Second free speech rally at U of T: Less violent, still wrong

Content Notice: More trans-antagonistic codswallop.

A second rally for “free speech” was recently hosted at the University of Toronto inspired by the events of Dr. Jordan Peterson’s hysterics, in which the protesters characterize Bill C-16 as being Orwellian, totalitarian, and Maoist. This event was considerably smaller–only 60 attendants versus several hundred–and it did not feature Dr. Peterson himself nor was Rebel Media there to foment a riot. When you don’t have avowedly dishonest demagogues whipping people into a frenzy, actual dialogue can occur.

Colour me surprised.

The protesters and the Facebook event are described as follows:

The event’s description on Facebook stated that “radical left wing activists are trying to impose censorship on our thoughts and speech, and declare a moratorium on any form of expression that THEY deem offensive.”

The rally’s organizers insisted their event was apolitical.Speaking to The Varsity, organizer Maria Morzc said that “Free speech is not a system of beliefs; it is a fundamental human right. And, also, free speech is, basically, I mean, all we want is to state our opinions without being silenced, without being labelled, without being assaulted, and we welcome members of the so-called ‘radical left.’”

Another organizer, Riley Moher, described the group as “not a libertarian group, we’re not an alt-right group, we’re not a liberal group, we just stand for the freedom of speech.”

Here we go, in the spirit of actual dialogue: Basically everything you said is still bullshit. Let’s walk through this one word at a time.

radical left wing activists

Man, isn’t it great how scary you can make something sound when you label it as “radical”? Respecting the pronouns of trans people is radical now. It really is illustrating the bias here. Bill C-16 would criminalize the advocacy of genocide against trans people as well as public incitements to violence, but apparently saying you shouldn’t do that is “radical.” 

Hypothesis: “Radical” here means, “people I don’t like.”

are trying to impose censorship on our thoughts and speech

Only the exact same censorship on your speech that has already existed for every other protected class in the Criminal Code for 40 odd years now. Are you seriously defending the right of people to advocate for genocide?

Also, how does one censor thoughts? No one has said you ought to be subjected to a frontal lobotomy for your inanity. Ridiculous.

and declare a moratorium on any form of expression that THEY deem offensive.

I’ll happily point out you’re trying to declare a moratorium on respecting trans people’s pronouns. It’s a knife that cuts both ways here.

The rally’s organizers insisted their event was apolitical

And I’m the Queen of England.

Free speech is not a system of beliefs; it is a fundamental human right.

Human rights are a system of beliefs. There is no objective system granting value to people’s lives. That is a social construct we more-or-less agree upon to facilitate stability and relative safety in our society. But we are, in the scheme of the universe itself, just a bunch of carbon bickering with itself on an irrelevant speck of sand on a miles long beach.

And, also, free speech is, basically, I mean, all we want is to state our opinions without being silenced

Okay but Bill C-16, again, is concerned with those opinions that think we should die for being who we are. If you aren’t calling for us to be put to death, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than charged with a hate crime.

It is also free speech for people to criticize you. Nobody is silencing you when we say you’re full of shit, or factually wrong, or blind to your own biases. I suspect what you actually want is to say a bunch of bullshit and go unchallenged for it.

without being labelled

CALLED IT.

What do you want me to do? “Transphobic” or “trans-antagonistic” are just words attempting to condense “suspicion or denigration of trans identities” into fewer syllables. Do you want to censor me for pointing out these patterns of belief as expressed by you and your freeze peach lobby?

without being assaulted

Okay sure, but that at least applies to both sides here. More generally, trans people are many many many many times more likely to be assaulted than you are, so maybe you should be directing your anti-assault efforts to cis people? Just a suggestion.

and we welcome members of the so-called ‘radical left.’

For the record, that was Dr. Peterson’s framing of the issue. I do not consider myself radical because I expect the correct name and pronouns to be used in reference to me as is the case with all cis people.

(I consider myself radical because I would see the means of production in the hands of the proletariat).

not a libertarian group

Free Speech Absolutism is certainly compatible with Libertarianism though.

we’re not an alt-right group

Your particular rally doesn’t set off those bells of mine, no. Your rally is a babbling mess but it reminds me more of naive freshmen still railing against “The Man” than it does of reactionary dickheads who want to deliberately restore second-class citizenship for anyone not cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied, white and male.

we’re not a liberal group

I promise you the last thing I was going to accuse you of was being liberal.

we just stand for the freedom of speech

Just freedom for thee and none for me, apparently. Remember, you want to express your bullshit without me criticizing you for expressing bullshit. That’s not how this works.

