TDSB – The Beat Goes On – A Rhino Charges In!

 
Apparently the TDSBToronto District School Board makes a habit of attempting to shut down Free Speech employing less than savoury tactics, as so eloquently put in an article in the Toronto Sun about the TDSB trying to intimidate a Canadian blogger Arnie Lemaire of BlazingCatFur – Mr. Lemaire has written quite a few articles about the TDSB see Here

 

“In what can be described as more TDSB theatre of the absurd, an obscure six-week-old blog comment resulted in police visiting his home like one might see back in the day of the Stasi in communist East Germany.”

 

From: TDSB sics police on sarcastic blogger – By Joe Warmington, Toronto Sun First posted: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 09:27 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 09:33 PM EDT

Link Here.

As you can see from the date – Wednesday March 13, 2013 – what Margaret Wilson, the investigator appointed by the Minister of Education for Ontario to conduct a review of the TDSB – described as a “climate of fear” permeating the TDSB goes back quite a ways.

Now – I haven’t (deliberately) read any of the articles posted on BlazingCatFur – yet – about the TDSB – but – there sure is A LOT OF THEM – here’s the thing – no matter what opinions Mr. Lemaire has expressed – whether I agree with them or not – as far as I’m concerned he has the absolute right to express them – this is partly why I posted the link to his site before even reading anything he has written – his right to Free Speech trumps anyone’s right – including mine – to “be offended

Now it is my turn – I have finally found out who Ryan Bird is – the Ryan Bird who “Sherry” threatened she was going to go to, and “tell on me”

Sherrysherry_young@ontarioprincipals.ca

 Submitted on 2015/01/18 at 1:03 pm

 Remove your two articles before I call Ryan Bird to call the police on you”

(emphasis added)

It seems she did “tell on me” because here is the latest “comment” from a member of the TDSB – Toronto District School Board – and here he is. Ryan Bird.

 

His comment.

“REMOVE DEFAMATORY ARTICLE

ryan.bird@tdsb.on.ca

 Submitted on 2015/01/24 at 12:13 am

 Your article is slander. REMOVE or else face the legal consequences of defamation of character.”

 Ryan Bird is described in numerous articles –as a “TDSB spokesperson”

 TDSB investigating explicit sex education pamphlets posted in classroom – By James Armstrong and Mark Carcasole Global News Link here.

 

“My understanding is that it was part of a sexual health resource that was offered up to students, should they want to see that,” said Ryan Bird, a spokesperson for the Toronto District School Board.

 Bird said the school board took down the material once they were notified, but board officials say the pamphlets had been on display for months. Bird said the school board is looking into how long the pamphlets had been on display.

“You would think that somebody would’ve noticed it,” said Doretta Wilson, Executive Director of the Society for Quality Education. “It’s not that innocuous.”

(emphasis added)

TDSB director’s salary hiked despite letter from Education Minister – KAREN HOWLETT and CAROLINE ALPHONSO – The Globe and Mail – Published Friday, Nov. 21 2014, 5:00 AM EST

Last updated Friday, Nov. 21 2014, 5:00 AM EST – Link Here.

 

“The compensation of your new permanent Director is limited to the amount earned by the predecessor, in this case Mr. Chris Spence,” says the letter dated Jan. 10, 2014, a copy of which was obtained by The Globe and Mail.

 A spokeswoman for Ms. Sandals said the minister and Mr. Bolton have had no formal communication since the January letter, and she is not aware of the details of the contract.

 Mr. Bolton did not respond to an e-mail on Thursday. Ms. Quan has also refused to answer questions from The Globe.

 TDSB spokesman Ryan Bird said Ms. Quan’s compensation was approved at a private board meeting attended by 18 of 22 trustees.

However, several school board sources said trustees were not part of the decision to pay Ms. Quan more than what her predecessor earned. Trustee Pamela Gough said it is “very troubling” that Mr. Bolton ignored Ms. Sandals’ letter.”

(emphasis added)

 

Fake teacher worked at five TDSB schools, police say – By:Alex BallingallNews, Published on Thu Jul 31 2014 – Link Here.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/07/31/fake_teacher_worked_at_five_tdsb_schools_police_say.html

 

“Ryan Bird, spokesperson for the TDSB, said the man wasn’t hired by the school board, but rather is alleged to have assumed the identity of an existing employee on the substitute teacher’s list.

