Honorable Jean Augustine, P.C., M.P.
Outside link http://www.imparl.com/mensactivism/docs/canada20030604.pdf
Honorable Jean Augustine, P.C., M.P.
Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)
Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ontario Canada
By electronic mail only: firstname.lastname@example.org
Open Letter: Canadian Feminists Charge Citizens $75,000 (CDN) to Write
Misandrist "Report" that Calls for Censorship
June 4, 2003
Dear Secretary Augustine:
I am writing to protest Status of Women Canada’s publication of the document, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse, which is available online at the following Web page:
Three Québecois feminists took $75,000 from the citizens of Canada, and published the self-proclaimed "research" in this "report." The report is filled with misleading data that is taken out of context, slander of men’s organizations and men’s rights activists, and anti-male hate speech. Sadly, this bogus "research" is nothing more than a poorly written anti-male rant. Even the most cursory review of this document reveals that its authors apparently began their "research" with the intention of bashing men and those they call "masculinists." Then they seem to have gathered a collection of biased sources to try to justify their dubious claims.
If one looks at the document, one sees that the "report" is merely a man-hating polemic, riddled with incredibly sloppy writing, pathetic organization, logical fallacies, irresponsible generalizations, and a biased, ranting style that is totally inappropriate for expository writing. The feminist authors recklessly paint a large number of respected and responsible men’s groups and organizations with a slanderous brush as the feminists cry, "hate speech," without context and without justification. Moreover, the feminists’ flimsy citations to the original source documents—not to mention the shameful organization of the feminists’ anti-male harangue—make it quite difficult to verify independently the claims of these feminist authors and their shameless advocacy research.
Initially, the feminist authors fail to define the word "masculinst." The word "masculinist" appears 126 times in the document. On page ix of the document, the authors provide a glossary containing definitions of such commonly used words as "discourse" and "ideology." Curiously, however, the authors do not define "masculinist"—a term that is not yet in common usage, but one whose clear definition is essential to understanding and evaluating their entire document. These feminists have charged the Canadian people $75,000 for a 150-page "report" about a term that they don’t even define.1
This "report" is filled with value judgments and assumptions, apparently selected to support the writers’ own anti-male biases and political agendas. The document fails to present even the most basic credible support for the wild claims it makes about men, boys, and men’s activists. Ironically, the authors make wild assertions such as:
"Defamation ... is used extensively by masculinists. We found many hate-inspired pictures and expressions used to describe and discredit women and feminists." (p. 70) The authors apparently expect the reader simply to accept their assertions without question. However, being a critical reader and a skeptic, I do not accept those claims. In the document, I see only one cartoon—conveniently appearing only in French, in an English edition of a government-commissioned document— that the authors call an example of "defamation" or "hate-inspired pictures and
1 On page 3 of their document, the authors do offer a footnote about the word "masculinist." The body of the footnote appears on page 132, and states, "‘Masculinist’ is used here in keeping with the meaning given it by Martin Dufresne (1998, p. 126)." However, the authors give no hints about the contents of Mr. Dufresne’s writing. That failure to quote anything from Mr. Dufresne’s writing is startling because the authors have used many lengthy block quotations in their document. Indeed, they have reproduced several images without proper attribution. It is unclear why they do not quote Mr. Dufresne’s alleged definition of "masculinist." Could feminist "researchers" have something to gain by failing to define terms clearly? In a document that encourages content-based censorship of political speech, such sloppiness is intolerable. 2 Interestingly, the authors claim that this cartoon appeared on the Après-rupture Web site ( http://lapresrupture.qc.ca ), but fail to indicate the date searched or the specific page on which they found the cartoon. Using the "Web Capture" feature in Adobe Acrobat 5.0.5, I viewed the
Après-rupture site as it existed on June 3, 2003, at approximately 22:00 GMT/UTC. The "Web Capture" operation yielded 1,612 pages. After searching through 498 pages of the site, I was able to find the cartoon in question on the following page:
In fact, the cartoon merely pokes fun at feminist excesses, such as false allegations of rape. (Indeed, false allegations of rape are a serious problem and have devastated the lives of innocent men and their families.) How is such humor "defamation"? How is such humor a "hate-inspired" picture or expression? Since the feminist authors (or their translators) failed to translate the cartoon into English, I shall describe the cartoon here, with my own English translations of the dialogue.
