April 8, 2014 is a day for the Men’s Human Rights Movement (MHRM) to remember. On that day, an activist group from the MHRM attended a feminist lecture to ask questions.
Our destination: Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario
1) To protest and to provide a public service announcement about a resident educator from Queen’s University: one Adele Mercier. Mercier made public her views about incarcerated juvenile males who are sexually abused by adult female staff. She suggested that some of those sexually abused youth were “asking for it.” According to Mercier, the sexual abuse is actually consensual sex because some of the youth surveyed admitted to initiating the sexual acts. Those juveniles wanted sex with the adult women who were in positions of absolute authority over the incarcerated youth. A prohibited sexual union. There can be no legal, meaningful, or enthusiastic consent given in a jailor-prisoner relationship.
A silent, pervasive power reminds those who are incarcerated that they are at the mercy of their jailor at all times.
That same silent power silences victims’ voices from being heard.
2) To present alternative views to feminist theory, to ask questions, and to protest at a panel discussion entitled “What’s Feminism Got To Do With It?” hosted by the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre, at which Mercier was scheduled to speak. Shortly before the talk, the centre announced that Mercier had been removed from the panel, claiming that she had been removed from the event about a week prior.
This reporter can confirm that that claim is a lie. Here is a screen grab from April 4, 2014, in which Mercier is listed as being a panel member: APR 8_ What’s Feminism Got To Do With It_ _ QueensEvents
The special guest speaker was Jaclyn Friedman, the same valley-girl feminist ABC’s 20/20 went to when A Voice for Men founder and publisher Paul Elam was interviewed by 20/20 last year. ABC has been silent about that fiasco too—well mostly. They did issue a retraction in regards to the libel they engaged in.
We arrived at Queen’s University around 5 p.m. after making a couple of stops for coffee and a few last-minute supplies. The ride was filled with optimism and speculation about what would be awaiting us when we arrived. (We did enjoy a few laughs at recent feminist antics; they do make it so very easy to ridicule them.)
We also discussed some of the issues men face. The MHRM is never silent about the issues facing half the population, which, inevitably, as a sexually dimorphic species, affect all of the human race.
Well, that’s not entirely correct. Some feminists, like Mercier, do speak about some of the issues, but the problem is that Mercier and her ilk try to diminish the crimes committed against males by insinuating that they asked for it. Mercier et al. are fine with males being the victims of female-perpetrated crimes and abuse. Their only concern is that no female should be punished for her crimes against a male.
Their end game is to silence male victims, the same silencing/censoring game they’ve been playing for about 50 years now.
And now their feminist silencing/censoring of male victims has become deafening.
But society is no longer listening to feminist silencing/censoring tactics. They are listening to the voices of those who recognize the suffering and issues faced by all humans. In short, they are listening to the MHRM.
Society is listening to the silenced voices, the censored voices.
Upon our arrival, we split into two groups to poster the high-traffic areas surrounding Queen’s University while remaining respectful of the more aesthetically pleasing structures around the university and keeping them poster-free.
We were not there to employ feminist tactics. We have respect for—and show that respect to—communities. Nor do we care to recklessly endanger lives by creating false alarms.
But we did get busy hanging those babies up high and in the most visible places we could find.
We weren’t silent while postering: if the opportunity presented itself, we engaged individuals in conversation as we provided a public service announcement to the citizens of Kingston and the population of Queen’s University.
We managed to get in about an hour’s worth of postering before proceeding to the lecture hall.
Things got interesting when we were about to enter the event. Security personnel met us and informed us that six people had been singled out for refusal of entrance: Steve Brulé, his assistant, and the four of us.
We had some questions about their attempts to refuse our entry, but security personnel were fairly limited in their replies. I can understand why. They hadn’t been given answers either. All they knew was that the organizers had requested that we be denied entry. The Levana Gender Advocacy Centre was attempting to censor non-feminists’ questions and comments.
They wanted silence.
Our group was not willing to be deterred by the proxy thuggery requested from Queen’s security via the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre. I want to make it very clear that Queen’s University security personnel were professional at every step of the way in their actions. Any heated discussions that took place were due to the event organizers’ lack of inclusiveness.
