If feminists define rape, Thibeault is guilty as sin.
The FreeThoughtBlogger Jason Thibeault, also known as the Lousy Canuck, is, by his own feminist standards, a confessed rapist.
Unless you live under a tight rock formation you have probably heard that the feminist and skeptic/atheist communities are in an uproar over a recent accusation by PZ Myers on his FreeThoughtBlog(s). In short, he is accusing Michael Shermer, one of the very big names in skepticism/atheism, of being a rapist. The accusation is based on the story told by a friend of a friend. Names must remain anonymous because, as we all know, women are afraid to come forward because they are not believed, feel threatened, and the police never do anything.
In essence, PZ Myers’ position is that since women have reason(s) to be afraid, they should be allowed to make their accusations anonymously by “Chinese Telephone” (hearsay in the nth degree), no questions asked – and the rapists must be tried and punished in the Court of Pub(l)ic opinion. Not to make these accusations known is, according to PZ, extremely harmful since it shields the rapists and allows them to rape forever with abandon. For this reason Myers’ accusation appears under the heading of “ethics.” As we all know, Myers is the most ethical guy bestriding this narrow earth.
So Myers outed Shermer as a rapist on third-hand anonymous evidence. The ensuing shitstorm dwarfs the kerfuffle of Elevatorgate.
This has extreme implications for the Men’s Human Rights Movement. Few seem to notice that Myers’ claims go far beyond this one case. The feminists are ready to apply this principle universally. Even if in this case the accuser should come forward and Shermer were to be proven a rapist, it would not stop there. Accusations like this would spring up like mushrooms, all covered by the new PZ “ethics.” Of course all would be directed at men. If this new ethics gains traction we will all be in deep trouble.
In this context, a friend of ours was approached by an ardent feminist friend who had evidence that one of the FTB guys – The Lousy Canuck, Jason Thibeault – was a rapist himself, by feminist standards, hiding in plain sight there for years and possibly mocking victims and feminists with his unctuous faux feminist concerns. This feminist friend of our friend had evidence (the written statements of the perpetrator himself) and airtight arguments. No feminist could possibly dismiss her.
However, this feminist friend of our friend is well aware that FTB and PZ Myers play hardball. She is afraid that nobody will believe her warning. She is scared to death because she has good reasons that going public will result in threats and severe retaliation. She is very much afraid for her life. FTB doesn’t deal kindly with dissenters. Obviously, she is also afraid to publish on any other feminist website.
So, in her desperation she approached our friend and gave him the story. It was a whopper of a story. However, our friend saw that it was all based on pure facts that Jason Thibeault had disclosed himself right there on FTB. Her arguments are standard feminist arguments and should convince anybody on the feminist side.
So, while it may seem odd for us giving voice to a feminist, this one had no other outlet for her rage and dismay. So we decided to have compassion and do the ethical thing. She mostly dictated this piece to our friend, and it is all in her words with minor edits.
She fervently wishes that her words be heard and that you don’t hold it against her that she is breaking her silence on this website. She is afraid that on any feminist blog her voice will simply be erased. She is also deathly afraid that her silence may endanger many other women with whom Jason Thibeault may come in contact. She thinks that for ethical reasons she must warn other women.
The following piece was – with slight variations – submitted as a comment to the Lousy Canuck blog. Needless to say, it never made it through his “moderation.” Jason Thibeault had every chance to answer it. He chose silence.
Update: In the meantime 5 other women have come forward to accuse Jason Thibeault. They also have good reason to assert that he is a rapist, given the evidence. They demand that accusers be believed. Surely, more women will come forward.
Trigger Warning: Truth
I was reading the Lousy Canuck’s (Jason Thibeault’s) blog from August 10, 2013 “The web of trust: Why I believe Shermer’s accusers.” One passage made me sit up with alarm.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2013/08/10/the-web-of-trust-why-i-believe-shermers-accusers/
Here is what he stated a bit down in the text:
“When I was 16, my first girlfriend accused me of rape in order to preempt any acrimony over her sleeping with someone else, and the only things that saved me — unpopular kid as I was — were the facts that she’d repeatedly and demonstrably lied to a lot of people about a lot of things very often, eroding anyone’s trust in her, and because she happened to tell a lie integral to her accusation that I could disprove.
“Her accusation ruined her own reputation amongst her then circle of friends, but she moved on, built new trusts, violated them as well, and generally made a wreck of her life as far as I cared to follow.”
Jason details the whole incident in an earlier post from May 22, 2009.
That post doesn’t add much to his current description, but it differs in some crucial details which I will explain later. At this point let us only mention that the “lie” concerns the claim by the girl that she defended herself with a screwdriver stabbing his chest. He feels exonerated by the fact that he showed his chest unwounded apparently many weeks later (by his own statement) to his friends. Not only is it possible that the young girl misjudged how deeply she had stabbed, but it is equally likely that the wound had completely healed by the time he bared his chest. Also, in his earlier post he openly states that he is a serial liar. More about that below.
Please follow me in this very real scenario:
So, we know that he was accused of rape. That is a fact he admits. Now what about his response/excuse? Here’s why it won’t/can’t fly among feminists:
First, a simple statistical consideration. Feminists believe that less than six percent of rape accusations are false. Also, 1, 2, or 3 out of 4 women are raped in their lifetime, depending on the (supposed) research you quote. In his earlier post Canuck says that she made one more rape accusation about another guy. Now, the chance that she was REALLY raped at some point in her life is huge (according to the above statistics) and she would certainly have made an accusation in that case – she isn’t shy about these things. From the above numbers it is clear that there is a 50/50 chance that the encounter with the Canuck was the real rape. We only have his word for it that it wasn’t. Do we trust him? That’s the crux of his post. From his own words and contradictions we can’t trust him.
Well, from a feminist point, his excuse doesn’t/can’t fly in any case. He’s lucky it was more than 15 years ago. If it went to a real courtroom today, he wouldn’t have a prayer. Even in a REAL courtroom his defense that she is a serial liar won’t be admitted due to shield laws that serve women well. Her accusation would stand on its own. We hear it was a well-rehearsed story (if it was a story). So it would probably be credible. She’s also under-age. Even in a real courtroom Jason would have a better than 50/50 chance to come away with 25+ years in prison and a permanent spot on the sex offender registry. He would likely be tried as an adult. Let’s remember that these rules exist to protect women.
Ironically, his best hope would be the cops investigating her claim. Cops are agents of the patriarchy. Like typical cops they may imagine that they see through her story and not charge him. Cops often fancy themselves rational. We know they rarely believe victims. Of course, feminists are rightly outraged about that. However, once it gets into court, only those facts would be heard that get filtered though shield laws and similar laws. These filters were put in to benefit victims and to make rape convictions easier.
But let’s look at a court venue that has been largely shaped by modern feminist thinking – if this comes up on a college/university campus, Jason’s chances would be practically 100% for conviction. His career and his life would be ruined, as it should be for a rapist.
The standard here is “preponderance of evidence.” So it only needs to look like more than 50 percent likely that he did it. Now, everybody in higher education has read the numerous studies that prove that false accusations are (much) less than 6%. From the bat, the evidence preponders against Jason at 94%.
Like in real court, he can forget about bringing up her history. Even the attempt would count as a negative. In these courts, fortunately, you won’t be allowed to smear women.
Next, he can forget about legal representation. Lawyers don’t try to find the truth. Lawyers work to get perpetrators and rapists off. These hearings also don’t have a jury, since juries can easily be swayed by the smug lies of a rapist. He can also forget about cross-examining his accuser. Fortunately, in these hearings it is not allowed for the victim to be re-victimized by the rapist’s badgering. There is also no need for physical evidence. We know that most rapes don’t leave physical evidence. Finally, and most fortunately, the judges will be versed in feminist literature and theory. Most of these judges are wise women who have their own ways of knowing. A rapist can’t pull the wool over their eyes.