In the cartoon, two large adult female aggressors are chasing a startled man and swinging their purses at him. As he runs, the man drops books and papers to the ground. He wonders what is going on, as evinced by the question marks in the thought balloons pointing to him. One woman screams, "Bastard!" at the man. The second woman yells, "Rape! Police! Help!!!" As a police car takes the man away, the man pleads, "But I didn’t do anything, I..." Back at the scene where the female aggressors had been chasing the man, the first woman gloats, "It’s good to repeat our anti-harassment procedure in the street from time to time, eh?" "Yeah," the second woman agrees.
I would like very much for someone to explain to me how this cartoon constitutes "defamation," a "hate-inspired picture," or a "hate-inspired expression." Clearly, the feminist authors of this absurd document and Status of Women Canada cannot do so. The feminist authors cite this cartoon as an "example" of the "many hate-inspired pictures and expressions used to describe and discredit women and feminists" that the authors of this absurd document claim to have seen, but have conveniently failed to identify in the "report" (emphasis added).
There is no "defamation" and no "hate speech" in the cartoon. If a reader cannot believe the one "example" these authors offer to support their claim about the "many hate-inspired pictures and expressions," why should that reader believe anything these authors have to say? I suspect there is something even more insidious happening here—the desire to silence critics of the ideology that the authors and Status of Women Canada espouse. The document refers numerous times to "hate speech," quoting the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as other definitions of "hate speech." Nevertheless, the authors recommend monitoring of "masculinist" Web sites and possible criminal prosecution of their owners for "hate speech." These authors make abundantly clear their beliefs that no one should be able to criticize One can only wonder why these feminist authors failed to provide a proper citation for the cartoon and why they failed to offer an English translation of the text in the cartoon. Such flimsy citations cast severe doubts on the quality and thoroughness of the entire "report." feminism and its adherents with impunity. No, these authors, using $75,000 of the money of the Canadian people, suggest that the Canadian government should use the criminal law to harass "masculinists" who do not toe the feminist party line.
Please be advised that such actions would clearly violate Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms (guaranteeing "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication"). Moreover, because communities routinely form online at Web sites and at other online forums, such feminist censorship or harassment would also violate Section 2(d) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of association. Indeed, with respect to U.S.-based men’s organizations, the United States government would not recognize such prosecutions or judgments resulting from them because they would violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, 169 F.Supp.2d 1181 (N.D.Cal.2001) (holding that an order from French trial court prohibiting the display and auctioning of Nazi memorabilia on a U.S.-based Web site was not entitled to enforcement in the United States, because the order violated the right to freedom of speech that the United States Constitution protects).
In addition to calling for government censorship of "masculinists," the feminist authors of this document claim, "A notable feature of the masculinist discourse is its marked lack of contextualization." (p. 83) Yet, their ranting disparagement of men itself lacks context. Earlier in this letter, I discussed the authors’ use, without proper attribution, of the cartoon at the Après-rupture Web site ( http://lapresrupture.qc.ca/BD_FausseAllegation.html ). The authors claim this cartoon is an example of "hate-inspired pictures and expressions" on "masculinist" Web sites, but they fail to show the context in which the cartoon appears. They merely complain that the cartoon appears on a site they have labeled "masculinist," without even defining what "masculinist" means. Thus, the feminist authors are not only poor critical thinkers and writers; they are also hypocrites.
Further disregarding the "contextualization" they claim to consider important, the feminist authors conveniently and completely ignore the numerous examples of anti-male feminist hate speech that appear online. For illustration, I provide two instances of such hate speech here.
