Wednesday, 28 August 2013

If you're not for us, you are guilty of a hate crime!

Many of you probably don't know (or care!) that Israel is a very recent concept. Israel, as a nation-state, with it's own army, and air force, and of course, nuclear weapons, is not something that could have been comprehensible or desirable to many ordinary people, including Jews, in the past.

The desire to have such a state is called Zionism. Now, after the holocaust, the problem was, where should all the Jews go? For all the sympathy that the truth of their horrible treatment evoked, the fact was that there was still a lot of racist and religious antipathy. Where could they go to be safe from persecution? Why, where a bunch of other people were already living, of course! How could that turn out badly!

So the Zionists had a phrase they would use. "If you are anti-zionist, you are anti-semitic!". Any Jews who criticised them could be dismissed as "self-hating Jews". I noticed almost every Jewish person I admire seems to be regarded as such.

Now this is how I feel about women and feminism. When I say "I am anti-Feminist" (meaning I am opposing to that ideology which holds men to be inferior to women and which currently has political dominance), that is translated by Feminists as "He is anti-feminine!" (meaning he is opposed to females or sees them as inferiors).

This is of course false, but it's a useful falsehood. By confusing the issue, you can trigger legislation designed to protect people against hate crimes. This has already happened in some religious examples, where attacking the religious ideology is conflated with attacking the person of the religious.

It's not enough that our peaceful meetings are illegally disrupted and our social media accounts closed, but even posters expressing our views must be destroyed. We live in times when free speech is on the verge of extinction. Perhaps by pointing this out, i can be convicted of terroristic speech?

Indeed, increasingly the talk is of outlawing any rival ideology to feminism.

For example,


Anna North:

"...Such views are dangerous and constitute a hate crime here in Canada. I hope the United States can one day move towards a similar policy. It is not acceptable to hate any group of people on any premise. The type of toxic messages that the "MRA's" are putting forth are toxic. This man's views are consistent with that of a terrorist, and he is obviously in need of a lot of psychological help.
We'll never end violence and hatred against women and other subjugated groups until people understand that these kinds of thoughts and ideas are completely harmful and unacceptable. 1/07/12 11:46am"

The argument there is

1) A disturbed individual is an MRA
2) All MRAs are therefore dangerous
3) The act of disagreement itself is tantamount to violence and must be outlawed.

I see this consistently in Feminist blogs and books.

What is thoughtcrime?

" the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party."

In our world, we have the liberty to think and feel in any way we desire. We do not have the freedom to act unconditionally however. These ideologues want to extend the law, to make dissent itself forbidden.

It is not acceptable to hate any group of people on any premise.

Of course, the problem then is that many religions are founded on hating groups of people. Shall we arrest all Hindus and all Muslims, regardless of their actions, if they simply hate the rival ideology? Or shall we selectively enforce the concept of hatecrime?

Henry Laasanen claims 1:

The Nordic Council has received recommendations from the expert panel to forbid antifeminist speech in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Norway).
The “Expert panel” was full of radical feminists and profeminist men.
The report is written in the Nordic languages (except Finnish) and some parts in English.
In the report antifeminist speech and right-wing extremist hate speech towards immigrants are treated as a part of the same movement.
MRM is labeled as part of right-wing extremism.
The report has an English summary (page 35).

  1. Antifeminist Threats and Harassment must be made Illegal (We recommend that the Nordic governments ensure that threats and harassment on the basis of gender are made illegal. Hate speech online must be prosecuted similarly to hate speech in other public spheres.)
  2. Low threshold services for reporting threats and Harassment must be established (We recommend that the Nordic governments establish a low threshold service for reporting antifeminist and extremist threats and harassment. )
  3. Annual national surveys of anti-feminism must be implemented.
  4. Research on anti feminism must be prioritized.
  5. Increasing equality and anti-discrimination requires the change to Masculinist standards
  6. Measures to aid marginalized men and boys should be implemented.
  7. Anti-feminism should be part of the Equality officers’ activity area.
  8. The press must take care of their responsibilities against antifeminism (The media must ensure that it has the competence to meet extreme actors without legitimising them or their opinions. Editors of online comments’ fields have a special responsibility to ensure that their users are not made targets of threats and harassment, and that xenophobic and antifeminist sentiments are not fuelled or legitimised.)
  9. Cooperation on antifeminism between countries and groups must continue.
  10. Interdisciplinary Nordic anti-feminist conference should be conducted.
Point number 8 interesting: “Editors of online comments’ fields have a special responsibility to ensure that… xenophobic and antifeminist sentiments are not fuelled or legitimised.” The expert panel wants to treat MRM same as racist hate speech, and Editors of the media must obey."

1I can't check Henry's words since I don't speak the language but I have heard this as a rumour. If you do speak the language, feel free to dispute it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please try to avoid logical fallacies!