Following is another email that I felt was best answered publicly:
Hi Paul,
I hope you’re doing well. This is Sebastian Leck from the Queen’s Journal. I interviewed you two weeks ago for a feature article we’re releasing at the end of this month.
After receiving feedback from my editors, I have a couple follow-up questions for you. Feel free to answer over email – I know you are away until the 23rd.
When did you start following the events at Queen’s? Was it after the assault of Danielle D’Entremont or before that?
Given the alarming history of Canadian student’s unions, academicians and feminist ideologues undertaking efforts to suppress free speech and harass those practicing it, particularly in regard to men’s issues, we have followed events at many Canadian campuses for quite some time, including Queen’s. It was not until the news story about the alleged attack on D’Entremont that Queen’s became of heightened interest to AVFM.
I will also offer you a respectful correction to how your question is framed. The “attack” on Danielle D’Entremont is alleged, not factually proven. It is not journalistically sound for you to assume anything else.
It is, as far as anyone at this point knows, allegation only, and for reasons that anyone at Queen’s Journal will likely never question, a dubious one. .
There has been more than adequate time for a police investigation, which has resulted in no support of her claims. We have a feminist community — along with D’Entremont herself — being conspicuously silent, They have actually withdrawn from the case itself, which leaves me with a question for you and your editors.
Do you actually believe that there is a possibility that a men’s activist physically attacked this woman, literally for being a feminist, and the feminist community is not aggressively demanding action and answers? Even a modicum of journalistic integrity demands that you explore this. I have every intention of doing that myself.
Shortly after my return home AVFM, and I hope other men’s organizations, will be offering another reward for information about the case. While the reward for the arrest and conviction of her alleged attacker will stand, we will be offering a separate reward for anyone who provides information conclusively proving how, in fact, D’Entremont was injured.
In fact, I will go ahead and take this opportunity to offer a $1,000.00 reward to anyone who can provide conclusive, corroborated proof of how Danielle D’Entremont was injured on the night in question, regardless of how it happened, even if her injuries were self-inflicted. I am also appealing to all other men’s rights (or if they prefer men’s “issues”) organizations to add to the reward fund and to keep adding to it till we reach sufficient money to provide incentive for someone to produce the verifiable truth of what happened.
I have made it no secret that I do not believe she was attacked by an MHRA. I am also very skeptical that she was attacked at all. In short, I think her story warrants great suspicion, and if there is anyone out there who can shed light on actual facts surrounding her allegations, AVFM will pay for that proof.
D’Entremont’s allegations, if true, would represent an absolute demand on all members of the MHRM to take pause and consider better ways to further our calls for non-violent change. If false, they represent the very lack of integrity — on a disgusting scale — that we have historically experienced from the feminist community. Either way, I want to get to the bottom of it, and don’t intend to stop till I do.
If, after a reasonable period of time, AVFM has not been able to secure answers directly from the people involved, we will hire private investigators to find out what we can.
Now, to your next question.
“We spoke in depth about the language used on AVFM as well as your views on Adele Mercier’s comments. However, an objection the Queen’s Men’s Issues Awareness Society had about the poster campaign wasn’t that Adele Mercier’s comments were moral or defensible (they strongly disagreed with her), but rather that the posters had targeted her personally by calling her as a “rape apologist” instead of providing details about what she actually said. How would you respond to that objection? Why did AVFM choose to approach the poster campaign in that way?” [bold text his]
We called Mercier a rape apologist because that is what she is, and the facts support it. The lengthy details supporting that are not practical to contain to a single poster, which should be obvious on its face, but they were the subject of thorough examination and comprehensive reporting on my website – and they are proven in Mercier’s own words. Mercier issued a shameless public diatribe of rape apologia. The fact that your editors appear curious about anyone speaking to that honestly rather than asking her to explain her conduct is telling.
To be even more frank, I find it quite ironic, as someone subjected to the same type of labeling with no evidence behind it that would survive honest intellectual scrutiny, to even be asked this question by you or anyone else, but for what it is actually worth to you, that is my answer.
Regarding the concerns of QMIAS, I have the following to say. While I support the mission of QMIAS, their opinion of the language used by myself and others at AVFM regarding this case or any other is not relevant.
They are a men’s issues group in an environment that is politically and socially hostile to their very existence. I expect them to be forced to use more caution and even be more conciliatory with the bigotry launched at them and organizations like AVFM by ideological zealots. They are more vulnerable to specious allegations in their environment. AVFM is not beholden to anything but the truth and the issues we represent. Those offended by our delivery would be better served to start acknowledging and addressing the problems than in whining about the fact that we are often conspicuously assertive and provocative when we challenge them to do so.
In fact, you might observe that in pursuing this line of inquiry, rather than questioning rape apology being issued by academicians in one of your universities, you and your editors provide a pretty obvious motivator for our tone.
In that light I respectfully advise you that tone concerns are not going to deter us from demanding change or from confronting hate as expressed by ideologues like Adele Mercier in whatever tone we deem necessary.
I am only left with one remaining item that I think will assist you in writing an informative feature piece, should that be your intent. Find out what is going on in your country with regard to gender ideology and decide whether you are going to be a part of the problem, part of the solution or just a credible journalist reporting on it.
If your choice is the latter, please consider your current direction.
I am linking you to an article by Dr. Warren Farrell on events in Canada that have happened since his lecture on issues faced by boys in our culture was met with violence, harassment and the abridgement of free speech at the University of Toronto in November of 2012. Try to disprove anything in it.
If you find what he has written is true, then please examine your questions, and those from your editors again and consider whether you are inquiring from a position of being informed, or of willful, aggressive ignorance.
I wish you good luck with your story.
Kind regards
Paul Elam