So much for Jason’s chances in legal proceedings. Now, what should WE on the internet make of the story? We only have Jason’s word for it that he is innocent. Can we believe him? He is a man, so he belongs to the group that is extremely likely to offend sexually. It is also a vital part of our basic feminist worldview that we must always believe accusers.
Here on the internet, we can judge by different standards – and the outcome is not very pleasant for Jason. So, let us explore how that plays out:
First, let’s unpack Jason’s excuse. He actually tells us (probably unwittingly) a lot more than is good for him.
There’s this surprising tidbit:
“Throughout our relationship, that first girlfriend had been a compulsive liar. I covered for her — I became extremely adept at explaining why what she had said wasn’t so much a lie as it was a misinterpretation of facts, or a misspeaking of the truth, even to the point where I was lying to cover for her lies…”
So, we learn that Jason started out as a serial liar, lying for exactly the girl that later accused him. He became “extremely adept” and he probably still is.
Then there is something very fishy about this sentence:
“…the only things that saved me — unpopular kid as I was — were the facts that she’d repeatedly and demonstrably lied to a lot of people about a lot of things very often, eroding anyone’s trust in her…”
Funny, in his earlier post it seems rather clear that “everybody’s trust” had been built, at least in large part, on his own lies, covering up for her. But we only hear that people’s trust in HER was eroded. Nobody took him to task for his own lies!
Note the guarded way in which this sentence is put. It does NOT say that she made up other rapes – neither then nor later. She lied about “a lot of things.” From that we can infer that this was probably her ONLY rape accusation. She was raped again later – but since Jason has no info about that, feminists MUST assume that that was a real rape, too.
What about that “eroding anyone’s trust in her.” Well, we only have Jason’s word for that, but we have to remember that this was a long time ago, when all kinds of women’s claims were not believed or belittled. From Jason’s earlier story it is quite clear that it was HE, Jason, who started the eroding. His current post says nothing about it. However, it goes on an on how Jason now gained lots of friends and circles of trust, basically by beating a rape charge. I would bet that in those times the menz all were just too eager (and relieved) to believe him.
This becomes even more plausible when we remember that Jason had lied in harmony with her all along. How come she was so easily disbelieved while he was lionized? There is the scent of a whole fishpile here.
This ties in with Jason’s paragraph relating how the woman fared later in life, in sharp contrast to our hero Jason:
“Her accusation ruined her own reputation amongst her then circle of friends, but she moved on, built new trusts, violated them as well, and generally made a wreck of her life as far as I cared to follow.”
Why did HIS lies not ruin HIS reputation? For any feminist, the answer is easy: it seems quite likely that the menz would have believed him even if he had had a scar on his chest from the screwdriver. It’s obvious they WANTED to believe him and disbelieve her.
The last sentence of his August 10, 2013 post reads like sheer mockery.
“Sure, it’s not photographic evidence, but you know how well even THAT works amongst those primed to deny any rape allegations ever brought forward.”
There you have it – straight out of Jason’s mouth. For “those” kinds of men even photographic evidence isn’t enough. But it’s exactly “those” kinds of men he uses as witnesses for his innocence. Jason himself asserts that they would see what they wanted to see, scar or no scar. Jason shits on his own witnesses and still wants us to believe him.
What’s even funnier is the fact that nowhere Jason mentions girls. He only talks about the guys and how they believed him. What about her girlfriends? Didn’t they believe her? Or doesn’t that count? Besides his girlfriend, no women appear in his story at all. Maybe women don’t rate.
Now, every feminist should immediately grasp the meaning of the quoted paragraph about her later life. HE IS ERASING THAT WOMAN. She’s a no-good bitch. She gets what she deserves – only, in the earlier post it says nothing about that. In one of the comments Jason lets us know that she was raped again and that her current boyfriend is in jail. Is that her fault? How did that make a wreck of her life?
What’s more, I simply don’t buy Jason’s whole 2009 post. It’s a Just-So story. It tells a wonderful yarn about a nerd overcoming odds to become a “manly” man. All the things in his path seem to be wonderfully arranged so that the outcome is foreordained, just like in a Grimm tale. His father is the right “Cajun” father who can beat gangs of ruffians. The hero quits boxing just when he has success – because he doesn’t like hurting people (yeah, right!). There is that girl that accuses him of rape and everybody believes her. But whaddaya know, she tells exactly the right lie that’s a cinch for him to “disprove.” When he gets jumped, helpers just happen to pop up and out of stopped cars. He gets just the right cape jacket to make him look “sharp” for the dance. The tropes go on and on.
The post isn’t really about the rape, or any of the other stuff. The post is about him feeling “most ‘manly'” – it says so literally at the end of the story. And, WOW, now he even has a small coterie of drinking buddies (I kid you not – those are HIS words).
Manly? Wait a minute. Callous would be the better word. 15 years later he is still erasing her. She is reaching out to him, but he is proud to rebuff her. That seems odd for a feminist. After all, he goes to great lengths to describe that she, herself was a very damaged child. He also tells how he himself was emotionally unavailable to her and damaged her even more. In his own words:
“I mean, that’s what manly men are about, right? Sex all the time? Even though I really wasn’t feeling any particular draw toward having sex, any more than I was feeling any particular draw toward jacking off all the time, the very idea that I was capable of getting sex suggested to me that I was better than the bullies had convinced me that I was.”
and
“The relationship lasted about a year, though it wasn’t really built on much of anything except for teenage hormones and being in love with the idea of having a girl/boyfriend. Yes, hormones, and we had a good deal of consensual sex throughout the relationship, making me feel at least a little bit manly for the first time in my life…”
It’s all about him. Not a word about how she may have felt. He was using her to make himself feel better. It’s excusable for a teen. It’s probably also excusable that when she found a more emotionally suitable man she had no good way to handle the conflict (how could she?) – and came up with a rape story (Assuming this was a false accusation). I mean, really, as a feminist, doesn’t Jason at least have some charity for her?
And now they are in their thirties. The woman reaches out to him via Facebook. Wouldn’t any empathetic person want to try to find out what really happened? Maybe she is hurting. Maybe she is in despair over that affair. Maybe she deeply regrets the incident. There is always more to any story. Jason himself even gives an explanation in his earlier post: “… my first girlfriend accused me of rape in order to preempt any acrimony over her sleeping with someone else…” Why is Jason so callous? (Always assuming the accusation was false – if he is the rapist, though, then callousness makes eminent sense.)
But no! Jason objectifies her as the evil bitch. I could understand it if Jason had suffered trauma from the accusation, but apparently it left him unscathed and helped build and confirm his manhood. According to him, he gained and grew from it. What would he have to lose to reach out to her? This seems like a strange reaction for an empathetic feminist (Always assuming the accusation was false).
In his earlier post:
“I told her no, then said goodbye and hung up despite her protests. Not hearing her out, not letting her convince me it’s worth another try — that was a pretty man-like thing to do in retrospect. Out of all of the above, it’s the part that feels most “manly”. [sic]”
And in a comment he writes:
“Oh, and she tried to add me to Facebook last year. One of the many reasons I left.”
The whole tenor of this earlier post is: “Behold the manly hero who prevailed through adversities posed by females! AND Behold the vanquished woman, she is ERASED.” And he repeats that pattern exactly in his new post. That poor woman gets objectified in the service of Jason’s narcissism.
Can we trust Jason? Here it gets tricky. First, let me quote a current comment from the “Atheist Experience” blog on FreeThougtBlogs about the same issues:
“A quick glance at the facts will tell you that someone being a “good guy” is practically useless as an indicator of whether they’re really a good guy. Why? Because the bad guys know how to stay hidden.”
Comment by LykeX on August 10, 2013 at 12:33am ln FTB Blogs, “The Atheist Experience” Title “Right ways and wrong ways”
Sure, Jason has a history of being a good guy and fighting for women’s issues and morality and all this splendid stuff. How much should that count? According to Jason’s post, it’s a matter of the trust he has built up. According to most other feminist writers, it shouldn’t count at all – it’s just a smokescreen.
Maybe his buildup of trust was only a cover. Maybe now more victims of his will come forward – possibly having friends of friends finger him. Maybe a number of women will now reassess acts he has done in the past. Maybe those things don’t look so innocent any more. Maybe we need to encourage women to come forward. Maybe we need to tell all the women in his circle(s). After all, the facts of the accusation have been established. He disclosed them himself. It would be unethical not to warn other women.
Why would Jason mention this affair in his current post where it serves no discernible purpose? Why did Jason post his original 2009 post? What would drive a man like Jason to brag that he has beaten a rape charge? Let’s face it, that’s what it is, basically – narcissistic bragging.
Most males need to brag about their accomplishments in this area. It’s often the reason for doing it in the first place. What greater thrill for a rapist than to discuss his rape in plain sight – and nobody picking up on it? It’s all about male ego. It’s about mocking the victim(s).
Maybe all his moral writings were merely meant to make him feel better about his rape. Maybe he thinks they will be a defense when the circumstances of his (alleged) rape have been bared – the way I am doing it right now – or even worse.
On the internet we can point out that this meets all the criteria of victim blaming, rape culture and, indeed, privilege. Without his enormous privilege Jason could never have gotten away with his disclosure for so long.
Women need to be outraged and take the strongest possible action.
Consider this: Among his supporters Michael Shermer and many others have built up a record of trust and circles of trust far superior to Jason’s. Jason is a nobody compared to Shermer. Yet, it is clear that Shermer’s good record and reputation can be no defense in the eyes of feminists.
And then consider this: Let’s not forget that the case against Jason is much stronger than the case against Shermer. By Jason’s own admission, there is a real accuser with an actual rape story (all self-disclosed by Jason). In the case of Shermer we merely have some accusations via Chinese Telephone made by PZ Myers. “Friends of friends have told me and I believe it…” The evidence against Jason is in plain sight. And he is a self-confessed “extremely adept” liar.
Let me say it again: Women need to be outraged and take the strongest possible action!
So, is Jason a rapist? It’s hard to say. Possibly not, just as Shermer may not be – we may never find out. But the fact is, he was accused, and the fact is also that according to his own arguments and position, his excuses don’t fly, not in criminal court, not in a university disciplinary procedure, and certainly not in cyberspace among feminists. The fact is, he’s a self-professed liar.
To quote Jason himself:
“What do skeptics do when presented with evidence that they don’t like? Assume the person made it all up, of course!”
This leaves one more question, and it’s a serious one for FreeThoughtBlogs and PZ Myers. What will you do with someone who is a self-proclaimed rapist by feminist standards? Will you shield him? Will you throw overboard your feminist principles just because “he’s one of us”? Will you use a double standard for people on your side vs. people on the other side? Will you treat the matter with silence and re-victimize and erase Jason’s accuser in the process? Will you believe a self-professed liar?
PZ – what are you going to do?
Birric Forcella (Editor for friend of friend)
Proudly using both heads.
birricforcella@gmail.com
This piece is a slight revision of a comment I made to Jason’s (Lousy Canuck) post on FTB. Needless to say, it didn’t make it through his “moderation” – which is why I am publishing it here. He had every opportunity to address this issue – he preferred silence.
Update: On August 19th Jason wrote a post addressing related issues. Apparently some people didn’t catch on to the real meaning of his “false rape” disclosure and came at him with lines like: “See, you admit there are false accusations.” His answer is strictly to “double up” on his stance- he says, in essence, there are extremely few false accusations, but I, Jason, in my charmed life, had one and beat it. It sounds like he won the lottery. Shermer’s life appears to be much less charmed.
Again, he did not address any of the evidence, concerns, or arguments in my writing above. It should drive any woman into a white rage.
2nd Update: Whaddaya know, a second FTB blogger is currently being accused of sexual assault.
He, too has a handy-dandy excuse. As feminists, we must believe accusers. Surely, something must be behind this.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/08/28/faux-rape-accusations-and-richard-sanderson/
But in any case, we shouldn’t make too much of his excuse. Let’s remember this quote from an eminent feminist:
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can gain from the experience.”
– Catherine Comins, Assistant Dean of Students, Vassar College.