 The board is now reviewing how it calls in and hires substitute teachers, Bird said. He would not comment on how the TDSB found out what was going on, or what spurred the discovery of an alleged imposter in their midst.

“We were made aware of this individual at one of the schools,” Bird said. “When we did become aware of it, Toronto police were notified immediately.”

 Bird declined to comment when asked whether the man arrested knew the substitute teacher who was being impersonated, and referred the question to police.

 Bird could not confirm whether the alleged impostor was getting paid. “I think it’s important to know that this is a very isolated incident. To our recollection this has never happened before at the TDSB,” Bird said.”

(emphasis added)

I was struck by two things – first the “spokesperson” of the TDSB “could not confirm” whether this fake teacher was getting paid – even though he was apparently employed as a teacher – and second, it seems that the TDSB relies on memory to recall incidents that happen within the TDSB – pardon me?

They don’t keep records???? About who teaches in their schools? About whether or not they are qualified to be teachers? Paid as teachers?

Tut tut Mr. Bird – that’s a tried a tested “device” for not answering a direct question – you learn that in law school – if you don’t want to answer a direct question you say “I don’t recall” sheesh – everyone knows that!

There are only two possible answers to “have there ever been any other instances when an unqualified person impersonated a teacher in the TDSB?”

Yes or No. Or if you really want to be emphatic – “absolutely not”

Here’s a couple of Child Safety Policy questions for you Rhino.

What procedures are in place in Toronto District School Board schools to protect children from random persons just wandering into schools – claiming to be teachers?

What procedures are in place to check the identity and qualifications of all persons seeking access to children in TDSB schools?

Anyhoo Rhino oops I mean Ryano – drat – Ryan – I take it you’re the TDSB enforcer – you come charging in, huffing and puffing and blowing hot blasts of deadly steam from all orifices – and the object of your fury quivers in abject fear – is that the usual scenario?.

You should be grateful that your name isn’t Barney – otherwise I’d have to liken you to the evil twin brother of big purple dinosaur – a big annoying purple dinosaur. 🙂

See – now I get it – when rent a brain “Sherry” issued her threat that she was gonna tell on me to Ryan Bird I was supposed to run like a rabbit who just spotted a member of the Squamata Serpentes family – that would be snakes by the way.

Except of course you came charging in here like a rhino on speed – I have a typically Irish response to a bully boy stomping about issuing orders.

Póg mo thóin

 Tell me something Rhino – have you issued the same threat TO EVERY SINGLE newspaper, journalist and commenter on every single article (of which there are loads) that portrays the TDSB and its employees in a less than positive light ?

Will you also be issuing the same threat to the Minister of EducationLiz Sandals (who I have contacted by the way) and her investigator Margaret Wilson over this Report?

You can’t miss it – it’s right there on the home page of The Ministry of Education for Ontario.

It would appear that “throwing your weight about” is a feature of TDSB tactics – that the “climate of fear” noted by investigator Margaret Wilson in her Review of the TDSB has led to an unwarranted belief that you can pull that shit GLOBALLY.

From: Voters must take Toronto District School Board mess seriously: Editorial – Link Here.

 

“An Ernst and Young audit last December found $1.3 million in unauthorized raises for senior staff, and noted there was a “culture of fear” among staff about speaking out when problems arise. That audit also criticized trustees for interfering in day-to-day operations of the school board.

Board employees complained earlier this year that they had been subjected to “abusive, threatening and insulting comments” by some board members. Nine of the 22 trustees themselves said they felt threatened by some of their colleagues. The situation got so bad in March that former board chair Chris Bolton asked police to attend TDSB meetings in response to threatening behaviour by a trustee.”

(emphasis added)

What kind of “wild west” gangster operation are you people running over there? Police at School Board meetings? These are people entrusted with the education of CHILDREN?

Some bloody examples you are for impressionable children – a shower of thugs is what you sound like.

 

Let me tell you what I think – what my opinion is of the TDSB and some of its employees – like you and your coven of wretches.

You’re a disgrace – an absolute disgrace to Education – you should be run out of town on a rail – the whole toxic, mealy mouthed, moronic lot of you.

You and your ilk shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the education of children – if the Minister of Education Liz Sandals has any sense she will exercise her powers under The Education Act 1990 and SHUT YOU DOWN.