 

Next statement:

A number of the speakers made comparisons between the university’s request that Peterson stop making public statements and totalitarianism. One speaker compared their struggle to the struggles of Chinese citizens decades ago in having to adopt the ideology of Maoism or face execution. “We’re faced [with] the idea of political correctness, with the social ostracization of us, of people who speak out against such mediocrity, against such cruelty, against such an affront to human rationality and the liberal values that Canada and America and the rest of the civilized world has been based on,” he said.

This is rich.

One speaker compared their struggle to the struggles of Chinese citizens decades ago in having to adopt the ideology of Maoism or face execution

We don’t have the death penalty in Canada.

We’re faced [with] the idea of political correctness

As I’ve said before, the freeze peach crowd wants to install political correctness too: It wants to elevate ignorance about gender variance to be politically correct despite the mountain of evidence contradicting their statements. We all want political correctness, and you need to stop pretending otherwise.

with the social ostracization of us

I’m sorry, none of the free speech protesters have been doxxed and are receiving death threats. It’s the trans protesters who cannot return to class until the RCMP has contained or discredited the threats. You’re trying to tell me that saying you’re full of shit is “ostracization”? You whiny fucking child.

of people who speak out against such mediocrity, against such cruelty

Expecting you to use the correct pronoun is “cruelty” now. I suppose the 90+% of us who have been, you know, actually assaulted is–what–mercy?

against such an affront to human rationality

Ahhh the old “my opponent is crazy” rhetorical tactic.

the liberal values that Canada and America and the rest of the civilized world has been based on

Liberal values like my right to say you’re full of shit? I am happily exercising that, right now.

 

Next statement:

Jacob Ritchie was walking by the event when he decided to participate, and he expressed an opposing view. Speaking of Bill C-16 — a piece of legislation aimed at protecting individuals from discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression that Peterson criticizes in one of his lectures — Ritchie said to the crowd, “There’s nothing saying, like, if you go up to a guy and talk to them and you don’t use their pronouns you go to jail or you’re sectioned under the human rights law. It’s if you discriminate against them and you can go and prove that they’ve suffered a harm. And really I think there’s a much higher bar for that than you guys think there is. I think this whole thing is misguided.”

Guess what the freeze peach attenders did?

Ritchie was heckled by some attendees during his statements

“Freedom for me and none for thee” indeed. The organizer of the rally hushed the hecklers, to their credit, but it really punches holes in the whole “freedom of speech” banner they claim to fly.

Again, the high bar Ritchie is referring to is “advocacy for genocide” and “public incitement of hatred.” Are you seriously having to check yourself constantly lest you accidentally let slip “death to all trans”? These fears raised by the freeze peach crowd just do not connect with any reasonable sense of risk. It would be like objecting to the criminalization of attempted murder because every time you walk past someone you have to steel yourself to not randomly stab them to death. Seriously?

 

Next statement:

Morzc said that her cause supports marginalized groups and stressed the importance of free expression to address the issues that these groups face.“Please clear up the confusion. Because, you know, we support the LGBTQ rights and the Black rights, the rights of Black students, the rights of Black individuals in society, in general, and we recognize that they face unique challenges, and we recognize that they need to address those challenges,” she explained. “However, we believe that actually promoting freedom of speech and freedom of expression would go a long way towards actually addressing these existing problems, and stifling free speech will do the opposite.”

I love the “I’m not prejudiced, but” line. It never works.

The former half of Morzc’s statement is just peachy keen, but I fail to see how you can reconcile the intention to promote the safety and well-being of QUILTBAG citizens when there are other citizens who have no intentions of interrogating their prejudices, no intentions of listening or learning, no intentions of fact checking, and every intention of avowedly and self-admittedly antagonizing the safety and well-being of those QUILTBAG citizens. It’s just not compatible to claim reactionary dickheads who want to hurt us deserve the platform to express those sentiments whilst also claiming to care about the QUILTBAG people targeted by this prejudice.

Peterson is a professor. Now that he has gone on record to publicly state he has every intention of discriminating against the trans students who enter his class, he has explicitly erected a barrier to trans folk at the U of T. If any of his classes are core classes for a degree, then trans folk trying to get that degree now have to enter Dr. Peterson’s class trusting that his prejudice won’t unfairly affect his ability to grade them. Alternatively, if they can pretend to not be trans, they might be able to avoid that prejudice–but then, Dr. Peterson forcing trans students to make that choice in the first place (if it’s even an option) clearly demonstrates that he has disregarded the rights of the trans students, specifically the right to access education. This isn’t an issue of two peers in disagreement. This is an issue of a person in a position of authority openly admitting he will abuse that authority to single out certain students.

This is what the U of T faculty were referring to in their letter, that as an educator he has a “responsibility to follow the law and follow U of T policies.” If the U of T doesn’t want to be known as a school that deliberately creates barriers for a certain class of students, it is compelled to repudiate Dr. Peterson. Dr. Peterson has admitted he knows this. He’s tapping into the martyr complex of the far-right by throwing himself on the sword, proving that the “SJWs” and “radical-leftists” are out to get him, when in reality we recognize that he is compromising a number of rights that trans people theoretically have, which have less to do with pronouns and more to do with accessing the same education everybody else can get. They will blame us for the target he painted on his own back.

There’s no guarantee how this will go. Being tenured, it will be next to impossible to actually turf Peterson. But the U of T also has the right to recognize the effect his spastic, howling, attention-seeking episode has had on trans students.

Ultimately what the freeze peach crowd wants is freedom from consequences, as evidenced by their obsession with Peterson. They want their prejudice against trans people to go unchallenged. Peterson is just a convenient screen onto which these anxieties are projected. That’s why it’s not about the legalities of Bill C-16: If they could be bothered to do their homework on Canada’s hate crime legislation, they’d see the threshold you have to cross to be charged. Since I doubt so many of them are publicly posting plans for school shootings, I also doubt any of them will ever face legal consequences for their actions.

And so we resort to social consequences. You know, the things like “that isn’t corroborated by the evidence,” “that’s not true,” “the study doesn’t say that,” “citation needed,” “that’s incredibly rude,” “there’s no reason to believe that,” that sort of thing?

Hardly the disappearing act of the KGB these freeze peachers so fearfully anticipate.

-Shiv

Signal boosting: When your existence is up for debate

I will one day try to articulate what it feels like to know an overwhelming majority of mainstream media that an overwhelming majority of voting people access are determined to accept the most dangerous trans-antagonistic premises as simply given when debating our rights. This was the case with Judith Shulevitz’s predictably inaccurate contribution to trans rights discourse, an article I could generously describe as a hit piece rather than a think piece: Is It Time to Desegregate the Sexes?

I struggled with how to formulate a response without repeating myself, as many of the assumptions made by Jesse Singal during his defamatory works on trans people have already been challenged by me, and many of those same assumptions are here. It feels a bit like I’m Hercules fighting the hydra–cut off one head and two more take its place. And chances are the only way I will avoid reproducing the same refutations to the same bullshit peddled by strange bedfellows (religious biological essentialists and radical feminists? ableist hippies and the alt right? under one banner? wtf?) is to eventually collect the bullshit in one place to deal with it all at once.

Thankfully, this time, Chase Stangio stepped into the ring for me, sparing me another grueling analysis and hours of research that trans-antagonists won’t even bother to access.

Whether appearing in the New Yorker, New York Magazine, or the New York Times, these pieces follow the same formula — a non-transgender writer poses a question about the impact of respecting transgender people’s bodies and identities framing it as a “debate”, “culture war” or “clash of values” then interviews a lot of non-transgender people, and concludes that the issue is difficult because unlike other civil rights struggles, transgender people’s demand for humanity infringes the rights of others. Or, as Elinor Burkett put it in a June, 2015 Sunday New York Times op-ed, “the trans movement isn’t simply echoing African-Americans, Chicanos, gays or women by demanding an end to the violence and discrimination, and to be treated with a full measure of respect. It’s demanding that women reconceptualize ourselves.”

…

What Burkett and Shulevitz do is normalize the idea that demands by trans people to, as Burkett says, “be treated with a full measure of respect” necessarily hurt others. For Burkett this is by “demanding” that “women reconcentualize” themselves and for Shulevitz it is by implicating/upsetting the privacy and modesty rights of others — mostly cisgender girls. Though their frame takes these tensions as a given, they are anything but given. Instead, this framing reflects the authors’ ideological views about transgender people disguised by the sanitizing language of clashing values. It is dangerous to accept the premise of these pieces without interrogating those underlying views.

…

Lacking the voices of any transgender people or advocates, Shulevitz’s “debate” is set-up to reinforce all the assumptions about transgender people that many people share — the view that transgender girls and boys are not real girls and boys, the view that the bodies of transgender people infringe the rights of others, the view that inclusion of transgender people would disrupt educational and extracurricular settings.

She systemically introduces voices to reinforce each of these assumptions and never offers the expertise of individuals who can show that none of these assumptions is correct. She quotes Alliance Defending Freedom, a libertarian law professor, a so-called “radical feminist” organization defined by their belief that women who are trans are actually men, and a select group of educators to ostensibly highlight the challenges that transgender people pose in educational settings. Absent from her piece are the voices of transgender people, advocates, medical associations, pediatric associations, school administrators, and others who could clearly explain based on concrete experience that none of these assumptions comports with reality.

If she is going to deem protecting transgender people “a revolution” of notable “magnitude” then it might be useful to include the many school administrators who have testified to the exact opposite of her provocative warning — that such protections caused no disruption at school and were implemented seamlessly. This hyperbolic suggestion that merely allowing transgender people to be present in the locker room with their peers — most of whom love and respect them for who they are — is a revolution is offensive to both the concept of revolution and to the humanity of trans people. All Shulevitz has accomplished through this framing is to reinforce the talking points advanced by anti-trans groups like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

…

When I challenged Shulevitz about this on Twitter, she responded dismissively and defensively and then deleted her tweets and ended the conversation. My intention was never to demonize her but to draw attention to the risks of what she did on a platform as powerful as the Sunday Times.

As writer Imogen Binnie explained on Twitter, when reading pieces like Shulevitz’s, one must ask “what does this article propose trans people should do”

“[I]f the answer is something like ‘not be trans,’ please consider that most trans people have tried that and it didn’t work,” Binnie tweeted.

And the effect of Shulevitz’s piece is no better demonstrated than the comments over on the NYT. Self-professed Butlerians high-fiving evangelicals interspersed with calls to arms to “protect America’s women.”

Guys, I’m tired of fighting. Jesus Christ.

-Shiv

Zack Ford has also taken Shulevitz to task.

Polish Catholics aren’t done assaulting women’s rights

Apparently not satisfied with its standings in the “Top 5 Worst European Countries to be a Woman in,” Polish Catholic lobbyists have pushed for yet another abortion restriction following the coattails of the nationwide protest on their previous proposal: Criminalizing abortions performed on fetuses with fatal or severe abnormalities.

Polish protesters have launched fresh demonstrations against efforts to further tighten abortion laws.

Women’s rights activists held a rally outside the parliament building in Warsaw, with more action expected on Monday.

Poland’s MPs rejected a near-total ban on abortions on 6 October after mass protests against the move.

But there are new proposals to outlaw abortions in cases where foetuses are unviable or badly damaged.

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the governing Law and Justice Party (PiS), has said his socially conservative party is working on a new restrictive bill.

In an interview on 12 October (in Polish), he said: “We will strive to ensure that even in pregnancies which are very difficult, when a child is sure to die, strongly deformed, women end up giving birth so that the child can be baptised, buried, and have a name.”

Un-fucking-believable. Leave it to Catholic men to tell women they have to give birth to something that is dead all cloaked under the guise of a fucking fairy tale. This thinly-veiled attempt to punish women for existing outside the patriarchal confines of the Catholic church must fail.

Fuck Kaczynski. Again this fucker fails to even let women enter the frame when he thinks about this issue.

Gettin real angry at conservative men in politics these days.

-Shiv

Jason Kenney thinks not being a dick to queer students is “social engineering”

Jason “I don’t get caught up in the details” Kenney, my all-time favourite political aspirant and best friend, has gone on record yet again to characterize the NDP’s new fact-based education curriculum as “social engineering:”

“One of the reasons I’m running, one of my primary concerns is to stop the NDP’s radical ideological agenda in the education system,” Kenney told a small gathering in Medicine Hat last month.

“The NDP has announced the most radical changes to the curriculum,” Kenney added. “They do not mean curricular reforms that are focused on improving numeracy or literacy – they mean social engineering.”

“Let’s be clear about that.”

One wonders whether any such agendas exist that do not meet his criteria of “ideological,” or whether the publicly-funded religious schooling qualifies as “social engineering.” I suppose all the austerity budgets and Bible schools are just, what, “common sense”? 

At any rate, Kenney is wrong (as usual). All areas of the curriculum are getting a review, including English, French (literacy) as well as math.

But these are not what Kenney is referring to. No, he instead calls it radical to insist that Queer people exist.

Kenney also told supporters in Medicine Hat he questions the Alberta NDP’s “talk about human rights” and suggested independent schools, charter schools and homeschooling helped make Alberta’s education system “the best education system in the world.”

Very illuminating that the presence of a school which publicly admitted its Queer student policy was to subject them to psychological torture is what Kenney defines as “the best education system in the world.” He certainly has no traction on the concept of human rights, when we already know that he wants to “compromise” when it comes to these schools–meaning he doesn’t see the currently state-sanctioned torture policy as something that ought to be burned to the ground and plowed with salt.

At the 2016 Conservative Convention last May, Kenney claimed millennials are “the first generation to come through a schooling system” that “hard-wired” them with anti-conservative beliefs – he even suggested young children are indoctrinated with “collectivist ideas” as early as primary school.

No, Kenney, it just seems that the few studies attempting to examine Albertan millennials have found that we are, as a generation, less likely to be concerned with party loyalty, and more likely to be concerned with factual accuracy, and less likely to uncritically accept any given news story. That’s bad news for the so-called Progressive Conservatives, who’ve been coasting on hero worship and spin for 44 years.

Also, what collectivist ideas? “Don’t be a dick” is collectivist now? “Taxes are okay if they’re spent on infrastructure?” “Socialized medicine is a good idea?” “You won’t shrivel up and die if you donate to charity?”

And a few years ago at a Catholic conference in Italy, Kenney mused about the possibility “Marxist” academics are working to “propagate a radical approach to multiculturalism” and “suppress completely the Christian patrimony of Canada.”

Yes! I want to suppress the shit out of your archaic, woman-hating, queer-murdering, war-glorifying, infanticidal, genocidal, badly written medieval torture porn.

At least we have one correct statement from Kenney.

-Shiv

U of T offers forum for STILL WHINGING Jordan Peterson

We are entering into week five of Dr. Jordan Peterson’s infantile temper tantrum, the updates of which I’ve added to that link (there are now accusations of campus police inaction, two alleged assaults, more faculty and student groups calling him an asshole, more trans protesters doxxed and receiving death threats, and formal complaints against Dr. Peterson–you can read more on the original post), and the University of Toronto has decided that the chaos and violence erupting at his freeze peach rally egged on by Rebel Media and his alt-right brown shirts is best resolved with a “debate.” (emphasis mine)

Almost one month after psychology Professor Jordan Peterson published his first YouTube video decrying “Political correctness,” the university has agreed to host a debate including Peterson and another participant.

In a series of videos published on October 24, Peterson discussed the university’s response to his stance on gender identity. The first video decried the letter sent by Dean David Cameron and Vice-Provost, Faculty & Academic Life Sioban Nelson on October 18, which urged Peterson to stop voicing that they called “unacceptable, emotionally disturbing and painful” comments on gender pronouns. The second –- a lengthy video clocking in at nearly thirty minutes – explained Peterson’s disagreement with the letter.In the third video Peterson stated that Cameron had agreed to provide a forum to discuss free speech in an academic manner.

In the video, Peterson lauded the university’s decision to “do the right thing,” saying that it was “unbelievably good news because it means the university has decided to uphold its position as an investigator into complex intellectual matters, and that we can discuss this like civilized human beings.”In an email to The Varsity, Media Relations Director Althea Blackburn-Evans confirmed that a forum would occur, but could not confirm details on how or when the forum would operate, as it is still in early planning stages. There is also no word on who will debate Peterson in the forum.Peterson called on his supporters to commend the university for their willingness to uphold free speech on campus, and encouraged them to send emails thanking the university for “their quick and forthright action.”Peterson could not be reached for further comment by press time.

So Peterson, who has given us ample evidence that he is willfully dedicated to blank fucking ignorance, feels entirely and perfectly qualified to debate my existence.

What is the purpose of this debate? Dr. Peterson has already demonstrated he will not change his mind. His opponent will not change his mind. Regardless of how well either side performs, Dr. Peterson’s free speech goonsquad is already convinced he is right, and trans people will undoubtedly rally around his opponent. Very few people witnessing this debate are going to have an honest interrogation over their own bullshit. All it serves is Peterson’s giant fucking ego in which this event–where people have been assaulted, doxxed, issued death threats and effectively had their education torpedoed because they can’t chance the death threats to return to campus–is still making this about free fucking speech!

Here’s the deal, beloved readers: I will cover the “debate” with Dr. Peterson, and the article will be called “Fact-checking Dr. Peterson.” I know it will be called that because at no point in this entire fucking episode of whinging, lip-pouting, and foot-stomping has Dr. Peterson substantiated his fuck mothering arguments!

I leave you with this comment from “Cerberus is working overtime at the outrage factory” left on PZ’s thread about Dr. Peterson

Seriously, you fucking whiny ass cis people. We’re expected to hold our piss all day long, best plan routes around all the unknown people who want to kill us, and suffer endless slurs anytime we walk outside and you cry your asses to sleep over maybe having to learn a handful of extra pronouns.

Grow. The. Fuck. Up.

Word, Cerberus.

Will someone have to die before Dr. Peterson is charged for public incitement?

-Shiv

 

Anti-LGBTQ fascist wants to warn you of the dangers of Islam

Alternative headline: Fascist appeals to Queer community by pointing out his anti-Queer genocidal plan never at any point invokes god.

I can’t help but notice that when the far-right attempts to appeal to me as a QUILTBAG person by framing Islam as a threat to my well being that they have a blind spot for their own activities. While there certainly are many institutions on the planet that would imprison, torture, or otherwise murder me for being who I am, and yes–some of those are explicitly Islamic institutions–the far-right conservatives pushing this observation seem to forget that they’re among the threats. If the far-right were serious in recruiting me, and I don’t think they are, they would remember to turn the spotlight inwards too.

This is demonstrated no better than through PinkNews’ expose of UKIP leadership hopeful Rasheem Kassam in his remarks on trans people in British & global news: (Content Notice trans-antagonism, non-binary erasure and hate speech)

In November 2015, he tweeted: “Also anyone see that advert after #bbcqt about “gender fluidity”? How much tranny-pushing does the BBC want to do? Radio 4, QT, BBC3, web…”

In April this year, when a transgender non-binary teen spoke to Barack Obama, he said: “Muslim Pakistani girl is ‘coming out’ to Obama as ‘transgender’ live now. Demands Obama acknowledge ‘non binary’ people”.

When someone asked why he had referred to the teen as a girl, he responded: “You ain’t gonna bully me into using tranny terms, love. Move along. “

In 2014, when a convicted murderer came out as trans, he wrote: “Ah yes, the ‘tranny defence’.”

In another 2016 tweet, responding to exercise guidelines, he claimed the NHS “wants to turn me into a teetotal tranny”.

Earlier this month, Mr Kassam denied he was responsible for former leader Nigel Farage’s repeated criticism of HIV patients, despite working as his key adviser at the time.

When asked which kinds of people should be allowed to enter the UK in 2014, Mr Farage said: “People who do not have HIV, to be frank. That’s a good start.”

Later, during the 2015 election debates, Farage claimed the UK is ‘incapable’ of treating people with HIV because of immigration, citing the high cost of HIV treatment.

Kassam insisted: “It wasn’t me…. Nigel Farage got up on stage and unbeknownst to any of us, he made this statement.”

Writing for Breitbart UK, Kassam has published a multitude of stories about the stance of Islam on LGBT rights – despite his own controversial views on LGBT issues.

Earlier this year Mr Kassam was linked to a petition to protest “insidious political correctness” in UKIP after the suspension of a candidate who advocates ‘gay cure’ therapy.

The petition claimed it was written by anonymous ‘UKIP Members and Supporters for Free-Speech’ – but it was first circulated on social media by Mr Kassam, who also took to Breitbart to promote it.

Make no mistake Mr. Kassam, the QUILTBAG community is keenly aware of which institutions support violence against us. It’s just that when you frame the issue as “us vs them” we can’t help but notice that “us” never actually included us, you know? It makes your concern for Islam’s impact on the Queer community, on Queer Muslims and ex-Muslims, a bit disingenuous.

You give atheists a shitty name. You’re the reason many of us seek support from progressive, Queer-affirmative religious congregations: Your opinion is every bit as shitty and inhumane as religious fundamentalists even without invoking god or allah to support it.

-Shiv

Random musings on the so-called defamation of Trump

“Rigged.” It’s the word bandied about irresponsibly by the Trump camp to describe the election. Yet when you look at some of the specifics of the claim, all you find is Trump himself.

They want to say the media is covering him unfairly, but don’t seem to realize that most of the media’s coverage has just involved handing Trump the microphone and letting him speak. Make no mistake, there’s no quote-mining or cherry picking. All one has to do to “defame” Trump is quote him in his entirety.

Which just means his status in the polls reflects that most of us realize how fucking awful he is. The New York Times pisses me off routinely with some of their ignorant editorial choices regarding trans folk, but I think they had a point when they countered Trump’s lawsuit threat by pointing out he has no reputation to defame by virtue of his own words. And indeed, this was one of Clinton’s attack ads. She simply strung together what Trump himself has said, and Trump, in a stunning lack of awareness, said it was “nasty.”

No shit, dude.

Trump wants to engage in the incredibly dangerous act of suggesting the media is “rigging” the election. All the media has to do is plug in a microphone and hit record. Trump will take care of the rest. If that’s “rigging,” then the election is rigged by none other than Trump himself.

I’m sure this will be of small consolation to the first journalist to be murdered by one of his unhinged fans.

-Shiv

Buy chocolate for sex positivity!

Full disclosure: I am acquainted with the owner of the Alberta Sex Positive Education Community Centre (ASPECC), so my endorsement is completely and entirely biased.

But you should totes buy some chocolate to help them fundraise.

A bit about ASPECC:

Our Mission

To promote sex positive values and attitudes in the Greater Edmonton area, provide low to no cost space for other non profits that are also sex positive, and to facilitate sex positive education and awareness in our community.

What We Do

  1. We maintain a space that has several rooms that can be used for meetings, classrooms workshops etc, and an event area suitable for talent shows, movie screenings, performances etc.

  2. We offer that space at low to no charge to non-profit groups in exchange for networking resources, sharing information, collaboration on large scale community awareness projects.

  3. When we are not already booked, our space is available for individuals and for profit ventures to rent.  All proceeds go towards our mission.

  4. When fundraising events are booked at ASPECC our team is available to help with finding volunteers, finding items to raffle/silent auction, finding sponsors and more.

  5. ASPECC offers workshops presentations and demonstrations, but most often we are facilitators, finding the appropriate individuals/groups to provide workshops etc, then providing the space and advertising the workshop.

  6. ASPECC also hosts fundraiser events.  Proceeds from these events go towards the cost of the centre.

  7. We fund-raise to support the centre and it’s events, striving to keep as many workshops as possible at no charge to our guests.

  8. We provide an Artist’s Corner, in which sex positive and/or LGBTQIA artists are showcased, at no charge.

  9. We offer professional development courses such as Kink Aware and facilitate others such as Sex Positive Professionals and Trans Aware Professionals

  10. ASPECC is a sex positive, safe(r) space for persons of all genders, ethnicity, sexualities, abilities and lifestyles to gather to socialize, to learn, to explore and to celebrate the diversity of humankind.

Besides, chocolate! Chocolate for sex! Positivity!

-Shiv

Dying of laughter, send help

Career asshole Ezra Levant of Rebel Media infamy apparently requested a press pass to join the United Nation’s Conference of the Parties (COP 22) and was denied on the grounds that he didn’t count as a reporter. Now he’s written a lengthy diatribe appealing to the Prime Minister to get him in on the grounds of free speech, accusing the UN of censoring his odious enterprise because it “dissents” from the scientific consensus on climate change.

Rewind with me back to 2008 and you’ll see the irony apparent when Levant attempted to defend himself from a libel lawsuit by claiming he wasn’t ever a reporter.

And yet Mr. Levant, by his own admission, is not a journalist. “I’m a commentator, I’m a pundit,” he explained to the judge. “I don’t think in my entire life I’ve ever called myself a reporter.”

I don’t know, Ezra. To me it sounds like the United Nations is just taking you at your word. I can’t imagine why a conference gathering specifically for the purpose of assessing the finer points of climate change policy would possibly deny access to the employees under the editorial thumb of a chronically dishonest anti-science crank. After all, you can still lie as a secondary news source.

-Shiv