I read a great article by Rod Liddle today on how even documentaries like Liar – which is about a woman accusing a man of rape – turn out to be corrupted by feminists. Unsurprisingly in the end it turns out that the man is a liar and “rapist” when usually in these kinds of cases it is the woman who is the liar and has something to hide.
Other than getting your blood boiling what relevance does this have to inciting violence against feminists? Well, it was the last paragraph in the article that really stood out for me:
I hope the writers of Liar come home tomorrow night to find their homes ablaze, their treasured possessions reduced to ash and embers, borne on the winds across north and west London. I would happily roast chestnuts on the conflagration. You see? That’s what happens. Turn on the TV and I become a bad person. Although no worse than the dwarves think I am already.
That was a brave thing to say in my opinion as politically correct media pundits, legislators, judges and police officers have over the past few decades created a frightful environment whereby many people are afraid of being arrested for saying what they really think. This went to the point of arresting and convicting Paul Chambers – who was fortunately eventually cleared – for making the joke tweet:
Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!
But of course the fact he was cleared is irrelevant as all most people heard was that they have to be very careful with what they say or they WILL be arrested. I imagine the whole political purpose of bringing the case was for the politically correct elites to frighten people into not speaking out. We began to live in a democracy only by name – only those who had the right views could participate in the democratic process, anyone else would be hounded out as having “politically incorrect views”.
But it seems like that is changing, the fact that Rod Liddle spoke out is a great sign. Whether he’ll be arrested or not under the notoriously vague Malicious Communications Act remains to be seen, but his article was published by The Spectator so his views are clearly supported by others. One thing I’ve noticed with UK enforcement of free speech laws is that they have tended to shy away from arresting people with well articulated political opinions that a lot of people might agree with, and I think in today’s climate it’s clearly that a lot of people are angry with feminist rape laws so the establishment might well end up shying away from making arrests for this. I think part of the reason is because even though free speech in the UK is technically illegal, making an arrest discredits the idea that “Britain is a free country”. This means the establishment are more likely to endure rioting or poor election results and those who are capable of giving strong arguments for their beliefs and refuse to apologise are extremely dangerous for the establishment to arrest – an arrest only gives them more publicity and credibility.
I know I’ve also been guilty in the past of morally supporting violence against certain feminist people who have engaged in particularly horrific violence against others. But that’s really the point I want to make. The global narrative for free speech seems to be that free speech is OK as long as it doesn’t involve advocating violence. But what if the people who you are advocating violence against were the ones who started advocating violence first? And what if the police decide only to arrest one side? Indeed this seems to be largely the case, consider the following examples:
- A man advocating for a feminist woman to be raped is likely to be arrested by the police, we’ve all heard of it happening
- A woman advocating for men to be killed will not be arrested. Even the high profile case of Bahar Mustafa who, despite eventually being arrested after anti-feminist outrage at her comments, was released without charge.
Worse still, what if the other side – the feminist side who the police aren’t arresting – are guilty of not just advocating violence, but actual violence against innocent people? Whereas the side the police are arresting (men) are merely guilty of advocating violence against those who have engaged in real violence? Where is the fairness, where is the justice, in all of that? And when, worse still, it is the police themselves who actively participate in this real violence. Police happily arrest men on ‘fake rape’ charges that they know are false or are likely to be false. They place them in prisons for decades where they are raped and beaten before releasing them onto the ‘Sex Offender Registry’ where the police repeatedly harass them in their homes, place them on a public hit list and prevent them from continuing with their lives.
Get real. The system is sick. The feminist morals are sick and hypocritical. There’s no legitimate non-partisan argument to say it’s wrong to advocate violence against feminists who have engaged in real violence and who, by the way, are currently totally unaccountable except for our ability to say what we think should be done to them in the hope of emotionally persuading enough people to move our justice system towards a fairer more gender-neutral setup.
At the end of the day feminists have engaged in violence and you are morally entitled to state what you think should happen to them, including against any police officers who have also engaged in the brutality. That’s not called a “malicious communication” it’s called “justice”.