Yep – I’ve read the legislation – thoroughly – and The Minister of Education HAS the power to kick your sorry arse to the kerb – the whole lot of you. Left a link there for ya – but I’ll let you go looking for the relevant section. By the way it’s really really looooooooooooooooong. Have fun now.

Judging by not only the number of articles about the cesspit that is the TDSB, but by the almost all negative comments on all these articles – no one is going to be crying any tears over you shower of gobshoites being kicked out on your arses – NO ONE!

 

Now – kindly take a running jump off a very short pier.

 

Slainte agus ná lig do an doras bhuail tú ar an thóin ar an mbealach amach 🙂

Kristallnacht – Déjà Vue – Detroit – 2014

 

“Kristallnacht, literally, “Night of Crystal,” is often referred to as the “Night of Broken Glass.” The name refers to the wave of violent anti-Jewish pogroms which took place on November 9 and 10, 1938, throughout Germany, annexed Austria, and in areas of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia recently occupied by German troops.

Instigated primarily by Nazi Party officials and members of the SA (Sturmabteilungen: literally Assault Detachments, but commonly known as Storm Troopers) and Hitler Youth, Kristallnacht owes its name to the shards of shattered glass that lined German streets in the wake of the pogrom—broken glass from the windows of synagogues, homes, and Jewish-owned businesses plundered and destroyed during the violence.”

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005201

 

There is none more fundamental Human Right that the right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Belief and Speech – but this basic Human Right encompasses more than just this.

“Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition — this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is

the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.” Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.”

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech

 

Instigating, calling for, threatening, or perpetrating violence against those who do not believe what you believe, who do not agree with your opinion, who do not think the way you think – is akin to the progrom that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews – and Kristallnacht was the first salvo in what became one the most horrific murderous periods of genocide in human history – and it began with broken glass.

Feminists have now embarked on preparations for another Kristallnacht – 76 years after that first Kristallnacht – because they do not believe that anyone has the right to believe, think or articulate anything other than what they believe, think or articulate.

Feminists are the new Nazis.

As a free citizen of the Republic of Ireland I declare that in my opinion feminism is a hate movement, a terrorist organisation and is akin to Nazism.

That anyone who collaborates with, supports, endorses or stands idly by and refuses to condemn feminism in all its manifestations, roots and branches is equally culpable, equally complicit is supporting a terrorist organisation, a hate movement and an ideology that has no other comparison other than to Nazism.

On June 26 – 29 2014 A Voice for Men (AVfM) intends to hold an International Conference on Men’s Rights in Detroit – the hotel at which this conference is being hosted has been in contact with Paul Elam owner and publisher of AVfM to make him aware that serious threats of violence, and of death threats have been made against not just conference attendees but the hotel, its staff and other guests.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/threats-of-violence-and-death-against-doubletree-hilton-in-detroit-over-mens-conference/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/AVFM-Security-Letter-REDACTED.pdf

From a reading of the communication sent to Paul Elam from the hotel – two things are clear – the hotel is taking these threats seriously, and the hotel also expects the conference organisers to pay for the protection of the hotel, its staff, its guests and conference attendees.  Including attendees from other sovereign states – we’ll get back to this shortly, and anyone who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Against terrorists.

Except – the issuing of credible threats is a Federal Criminal Offence in the US – it is a crime.

“b)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(c)Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Source

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 99–646, § 63,Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), (H), (K),Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

See also

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/876?qt-us_code_tabs=0#qt-us_code_tabs

 

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any   communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of ‘intent.’ Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.

The holding in United States v. DeAndino, 958 F.2d 146 (US Ct. App. 6th Cir. 1992) confirms this statement. In DeAndino, the court held: “A criminal statute such as 18 U.S.C.S. § 875(c) does not contain a specific mens rea element. However, such a statute is not presumed to create a strict liability offense, because mere omission from the statute of any mention of intent will not be construed as eliminating that element from the crime denounced.”

In other words, ‘federal stalking,’ as this crime is also known, is not a strict liability crime but it does require prosecutors to prove that the accused committed the offense. Thus, the ‘wording’ of the e-mails and the e-mails themselves are critical evidence in these cases.

Threats of injury must be found in the e-mails sent by the accused. As the Court held in DeAndino, the words in the [e-mail] message must fully, directly, and expressly set the elements of the statutory offense.

For instance, in Tuason, the wording of one of his e-mails said: “Mulatto kids are ugly freaks that should be destroyed. . . The blackie should be castrated. I want people in public malls, photo shoots, TV studios, radio, concerts, arenas, restaurants, NBC TV, Bravo TV, parties, sidewalks, etc. to stare and stab dead any blackie with a white girl like “SS”. . . If not, I “HK” WILL BOMB THE PLACE.” These words are a clear example of threatening words of injury under the federal statute.

Many other US circuit courts have followed this interpretation in DeAndino. For instance, the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth circuit courts have followed this interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) as not requiring specific mens rea (mental state of intent).

DeAndino held that this crime requires three specific elements: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.

Therefore, according to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) sending e-mails with words threatening injury is a federal crime and can be easily proven by showing that it was sent to a person in other state, showing the e-mail, and the wording the e-mail contains.

Thus, individuals prompt to explosive reactions should be cautions when wording their e-mail messages. A simple ‘mistake’ in wording e-mails threatening its recipient with an injury, even if not intended, may typify a federal crime with a harsh imprisonment sentence.”

 

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?id=2064&s=latestnews

 

The communication from the hotel makes reference to “calls” and “other threats” would it be beyond the realms of possibility that these threats were also issued via email, and/or online?

The hotel suggests that AVfM pays for extra police officers in order to protect, the hotel, its staff, its guests and conference attendees. From terrorists, and to take out insurance – against terrorist threats.

I have some questions – is the FBI involved? Are Detroit police investigating these criminal acts?

Again from reading the communication sent to Paul Elam from the hotel – these threats are being made against not just actual attendees of this conference – but hotel staff, hotel guests NOT attending this conference and one presumes any other person who might happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Again – I ask –  is the Federal Bureau of Investigation  involved in what appears to be credible threats of violence and credible death threats?

Back to citizens of other sovereign states who may either be attending this conference or just happen to be guests of this hotel at the same time.

Will the US State Department now be issuing warnings to citizens of other sovereign states intending to visit the United States of America that they do so at their own peril – recommend that visitors bring full body armour and take out either private insurance or hire private security personnel to accompany them on their visit to the United States of America – “Land of the Free, home of the brave” because apparently now, one only gets state police protection and Federal protection against threats of violence, and death threats from feminists, if one pays – the police force.

I recommend that citizens of other sovereign states intending to visit the United States of America, contact their embassies and Foreign Affairs Departments to make formal complaints to the government of the United States of America that threats of violence, and death threats against either US citizens or citizens of other sovereign states are tolerated in the United States of America – if they are made by feminists.

Apparently the targets of these threats of violence or death are irrelevant – whether attendees at a conference, staff of hotels or any other guests who just happen to be there.

So, what is it that the feminists who have issued these threats are “objecting” to? Not by disagreeing, not by legitimately protesting under legally sanctioned “freedom of association” – but by issuing death threats and threats of violence – not just against conference attendees, but the hotel, its staff, its guests, citizens of other sovereign states and any other person who – as I said – happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because they do NOT uphold or believe in that most basic of all fundamental Human Rights.

Freedom of Speech, thought, conscience and belief.

 

Many people have written about this fundamental Human Right – the prophetic George Orwell

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell

Apparently in the United States of America – the home of “Liberty” if feminists don’t like what they hear – they will threaten violence and death against those saying those things they don’t want to hear – so that nobody else gets to hear them either – this would be in pursuit of “equal rights” no doubt?

Several US presidents have also addressed the issue of Freedom of Speech.

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

George Washington

It would appear that George Washington knew what he was talking about with regard to “slaughter” as feminists appear to believe that killing those with whom you disagree with is a legitimate way to advocate for “equal rights”

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”

Harry S. Truman

Mr. Truman was prescient – “a country where everyone lives in fear.” From feminists – who will perpetrate violence or fatal injury upon anyone who “disagrees” with them.

How about one of the famous Americans of all time?

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood, The Busy-Body, and Early Writings

Did I mention that America prides itself on being the bastion of Liberty and Freedom and Democracy?

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”

[The One Un-American Act, Speech to the Author’s Guild Council in New York, on receiving the 1951 Lauterbach Award (December 3, 1952)]”

William O. Douglas

Our own inimitable Oscar had something to say about Freedom of Speech.

