Anti-Feminist ‘Threats’ and ‘Harassment’ to be Made Illegal in Nordic Countries?
Just saw this via a tweet by Eivind Berge, made a couple of days ago. The link is in Norwegian, but according to Google Translate, it appears that a mangina political reform group is demanding that anti-feminist ‘threats’ and ‘gender based harassment’ be made illegal in all of the Nordic countries. Hopefully Eivind will drop by and shed some more light on this disturbing development :
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.10946673
(Google Translate)
The Panel recommends that the Nordic countries ensures that threats and harassment on grounds of sex is illegal.
This information comes from a report that Reform – resource for men, delivered the government at 10 Wednesday morning.
Group wants anti-feminist statements shall be subject to racist speech can.
- We believe that the legislation is too weak to counter the wave of anti-feminist threats, says CEO Reforms Are Saastad to NRK.no.
- Are not all threats serious? Why the angle of the anti feminist threats?
- You can ask for. We are not concerned with legislation against anti-feminist attitudes, but that the legislation should include this. Men are affected as well, but we see that harassment in the emphasis goes beyond those fronts equality, answer Saastad.
Expert Committee says the following in the report:
“We recommend that the governments of each of the Nordic countries ensures that threats and harassment on the basis of sex is illegal. In the national legislation must utterances appear punished in line with statements in other media and the public at large. Such protection is not in place in all the Nordic countries. “
We all know how feminists can twist just about anything, from criticism of feminism to video games, into ‘gender based harassment’ :
And it should be telling that apparently feminists are in dire need of legislation to outlaw anti-feminist social commentary, because it is the only way for feminists to keep any (and every) reasonable, rational onlooker from shooting holes in their ideology just by asking a few simple questions and dispelling their myths with quite simple, easily available facts.
In other words, feminism depends on bullying the rest of the world (and MRA’s in particular) into abandoning all critical faculties, and on shutting up and threatening those who refuse to do so.
inclinedreader
15 Mar 13 at 4:22 pm
Yes, a mangina group calling themselves “Reform – Resource Centre for Men” has appointed an “expert group” which is now demanding that criticism against feminism be outright banned in the Nordic countries. They want to protect feminism the same way homosexuals and religions are already protected by criminalizing “hateful” statements against them. Never mind that feminism is an ideology, so this amounts to pure political censorship. A sort of blasphemy law sanctifying feminism, which is apparently something like an official state religion.
The most ridiculous part is the Orwellian name of the mangina NGO. They purport to be a “resource center for men” and yet they are more obsessed with advancing feminism and eradicating antifeminism than the most radical feminists themselves so far have been.
This is how they describe themselves on their website:
http://www.reform.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=10
“Reform – resource centre for men is a politically independent not-for-profit organisation. Founded in 2002 and mainly funded by the Department for Children, Equality and Inclusion, the organisation works towards gender equality from a male perspective. We believe that men as well as women benefit from increased gender equality, and that men as well as women experience challenges based on their gender.”
Emma has written about their latest report:
http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/norwegian-experts-want-to-work-against-antifeminism/
Eivind Berge
15 Mar 13 at 8:34 pm
Poor George got it wrong — it’s not Big Brother we have to worry about, it’s Big Sister.
ThePigman
16 Mar 13 at 12:11 am
I am speechless. Will we all meet in Norwegian prisons? Will we be extradited, or will we be imprisoned only if we dare to spend vacations in Noway?
Sooner or later, progressive equality legislation from nordic countries will spill over to all of Europe, to the United Nations, and the rest of the world.
Any speech that potentially offends a woman, can be outlawed!? We see this already enshrined in harassment laws.
Logic, the weapon of patriarchy, ought to outlawed outright. It is offensive to women, who intuitively, instinctively know what is right.
/sarcasm
Hate speech laws progressed on a long slippery slope.
Initially they were justified to outlaw call to violence: “beat up all blacks, gays, …….” This prohibition of outright calls for violence makes a bit of sense.
But now any criticism, doubt, even scientific research is getting hampered. Mentioning female violence, false rape prevalence, racial differences is offensive and must be outlawed!?
Simply shocking!
Freedom of speech, good bye.
Human-Stupidity.com
16 Mar 13 at 8:52 am
Meanwhile, the feminist victimhood myth has been perpetuated even further and enshrined in a new UN declaration on violence against women:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hBQYyVUVaIqO961efFkY48Be058g?docId=CNG.31f0f0079f76f2fc68946263093e0993.41
Predictably, this document ONLY concerns itself with female victims of violence and completely ignores that men and boys are many times more likely to suffer violence than women.
Unfortunately, it was mainly the Mideastern theocracies which opposed this infamous declaration at the UN. Which isn’t helping the MRA cause.
But yet again, feminists have been given leeway and have been allowed to spread their victimhood bullsh*t… and apparently nobody had the courage to point out the flaws in feminist victimhood mythology.
inclinedreader
16 Mar 13 at 11:34 am
@Human-Stupidity
Probably see you in Norway!
Funny thing is that crazy guy a couple years ago that killed like 70 kids got 21 years. I wonder how long we’ll get for talking? 21 seconds?
Larner
16 Mar 13 at 3:51 pm
Larner: While he got sentenced to 21 years in prison he also got “containment”, this is essentially the same as a life time sentence. He will die in prison.
That being said, I much prefer the lower and human punishments compared to those in the US where decades in hell seems to be the minimum sentence now days, even for victimless crimes.
warz
16 Mar 13 at 9:02 pm
Eivind:
I wonder if this isn’t a sign of the desperation Scandanavian feminists are beginning to feel. With the collapse of the EU porn ban and the growing antifeminist sentiment over there; I wonder if this move by these manginas is really going to gain any traction?
Eric
17 Mar 13 at 12:12 am
Warz:
While I’m somewhat optimistic about the rest of the world, I think it’s going to get much worse in the US before it gets better. The feminists might stand a setback in Europe; but they can’t afford to lose the US—hence the draconian and disporportionate sentences. Likely those sentences are going to become even more severe: several pundits have recommended execution for loosely-defined ‘sex crimes.’
Eric
17 Mar 13 at 12:15 am
@Eric
I agree with you, while Europe is trying to push for more laws, what’s happening in the US is more terrifying.
Decades in prison for downloading pictures?
If you refuse to plea guilty you might get a potential life sentence?
Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca is a Florida man who got life in prison without parole for downloading CP.
If you just google CP sentencing news, you’ll be shocked on how they’re handing down the sentences.
After pushing their crap theory. (The voodoo theory) into the minds of the public, judges are actually starting to believe these kids are getting re-victimized when they’re pictures are seen.
It is so easy to end up in prison for a long time now, you don’t even need to leave your house.
Larner
17 Mar 13 at 5:54 am
I certainly agree that things are worse in the USA and likely to remain so, and to be honest, I do not know why anyone who is aware of what is going on continues to live in the USA. If you have the opportunity, get the hell out of there.
Having said that, things are pretty bad in Europe. For example, in the USA at least at the present time you have to actually be downloading and in posession of child porn to fall foul of these laws. In Europe you just have to have viewed one single image of person (including a cartoon image) who appears to be under 18 in a ‘sexual context’, and (given laws presently being drafted under an EU directive) you will recieve a mandatory minimum one or two year prison sentence, even just for VIEWING one single image of a sexy manga schoolgirl character, or a youngish looking 19 year old girl in a skimpy bikini.
It’s also only a matter of time before blogs like mine that question paedohysteria become illegal in Europe. At least the USA has a constitution that contains certain safeguards. The EU has a fundamental charter of citizen’s rights (including for example ‘freedom of expression’) but the charter itself contains a get out clause that means that any ‘right’ can be negated if it ‘conflicts’ with the fundamental right to protection from ‘harm’ (i.e. using my right to free expression to argue on a blog that the age of consent of 18 is too high, could conflict with a 17 year old girl’s fundamental citizen’s right to protection from harm – in the eyes of a mangina or femihag EU judge).
theantifeminist
17 Mar 13 at 8:42 am
@Larner
The pictures they classify as ‘child-pornography’ (using the Copine scale of ‘sexual offensiveness’), invariably depict scantily clad young women (‘children’ by feminist definition), posing in what femihags define as ‘sexually provocative’ ways, (not actually engaging in anything sexual per se) and always smiling pleasantly, (or from their sexually JEALOUS femihag perspectives: smiling ‘provocatively’), as they are in fact: HAPPY.
From what I understand and by that typical description of them, the so called evil, dreadful ‘child-pornography’ images, hardly depict what could be described as a victim of anyone or anything, so it beats me how they argue anyone is being RE-victimized, when they weren’t being ‘victimized’ in the first instance…
As for the judges: they don’t believe the Voodoo magic theory anymore than we do! I think you’ll find if you simply consider the word paedocrite you’ll understand their real motivation and ‘unbiased’ judgement they cast on other men, quite easily…
Alan Vaughn
17 Mar 13 at 9:13 am
Good comment Alan, and just to illustrate the last point for the benefit of Larner :
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xutkq0_the-new-statesman-s02e03-the-wapping-conspiracy-judge_fun#.UUWTl1fccis
(sorry about the 30 second ad – dailymotion is even worse than youtube, but at least you don’t get banned for criticising feminism).
theantifeminist
17 Mar 13 at 9:58 am
Hahaha!
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean, but in real life they’re a lot more paedocritical than that.
I don’t care what anyone says: unless such a judge is a femihag, a gay (thus likely a pedarist anyway), or he’s been castrated (has absolute zero libido), they would be just as much, or even MORE aroused by viewing those ‘child’ porn images as any (feminist defined) ‘paedophile’ he’s passing judgement against.
That is, assuming the ‘paedo’ he’s going to send down for 5+ years of ass-rape was in fact aroused by the images, himself.
It is the other part of that thought-crime law that really infuriates me, the way it assumes, in fact it ASSERTS that because someone possesses certain images or even textual stories, it automatically means he IS, without a shadow of doubt: a despised paedophile, whose only interest in life is to rape and / or murder a 4 or 5 year old, or a 15 or 17 year old. (A ‘child’).
That’s what I was trying to explain to Larner the other day too, when I said that using the same [il]logic as cp: possessing an Agatha Christie novel would be absolute, indisputable proof that the possessor IS without a single doubt: a card-carrying murderer who wants nothing more than to play-out the role, in real life of the mystery murderer in one of her famous murder mystery’s…
I just can’t for the life of me, understand why only me and a few others who often comment here, can see this junk science for what it is, by using simple analogies and logic like that!
Anyway, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of those thought-crime trial judges even copy some of the ‘evidence’ onto a USB flash drive, so they can take it home for further ‘scrutiny’ or ‘closer, more detailed analysis’ (and fap-off).
Alan Vaughn
17 Mar 13 at 11:45 am
@Antifeminist:
Few people probably even remember this, but in the run-up to the 2004 EU Framework Decision which for the first time brought us all these nonsensical laws, there were drafts of that Framework Decision floating around which sought to make it a punishable crime (!!) to verbally condone any sexual activity of “children” under 18. In its strictest form, this would have thrown the flood gates wide open not just to a blanket age of consent of 18, but to even banning sex education. But primarily, the chilling effects would have been gigantic, which was just what the child abuse industry and its Christian Right sponsors were after… well, they didn’t succeed with the attempt of making it a criminal offense, but they sure as heck are still trying to accomplish this through the proverbial back door.
inclinedreader
17 Mar 13 at 1:44 pm
There was actually a case of this here in the UK – in fact, if memory serves me right, it was the self-declared leading child porn expert in the country. And he was caught and charged. I’ll have to dig out the link and put him forward as a leading contender to Fraudtrelle in the forthcoming ‘worst paedocrite of all time’ award.
theantifeminist
17 Mar 13 at 3:03 pm
François Lefort des Ylouses was “the self-declared leading child porn expert” in France, untill he was exposed as a pedophile. He raped several boys. He was posturing as a white-knight in the medias and collected a lot of “documentation”. He was a priest and a general practitionner too.
There’s another one in Argentina. And a another one in Belgium. I forgot their names but it wouldn’t be too difficult to find them. Both leading “defenders” of children against pedophiles.
These guys are psychopaths. Their lack of conscience is so baffling that they can pretend they are the exact opposite of what they really are. They like to posture as hollier-than-thou people to fool everyone around. Some of these bastards are really fascinating. François Lefort des Ylouses surely is.
nico
17 Mar 13 at 3:46 pm
@theantifeminist
Well the downloading part is the tricky thing.
Everything you viewed on the internet is sort of downloading, the image is saved to a hidden folder somewhere deep inside your hard drive, and that’s enough to get you decades.
And yes indeed that in the US, people are protected for their rights to work. So porn stars that look young will be allowed to do porn.
But the problem is that you need to prove that the person in the picture is over 18, which is sometimes impossible.
Taking a picture of a hot bikini girl on the beach can potentially get you in trouble, unless you prove that she’s 18, if this image was downloaded, there is really no way, and law enforcements are known to lie about these sort of things.
Take the Little Lupe case, guy got busted and charged for CP for having Little Lupe videos. The agent and a pediatrician even testified that they’re sure that the person in the video is underaged.
Well, the found Little Lupe, she showed the judge her passport and everything is solved.
But what if you can’t find the girl?
Would you be locked up for watching adult porn?
Larner
17 Mar 13 at 4:37 pm
You’ll be sh*t out of luck. Technically, in most Western democracies, the burden of proof should still lie with the prosecution that a crime has occurred and that you are guilty of it.
But when these “child” pornography laws were passed, the burden of proof was effectively reversed, precisely because it was argued that it would impede courts and law enforcement in attempting to prosecute “child” porn offenses if they couldn’t get hold of the “victim” to prove you took pictures of a person who was actually under age.
There has actually been a court case in Austria where somebody downloaded gay porn with youngish looking porn actors off an American web site (which actually strictly adhered to U.S. federal age record keeping requirements). The case went to trial, and pediatricians and anthropologists provided testimony that there was a 10 percent chance that the persons depicted in the pornographic material were under 18. To the judge, this was actually good enough for a conviction!!
So as it stands, even a wrongfully accused murder suspect has a better chance of getting off the hook on ambiguous evidence than somebody who has nude pictures of a young looking 20-year-olds on his computer. Not many judges would convict a murder suspect on a 10 percent chance that he is guilty.
That’s also why that guy with Little Lupe pretty much had to move heaven and earth to track her down and bring her into the courtroom… to save his own ass and avoid decades in prison which without question were looming for him.
inclinedreader
17 Mar 13 at 9:05 pm
@nico,
Thank you for confirming my theory.
On this site we refer to those hollier-than-thou people (Witch-finder Generals) as paedocrites.
We are also trying to establish the term as a meme across all MRA blogs, in similar fashion to other, similar terms that were coined by prominent ‘manosphere’ identities, such as the word paedohysteria, which was introduced by Steve Moxon, we think…
Alan Vaughn
17 Mar 13 at 11:42 pm
@Inclinedreader / Larner
Here in the feminist totalitarian state Downunder (Australia): what you’ve stated there is LAW.
Even if is KNOWN that they ARE over 18, they still convict you as a filthy ‘paedophile’ complete with gaol, sex-offender registration – the works; if the person depicted in the ‘child-pornography’ image even LOOKS under age. Whether she actually is underage or not doesn’t have anything to do with it.
I.e. a picture of a 30+ year old woman wearing a schoolgirl uniform and her hair arranged in pigtails, could potentially land one in prison for a couple of years of alternate sexuality, followed by lifelong sex-offender registration. Life irreversibly ruined, forever.
Alan Vaughn
18 Mar 13 at 12:02 am
@Nico
thanks for the info, I’ll certainly be looking him up and adding him to the poll. And good to see that you still read this blog!
theantifeminist
18 Mar 13 at 9:28 am
@Nico
Don’t forgot John Walsh
The man behind the sex offender registry and is always punishing for crazier laws.
and… he met his girlfriend at a bar when she’s 16 and he’s 22.
Oh I guess that fine, since he said “she looked older.”
Larner
18 Mar 13 at 11:28 am
and that is yet another example of the feminist abuse industry chipping away at centuries-old constitutional principles of so-called civilized countries, and turning due process of law on its head.
Capital crime, to the magnitude of which even these victimless non-crimes have been elevated, normally requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
You could say that what they do in court based on these “child porn” laws is prove beyond reasonable doubt that you took pictures of a person who looks like they could be under 18; in that sense, you are in fact guilty of the offense as stipulated by those laws. But in reality, that would be like convicting a murder suspect because it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is suspected of a crime.
The so-called threshold of culpability is willfully and deliberately being lowered to produce these absurd results. You are being punished because you MAY (or may not) have committed the offense of “sexually abusing” a minor, who may or may not even exist. And even IF they were a minor at the time of the pictures being taken, it doesn’t even matter if that minor felt abused by you for taking those pictures or was a consenting party to it. And it also doesn’t matter if you or somebody else took the pictures. So you can go to prison for downloading (or just attempting to download without ending up in actual possession of pictures, that too is a punishable offense in some countries) pictures of people who may or may not have been 18, who may or may not have felt abused.
In no other field of criminal law would any sane judge or jury convict a suspect based on such a far-fetched chain of hypothetical evidence.
inclinedreader
18 Mar 13 at 12:30 pm
@inclinedreader
Who may not even been abused at all
It’s funny how the laws are so broad at even people who are not victims will be seen as victims.
Like the girls who got arrested for their own nude photos, who’s the victim, oh wait, you just charged the victim.
Did they charge her for molesting herself?
Larner
18 Mar 13 at 3:49 pm
“good to see that you still read this blog!”
I moved out of Paris a couple of months ago, so I have a different ip. But I still enjoy reading your blog indeed. Keep up the good work.
nico
18 Mar 13 at 8:45 pm
[...] The Antifeminist: Anti-Feminist ‘Threats’ and ‘Harassment’ to be Made Illegal in Nordic Coun… [...]
Nordic Countries to criminalize antifeminist speech. | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception
30 Mar 13 at 7:33 pm