RooshV Wins Battle for Free Speech in Montreal; Also Gets Defamed and Assaulted

badb65c2868bc2a60c9bdd0ff56be419There is a new threat to freedom of speech around the world. On the internet, they’re called “social justice warriors.” “SJWs” are basically a loose group of left wing activists who take offense to everything anyone says. They thrive on outrage, no matter how silly.

These are the people who just finished college. You know, the kids we all try and avoid interacting with, because doing so will result in having stupid conversations about the dangers of heteronormative cisgendered privilege. While I find it just absolutely fascinating that you have a masters degree in gender studies, use big words I don’t understand, and work at Starbucks, can’t we just talk about sports or something fun? In years past, they were nothing more than a minor annoyance.

But lately it’s gotten a bit more, shall we say, real. Disagree with a political position? That’s “harassment” and “hate speech.” Suggest that men and women are equally responsible for their sexual endeavors? That’s “misogyny” and promotion of “rape culture.” SJWs fabricate assaults, death threats, rape threats, and all kinds of other crazy stuff to try and turn internet flame wars into real life. Social Justice Warriors are trying to ban speech of anyone who disagrees with their opinions, manipulating the concepts of “harassment”, “safety”, and “hate speech.” At the same time, they make actual physical threats against the people they disagree with, but apparently it’s okay because the SJWs think they’re right and it’s justified. Just look at what they tried to do to Mike Cernovich over an internet flame war.

As PDQ puts it: “SJWs turn to the same identity politics that they espouse to despise on its head and use it in ironic fashion to silence critics based on their identity: sex, gender, age, religion and sexual-orientation.  It’s easier to shut down a critic with “WTF DO U KNOW UR WHITE” than it is to have an NPR-style thoughtful exchange.  In the brevity of Twitter, SJWs have created a social-support system for each other against critics, which conjures up the new suffix “-splain”.   #Whitesplaining.  #Mansplaining.  #Cissplaining.”

Even a college professor admits that “[t]hings have changed since I started teaching. The vibe is different. I wish there were a less blunt way to put this, but my students sometimes scare me — particularly the liberal ones. … This shift in student-teacher dynamic placed many of the traditional goals of higher education — such as having students challenge their beliefs — off limits.”

The goal of SJWs is to silence anyone who disagrees with them or challenges their beliefs, through any means necessary.

In 2015, the internet is serious business.

This year, RooshV has been traveling the country via a World Tour to give a “40-minute speech that carefully examines the existence of modern man.” Who is Roosh? Some call him a pickup artist, others a philosopher. He outright challenges concepts like third wave feminism, which in the past has been considered “off limits.”

Roosh pulls no punches in doing so. He calls overweight women ugly, and has penned articles saying that one of the “goals of feminism is to create guilt in men for finding some women more beautiful than others. Feminists, who happen to be on the ugly end of the beauty spectrum, want to redefine beauty so that they are found to be just as worthy as genuinely pretty girls.” Roosh is also extremely critical of the government, stating that it “provides welfare money for single mothers; it extorts or steals money from husbands and fathers via an aggressive judicial system that prefers women; it enforces laws against masculinity using local authorities; and it funds feminist studies programs in public universities.”

But perhaps RooshV’s most controversial piece was this one – where he argued that “[l]et’s make rape legal. Less women will be raped because they won’t voluntarily drug themselves with booze and follow a strange man into a bedroom, and less men will be unfairly jailed for what was anything but a maniacal alley rape. Until then, this devastating rape culture will continue, and women who we treat as children will continue to act like children.”

As you might imagine, the social justice warriors really, really really, don’t like RooshV. Jezebel even called Roosh V “the worst person we’ve ever encountered.”

This week it got very real, as the social justice warriors went as far to try and ban RooshV from Canada, and prevent him from giving a speech. One SJW falsely accused him of a rape threat. Another one physically threw a drink in his face.

Making matters more interesting, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre stated that: “we cannot cite freedom of expression when an individual advocates for legalizing rape on private property. RooshV is not welcome in Montreal.”