Yes, you heard me right, feminism—that great institution of inclusiveness—was not acting so inclusively. In fact, they were exclusionary in their acts. We, apparently, had the “wrong-coloured” feminist skin and were to be denied a drink at this privileged propoganda fountain.
They wanted to silence any discussion that might lead people to understand that feminism doesn’t have the solutions for the issues males face. Any discussion that would show people that being a non-feminist and part of the MHRM doesn’t indicate you hate women. Or doesn’t mean that you want to restrict women’s voices or rights.
The Levana Gender Advocacy Centre wanted to silence equal compassion, consideration, and care for men. The centre and its feminist theory have been doing it so very well for the last 50 years or so. The threat of proxy violence via security personnel was a direct result of that inclusive silence demanded by feminism.
Their attempts at thug rule didn’t stop there either.
Outside the entrance was a group of about 10 to 15 people. They had angry, stern looks on their faces and stood like they were on guard. I wondered if they were aware of the violence feminists are known for and were there to prevent it from happening again. They even had a dog with them. It was a fairly muscular dog, looked to be a Boxer cross (I later found out is was a Boxer–Rhodesian Ridgeback cross). I was concerned for the dog’s well being—if it were bitten by a feminist, who knows what type of rabidness might infect its gentle nature.
This gang was there at the request of feminists. They were thug vigilantes (or “thugilantes”) brought in by feminists to inflict proxy violence and to intimidate any non-feminists into silence.
Obviously, this group was lied to by feminists and had not met anyone from the MHRM; nor had they ever met anyone like me.
I interacted with them, asking some questions. I asked them if the dog bites; the reply was no. So I asked to pet the dog and was given permission. I gave “Fido” a good scratch behind the ears. Fido’s reply was a silent, happy, vigorous wagging of his tail.
I am still concerned for that dog’s well-being. He was brought there as an intimidation tactic, to be used as a weapon if need be. That noble animal would have ended up being destroyed if he were used as intended that night.
Finally, after some lengthy discussions, we were permitted access to the lecture. We were given stern warnings about being disruptive, although we weren’t told how the organizers defined “disruptive.”
Would the use of horns, noise makers, and yelling out lies be considered disruptive? The very same actions that feminists took when Dr. Janice Fiamengo spoke here a week prior? Disruption was not what we were there for, nor would it be our form of protest. We leave the childish and life-endangering tactics to feminists; they have lots of experience with it.
After the lecture was done, the floor opened up for a Q&A. The look of fear on the faces of the feminist panel members every time we raised our hands to ask a question was enjoyable. What was not so enjoyable was how the mic runners continually ignored our raised hands. If you paid attention, you could see what was happening. When one of us would raise our hand and a feminist noticed, she or he immediately raised their hand. Even though we had raised our hands first, the feminists were handed the mic and given the chance to ask a question.
When the feminists in the crowd started to run out of questions, I watched as one feminist about four rows in front of us and sitting with one of the mic runners scrambled to come up with a question. She immediately raised her hand and managed some inane praising question that had already been answered by the panel.
At this point, I’d had enough. I calmly stood up with my hands behind my back and waited. Jim got a little nervous and asked me to sit down, so I had a quick conversation with him and did so. But the intentional ignoring of our attempts to put forth questions continued, so I stood back up.
I stood their silently, symbolic of the silence and censoring of male victims. The same silence demanded of males by feminists for the last 50 years.
And then something amazing happened.
A female audience member noticed me standing in silence and raised her hand. When the mic runner approached her, she didn’t ask a question but pointed out the silent elephant in the room.
The silent elephant she pointed out was how the Levana Gender Advocacy Centre’s leaders and volunteers were actively silencing voices. The voices of those who would scrutinize their feminist hypotheses. The voices who would bring logic and rationale to the discussion instead of fear and hyperbole.
It was that peaceful, silent protest that the public in attendance that night paid attention to. They had witnessed what feminists are capable of and were not impressed.
The silence of male victims is deafening and is driving feminist rhetoric out of public discussions.