaviour and substance abuse than sons.

The mice’s behaviour was “consistent with studies in children raised without a father, highlighting an increased risk for deviant behaviour and criminal activity, substance abuse, impoverished educational performance and mental illness.”

The authors also observed that “[o]ur results emphasize the importance of the father during critical neurodevelopmental periods, and that father absence induces impairments in social behaviour that persist to adulthood.” Dr Gobbi said that the results suggested that both parents are essential for children’s mental health, and societal adaptation – and hoped the findings would encourage further research into the role of fathers in the lives of their children.