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

Oscar Wilde

A twist on that most famous of all quotes about Freedom of Speech.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Voltaire

Though from the feminist perspective that should read “if I don’t agree with what you say – I will visit death and violence upon you – so that you don’t get to say what I disagree with”

 

The last word goes to Christopher Hitchens.

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

Christopher Hitchens

I would like to add this – for any feminist attempting to pull the NAFALT – (Not All Feminists Are Like That) card – let me say this – ALL feminism is like that – if you subscribe to, endorse, support or turn a blind eye to the toxic roots, murderous and criminal behaviour of ANY section, part, branch of form of feminism – you ARE like that.

And you can kiss my Irish arse.

 

All quotes from – http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech

 

For those who think “this has nothing to do with me, am not either a feminist or a MRA/MHRA – storm in a teacup” – then bear this mind.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”

 

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

 

You don’t have to be a feminist or a MRA/MHRA or any other designation to believe in the sanctity of Human Rights – hell you don’t even have to like the human being whose rights you acknowledge as being sacrosanct – even the biggest arsehole on the planet has those Human Rights.

You don’t have to be anything but a Human Being to speak out against injustice, against prejudice, against hatred, against bigotry.

For those feminists caught in that toxic loop – “you must be a feminist” – I’m NOT a feminist – and hey look – my head didn’t explode – an asteroid didn’t hit the earth – the sun didn’t fall out of the sky.

I’m NOT a feminist and I believe 100% in the sanctity of Human Rights – you don’t you are a female supremacist – a supporter of thugs – of terrorists – unless you completely disavow and reject any tenet of feminism –  and you continue to stand idly by and say nothing about what YOUR movement deems a legitimate form of protest – threats of violence and death threats against those who also declare – I’m NOT a feminist.

Not speaking up – turning a blind eye makes you complicit.

These people claim to speak on your behalf – to be the voice of feminism – THIS is what your feminism is – in all its putrid toxic murderous and vile hate-filled glory. Your feminism.

There have been many many people whose beliefs were so deeply held they were worth dying for – YOURS apparently are worth killing for.

 

Edit – just got notification of this at change.org

“Its Time To Class Feminism As a Terrorist Group”

 

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-government-its-time-to-class-feminism-as-a-terrorist-group

On Being a Non Feminist

 

 From the perspective of the Right to: Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief……

 

I’ve heard it said more times than I can recall and read  innumerable times on various sites, blogs, articles and essays, that THIS is one of the most basic fundamental Human Rights – and I agree – it is.

Most people interpret this to mean that they get to say, think and believe whatever they damn well like, and anyone who attempts to suppress them exercising this most basic of fundamental Human Rights is pond scum.

But, this is not the real test of your personal endorsement of this Right, nor is it an indication of how you personally stand on higher moral ground as opposed to others, because of the fact that you believe anyone who attempts to suppress YOUR Right to Free Speech is pond scum, that is.

No, what truly indicates that you personally are a stalwart and immovable proponent of what I will just call Freedom of Speech, for convenience,  is your commitment, your endorsement, your 100% support of ANOTHERS Right to say, think and believe things that are in direct opposition, in complete conflict with, and are anathema to YOU.

Even feminists, even those who hold religious beliefs while you are an Atheist and/or Agnostic or vice versa, even those who express the most abhorrent (to you) opinions – what truly marks you as a genuine believer in the concept of Freedom of Speech is not just a grudging willingness to concede “they have a right to their opinion/belief” but a deep and unwavering stance that THEY have the Right (in capitals) to do so, just like YOU have the Right to hold yours.

The other aspect of being a true proponent of Freedom of Speech is an ability to depersonalise the person from the opinion or belief – and yes I am aware that there are those both historically and at this present time, who hold and have held the most egregious beliefs, the most abhorrent opinions, and have acted on those beliefs and opinions, and which caused terrible acts of inhumanity, which precipitated horrors of genocide and cruelty.  These people rightly deserve universal condemnation, without exception, and all those who acted in equally abhorrent ways because they “believed” in the veracity and “rightness” of the “opinions” and “beliefs” of these dictators, tyrants and murderous “leaders” also deserve the most adamant condemnation.

But, this is where the nuances come in – even these tyrants were entitled by right to hold these abhorrent opinions, they were and are wrong, and when they acted on those beliefs, they committed grave wrongs against humanity – but they were entitled, by right to BELIEVE whatever it was they believed.

So, when I say that the test for a genuine commitment to Freedom of Speech involves an ability to depersonalise the belief/opinion from the person what I mean is that one separates an opinion or belief NOT acted upon in a way that causes actual physical harm to another human being, or caused actual physical harm to be done – in your name – to another human being.

Also, when I say actual physical harm, I also include laws enacted that impose sanctions or restrictions or punishments unjustly upon others because of some characteristic that is inherent to them. Acts of individual social and cultural harm, acts that are designed to demonise or propagate permissions to treat other individuals in negative ways.

Feminism does that, feminism spreads and propagandise lies, misrepresentations and false information about men and boys – but – feminists – have the right to express those sometimes ridiculous and nearly always designed to BE harmful, opinions and beliefs should they be acted upon deserve all the condemnation and universal approbation that comes their way.

The question for others is this? Having heard, having listened, or read these opinions or beliefs – what will YOU do? How will YOU act?

Accept or reject? THAT is your Right. Whether you are an individual or a politician with the authority to enact legislation based on the beliefs or opinions of feminist – you have to choose – to accept or reject. Sometimes choosing to do nothing is as harmful as to choose to do something.

In many ways it is as simple as that, to say – “I hear or I read what you have written or said and I reject it” – and therefore CHOOSE not to act in ways informed by those beliefs or opinions that endorses, codifies or imposes laws, sanctions or punishments on others who choose also NOT to accept your opinion or belief about “how things should be”.  Choose not to act in ways that harms other individuals because I choose to believe and/or accept the opinions/beliefs of others that endorses and validates these harmful acts.

So, while accepting that even the misinformed, the perpetually stupid, the completely “off the reservation” have the Right to hold whatever opinion/belief they wish, you also the Right to say – thank you for sharing your opinion – now please go away. (or, words to that effect)

This encompasses the final element of passing the test for being truly committed to principles of Freedom of Speech, Thought and Belief – being willing to accept, to acknowledge and to endorse the rights of others to not just reject YOUR opinion/belief but that THEY have the Right to do so – unconditionally and to NOT act in ways informed by YOUR opinions/beliefs.

You cannot, you must not, you shall not expect, demand or attempt to coerce OTHERS to – believe what you believe, think what you think or ACT in ways informed by YOUR beliefs/opinions that conflicts with their right to act as THEIR conscience dictates. To do so, to expect so and to demand so is to be a tyrant, a dictator and an enemy of Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief.

What overlays all these elements that comprise the concept of Freedom of Speech, is an overarching belief and willingness to extend without conditions – The Right to Reply.

So, I’m not “anti-feminist” because feminists are people, individuals, and therefore have the right to believe whatever they like or choose to. You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese if you like and for all I care – but you do not have the right to demand that I do also.

I am a non feminist – in that I CHOOSE to reject in its entirety the ideology, belief system, doctrine, whatever one chooses, called FEMINISM, but absolutely, unconditionally and without hesitation endorse an individual persons right to not just believe in the tenets of “feminism” but to call themselves “feminists” and I will exercise MY Right to criticise, to condemn, to reject and to  basically take the piss out of ANY belief or opinion you, as a feminist EXPRESS whether verbally or written that is informed by the tenets OF feminism.

And if you truly are a proponent of Freedom of Speech – you will take it – you will do the only honourable thing, the only moral or ethical thing – answer mine or anyone else’s criticisms with counter arguments, with EVIDENCE that gives validity to YOUR opinions/beliefs and perhaps might convince me to CHANGE my opinions, and extend to others the same opportunity.

Though I should warn you – if no-one has presented an argument over the last 25 years and more, to recruit me personally to the “feminist” cause – I wouldn’t hold your breath if I was you. But, you are more than welcome to try.

Alternatively, you could do what HuffPo did to Mike Buchanan of J4MB, when he attempted to get a post published on their blog, show the entire world an almost perfect example of how those who have no idea what Freedom of Speech means – how to act to suppress, to deny, to violate and disregard the very principles that underpin this most important, sacred and  essential of Human Rights, for civilised Human Societies.

 

Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief……

 

© Anja Eriud 2014