In my view, this news broadcast was defamatory:

In the video, Aurelie Nix complains that Roosh published naked photographs of her. While technically true, sort of, what she doesn’t mention is that she put the pictures on the internet herself, and made them available to the public. Roosh merely linked to them.

More to the point, you watch this “news” video and you get the sense that Roosh is running around Canada harassing and assaulting helpless women. But quite the contrary is true – Roosh was physically assaulted, told by the mayor of Montreal and he’s not welcome in the City, and in my opinion defamed by those who made false rape and assault allegations. All because stuff he said hurt some peoples’ feelings.

What I find most troubling is the effort to try and physically shut down speech that some find upsetting, under guise of the government needing to protect people from hearing “hate speech.”

What some call “hate speech” is exactly what should be protected by the government. Not sensitive feelings. Popular opinions don’t require protection. It’s the unpopular ones that require protection.

While it’s currently in vogue to differentiate “hate speech” from “free speech”, there is no such thing. To quote Scott Greenfield: “What you cannot do is manufacture a fantasy where your speech is free speech and speech you don’t like isn’t.”

Speech is either free, or it’s not. Even speech that hurts your feelings.

No ideas, how much how much you dislike them, should be silenced. If you don’t like Roosh V, don’t buy his books, don’t click on his websites, and don’t attend his speeches. If his ideas are bad, they’ll die in the marketplace and be forgotten.

But don’t try and silence him. RooshV has a right to express his opinions, and people have a right to listen to them.

Even if you disagree with his opinions. And even if they hurt your feelings.

[Update]: Video of RooshV getting assaulted. This really crosses the line. NSFW language.

7 Responses to RooshV Wins Battle for Free Speech in Montreal; Also Gets Defamed and Assaulted

  1. Brad says:

    Canada has very broad hate speech laws that are open to wide interpretation. This means any notion of free speech listed in the Canadian Charter is overridden, and most Canadians don’t even know about it. The ones who do are even proud of the fact they don’t have freedom of speech similar to American law, because it is seen as a tool of oppression.

    Search “Stephanie Guthrie” and “National Post” on Google and you’ll see what a horrid state the country is in. She’s taking a man to trial because he was “creepy” on twitter. Again, hate speech is open to WIDE interpretation.

    I find it funny that SJWs see no legal problem with throwing beer in a persons face, yet they believe holding a speech to talk about masculinity violates a legal code. These people are not tolerant; they want complete control over the behavior of their opposition but do not abide by those same standards themselves.

    • “These people are not tolerant; they want complete control over the behavior of their opposition but do not abide by those same standards themselves.”

      Ding dong.

      And yes, Canadian laws on “hate speech” scare the hell out of me.

  2. MEN HEAL says:

    There’s many alternatives. Hate(ful) speech is really a subset of free speech.

    Also should someone be allowed to persuade a child to do something awful. Should manipulative words in this case be allowed?

    What about a politician lying to the people. Is that OK?

    Maybe people can be free to speak but remember that there are consequences of speech. So if you say some horrible stuff then someone somewhere will be unpleasant back. That’s normal behaviour. Not good behaviour perhaps but it’s what people do. Rightly or wrongly.

    I think it’s simpler to say there is speech. Let’s not call it free. Not all speech is free. Shouting fire when there’s no fire. Someone can say that but let’s not pretend there isn’t consequences to both actions and words.

    Free speech is a simplistic ideal that doesn’t exist.

  3. mitchmiers says:

    This type of action is simply cyber bullying and there will be a price to pay down the road as there is for any bad behavior. They leave a trail and they will eventually in the same category as any other cyber bully. Most likely unemployable.

  4. […] in the week, I learned that something was brewing up north. RooshV said some stuff that made people upset, so they decided to try and kick him out […]

  5. Charles Murphy says:

    All I can say to this post is: Yes.

  6. […] When Roosh V gave a worldwide tour, he was physically assaulted in Montreal and Toronto. If Roosh had insulted feminists to their faces or behaved like a boor, hey, charge it to the game. (Read: Roosh V Wins Battle for Free Speech.) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: