The Supreme Court of Canada did the right thing. They struck down laws that endangered Canadian citizens.
The old laws made it illegal for sex-workers to communicate with clients in public, conduct business in private buildings, and for anyone to live off the avails of prostitution. Sex workers were therefore prohibited from paying for security, working indoors or negotiating and screening clients in a safe, open area. The law put these women in danger.
The case was brought to court by the very women whose lives were put at risk: female sex-workers. But feminists from the Women's Coalition, which includes the Elizabeth Fry Society, are not impressed with the ruling, and make the bizarre claim that "it is now ok to buy and sell women and girls in this country."
The Coalition is trying to stir-up moral panic because
Microsoft and Google have both announced that they will be blocking thousands of search terms in Bing, Yahoo and Google. They claim that it is to block the spread of child porn, certainly a noble cause, but is that really their motivation?
Search-term blocking is very crude. Not only will it block legitimate research and porn searches equally, it is also a broad net that will capture and block information completely unrelated to child porn. Worse, everyone knows that this censorship will have absolutely no effect on the distribution of child porn.
These companies know that child porn is distributed almost exclusively on the Dark Net. Child porn consumers don't search openly on Google or any popular search engine, nor do purveyors distribute their wares openly on these platforms. So why are these two US companies acclimating the populace to censorship?
I had no idea that today was International Men's Day (IMD). Honestly I didn't know there was an International Men's Day. I certainly knew of International Women's Day, which has been celebrated for over 100 years.
Today, on IMD, I learned that Professor Thomas Oaster, University of Missouri, was bullied and harassed by students and administrators when he tried to celebrate IMD in the early 1990's. His career was in ruin by the vicious attacks of the University community until he sued and won compensation for the wrongs he suffered.
International Men`s Day is a little known and largely ignored day, but it didn't escape the attention of Susie Boniface at "The Mirror", who decided to celebrate this day by writing a sarcastic, hate-filled article to ridicule men. A piece laced with self-aggrandization, and bitterness, belittling men and men's suffering at every opportunity.
This came to a head at AVFM after TGMP editors took down an article by Suzanne Venker entitled "Mom's Can't Be Dad's Too," in which Ms. Venker gives a first-person testimony in praise of her husband's importance to their family. Ms. Venker's article was considered controversial because she claims fathers are important to children. She even points to data that supports her own experience, quoting “The Politics of Fatherhood” by Stephen Baskerville, a leading authority on divorce, child custody and the family court system. Recent research published in the Review of Economics of the Household also supports her claim that children do better with a father and a mother. Even more research supporting this claim can be found at About.com .
Last weekend the Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE) hosted a lecture entitled "Caring About University Men" by Dr. Miles Groth at the University of Toronto. Dr. Groth spoke about the crisis for men on university campuses in the first world: declining enrollment and a feeling that they are not welcome on campus. I spoke with Dr. Groth prior to his lecture and will be posting a video with highlights of the lecture and subsequent rally at Queen's Park very soon.
Past CAFE events have been quite eventful, with protests organized by several different groups including CUPE and the Student Union UTSU. These groups are adamantly opposed to Mens' Centres and Men's Rights organization having any presence on the University of Toronto campus, and have vowed to oppose them at every opportunity, but this lecture proceeded without incident, possibly due to
Suicide is tragic regardless of the race, sex, or age of the victim. The tragedy, and this burden of guilt must be carried by our entire culture, is that some among us feel so hopeless about their future that they feel their only option is to die. Suicide affects everyone close to the victim, often destroying the lives of the survivors.
If suicide is to be addressed effectively, it needs to be understood. That means openly talking about victim demographics; who they are and why they commit suicide, for starters. And yet even on World Suicide Prevention Day, the media chose to be evasive about the truth.
The CTV news piece about World Suicide Prevention Day mentioned the many suicide cohorts, the complexities of suicide, that individuals have differing motives, that differences occur within each age group. In fact they went to considerable trouble to touch on these complexities.
But the CTV commentators avoided the single biggest and most significant statistic surrounding suicide:
When I first heard of the "Jane Austen twitter-rape-threat arrest" I did not think I would write about it because, I thought, he should be arrested, he deserved it. Threatening someone is a crime, so this seems like a straight forward, uncontroversial case. Make a threat, get arrested. Nothing to write about there. A threat is a threat, right?
I started thinking more about this because I saw "rape threat" comments when I posted a video of Feminist protests at the University of Toronto. I did not want to get into censoring comments, but I deleted the "I want to rape her" and "she should be raped" comments as I saw them. Not only are these comments abusive and offensive but they add nothing to any conversation. At best these comments shut down conversation, and inflame tensions.
No, Bill Clinton didn't say that. He wouldn't have dared. That would have been prejudicial against OJ Simpson, especially coming from the highest public office in the US, and it would have triggered race-riots.
President Obama has no such reservations, "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon." This is no small thing. Even before the facts were known, charges were laid or a trial could begin, the US President signaled that he believed Trayvon Martin was indeed the victim of a homicide.
After the verdict, President Obama said "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."
Does he mean kicked out of school three times, multiple arrests, tattoos, a penchant for street fighting, and stolen goods and drugs in his bedroom? Did he refer to white people as "creepy-ass crackers?" Would he have beat a man's head against the concrete until the man was sure he was going to die?
Everyone in North America remembers the brutal beating of Rodney King by police in California on March 3, 1991. This incident received enormous and near constant NEWS coverage around the world, and led to charges against the police involved. The acquittal of four police officers led to riots, leaving 53 dead and thousands injured. This incident was widely condemned as racially motivated; Rodney King was African American.
So, more than 20 years later, we can assume that violence motivated by police bigotry is universally condemned. The public will be outraged, and there will be marches, and protests when it occurs?
Not so fast. A week ago a police officer in Sweden brutally beat a man to the ground with a steel baton without cause or provocation, and it was all caught on video, shown here.
I met a couple of buddies downtown Kingston last night.
Buskers fire show on Princess St.
After watching the Buskers fire show on Princess street we decided to play a couple of games of pool at the Grizzly Grill. It was a hot evening and one of my friends, Ed, had worn a sleeveless shirt.
The Grizzly Grill has a bar and pool tables upstairs and another bar with a dance floor below. Women of all ages hang out on both floors and, as is typical, many were scantily dressed in sleeveless and strapless tops, and mini-skirts, in the usual manner intended to attract attention. That's fine, I don't mind a bit. These young women are proud of their bodies and they have every right to show off in virtually any manner they wish.
Ed was given this t-shirt to hide his "offensive" muscles. The young woman's strapless dress was perfectly fine.
But that right was not extended to Ed. We weren't there five minutes before a bouncer appeared and told Ed he had to put on a different shirt. The female manager found Ed offensive in his "muscle shirt." He wasn't topless. His shirt was clean and of high quality. His shorts were also nice looking. But she considered the muscle shirt "offensive." Ed didn't have another shirt with him, and he was genuinely apologetic, so the bouncer brought him a t-shirt, seen here, to cover up his "offensive" muscles.
Can you imagine the outrage and protests if one of the women were asked to put on a shirt?
Last
Fall I interviewed Dr. Warren Farrell, who was giving a talk
sponsored by the Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE) at the
University of Toronto, as part of a short documentary on the lives of
two men after divorce called “Broken.”
We were really surprised to find a dramatic protest underway when we arrived for Dr. Farrell's lecture later that evening. Feminist protesters blocked the entrances and exits to the lecture hall, so I grabbed my camera and filmed the event.
After
the documentary was finished, I put a separate video together about
the protest and posted it on my newly registered YouTube channel, Studio Brule. It went viral almost immediately, but after nine years and over 80,000 subscribers YouTube deleted my channel because I began discussing alternative treatments for Covid-19, like hydroxy-chloroquine and ivermectin. So I started a new channel called Studio B. Some of the links in this and other blog posts are broken because of YouTube's deletion of my original channel, but I hope to fix them soon.
The
strange thing is, there was no coverage of the Warren Farrell protest in the
mainstream media. City TV News had a cameraman present and filming
throughout the protest, but they did not report on it. When asked,
City News apparently said they didn't report on the event because
they could not find a narrative for the story. I found this odd since
the protest provided so much material, and I captured the narrative quite easily. This got me thinking: Why
would a News station decline to do a story about a protest that was
sufficiently violent as to require police intervention?
For
starters, mainstream media companies attract huge ad budgets from
large corporations which are extremely sensitive to their public
image. These media companies will avoid controversy and remain politically
correct in their treatment of sensitive topics in order to protect
those dollars.
That
is good for business, but not so good for journalism, or for society.
I don't know whether this motive was at play for City News at the
Warren Farrell protest but it opened my eyes to the important role
that independent journalists, bloggers, and social medial users play
in society, not just in the middle east, as we saw during the Arab
Spring of 2011, but even here in Canada and the USA. Mainstream News media are not interested in any news that might upset their powerful bosses and owners; they have a narrative to sell and they will not undermine that narrative.
The
advantage of YouTube, and blogging in general, is that AdSense
becomes the intermediary between advertiser and content producer.
This third party relationship eliminates the conflict of interest,
and allows the independent blogger to earn a living while covering
important issues that are too hot or too risky for mainstream. This
doesn't mean that bloggers and YouTubers are more objective, there's
no shortage of evidence that they are not, only that they may have
less motive to hide or repress News stories and their opinions about
events. Update: YouTube has become actively biased since 2018 and can no longer be considered a neutral platform. They will demonetize, shadow ban, and restrict any video that undermines the goals of their globalist owners. Free thinkers and free speech advocates have been forced to seek alternative platforms.
The feminists protested subsequent CAFE sponsored events at the
University of Toronto. They disrupted professor Janice Fiamengo's
lecture entitled “What's wrong with Women's Studies” using the
fire alarm to clear the building, and also hurled abuses at attendees
of a talk by Dr.'s Nathanson and Young in April.
City
TV's Avery Haines sought me out while I was filming the April protest. She had watched the Warren Farrell protest video on YouTube
and wanted to use a clip inher story about the University of Toronto
Student Union's efforts to have CAFE banned from campus. As a
small-time YouTuber, it felt good to have made a small impact upon
the mainstream media.
So Canada
Day 2013 seems like a good day to launch the Studio Brulé blog, and
I hope to provide an alternative perspective when political
correctness distorts the truth on issues that are too hot for
mainstream, and on topics that they will not cover.
Update: Canada, under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has moved steadily towards totalitarianism under the guise of keeping the public safe from coronavirus. Trudeau has bribed all of the remaining News organizations with $600 million dollars of taxpayer money, available only to those deemed worthy by the Liberal government. The result was seen immediately. Liberal party scandals are all but ignored, and the media shamelessly and uncritically promotes the Trudeau agenda. Canadians are fed Liberal propaganda from every mainstream media outlet, and the country is moving inexorably towards socialism, with new restrictions on freedoms being introduced on a regular basis.