Valerie Solanas, The S.C.U.M. ["Society for Cutting Up Men"] Manifesto
(Matriarchy Study Group: 1983 ed.), available online at:
"Kashka," The All Men Must Die Page, available online at:
(Further, "Kashka" posted an "All Men Must Die" graphic, which is available
online at: http://web.archive.org/web/20000820140848/www.kfs.org/~kashka/images/me/mail2.jpg ).
Additionally, Celsus Boabdil has catalogued many more examples of feminist hate speech, taking the form of text and graphics, at the Feminist Hate Web site, available online at:
A thorough review of and citation to such examples of feminist hate speech are essential to any attempt to evaluate objectively the so-called "masculinist discourse" that the authors claim to have studied. A complete review of online hate speech by feminists is essential to understanding the online context in which men’s activists and organizations operate and speak. Perhaps men’s comments about women and feminists are primarily responses to the feminist hate speech and propaganda that are readily available online.
These three feminist authors ignore the gaping blind spots and biases that are obvious in their own failure to place their "research" in context. Sitting smugly in their glass house, the authors hurl bricks at the so-called "masculinist discourse" for its "marked lack of contextualization." Ironically, these same authors cobble together recklessly chosen, poorly cited images and quotations from various Web sites. They then attempt to pass off their alarmist propaganda as examples of the "masculinist discourse."
If you want to see what men are talking about online, read some men’s Web sites in their entirety. Please do not rely on this very biased, government-funded "report" for your information about men’s activism. I invite you to look at primary sources to get the real, complete story about what men’s activists and organizations are saying on the Internet. Get the true story. Accept no substitutes.
The Canadian government, the feminists who compiled this ridiculous document, and their immediate supervisors need to hear from Canadians who object to their hard-earned tax dollars being spent to pay for such tripe. They also need to hear from men and women of good will everywhere who refuse to bow to these would-be feminist censors. I write to you from the United States to voice my strong and unequivocal opposition to these attempts at censoring political speech. Additionally, I am now recommending that men’s activists, men’s rights organizations, and civil liberties organizations monitor the writings and publications of the following entities and individuals:
•Status of Women Canada—funded the "report" in question
•Pierrette Bouchard (Université Louval)—co-author of the "report"
•Isabelle Boily (Université Louval)—co-author of the "report"
•Marie-Claude Proulx (Université de Montréal)—co-author of the "report"
•Others to be determined
Based on the initial responses to this document that I have seen, I suspect that there will be much more criticism of this "report" in the future. Men are not going to tolerate this kind of nonsense anymore. We are simply not going to allow our tax dollars to be taken from us, simply to be used by bigots who have the audacity to sit on their comfortable academic perches and recommend that the government censors us men and those who represent men’s issues in the marketplace of ideas. Despite its wanton misandry, in some respects, this "report" may be a blessing in disguise. The public now has the chance to see the kind of hatred that drips from women’s studies departments in universities and women’s ministries and commissions in the government. The public, and men in particular, can now see how some of their tax dollars are being used—to develop specious arguments in favor of politically-driven censorship.
Secretary Augustine, I sincerely hope that you will take steps to publicly denounce the kind of anti-male rhetoric that these authors have provided to Status of Women Canada. Moreover, I request that your ministry take the following actions immediately:
•remove this anti-male document from your Web site;
•exclude this anti-male document from consideration in any policy making activities of the Government of Canada; and
•review proposals for research projects much more carefully in the future to prevent any repetitions of this debacle.
I look forward to seeing your implementation of these requests at your earliest opportunity.
Steven D. Imparl, J.D.
Chicago, Illinois USA
For Secretary of State only:
Digital signature certificate for this letter will follow in a separate e-mail.
MD5 Fingerprint: 9F65 94A9 42A3 920B DB4A 61AA B4EA A9E0
SHA-1 Fingerprint: E02D C855 ACD9 4E72 FCB0 0F37 EA50 3832 754E 9922
Digitally signed by Steve Imparl
DN: cn=Steve Imparl, c=US
Date: 2003.06.04 01:50:01 -05'00'
Reason: I am the author of this
Location: Chicago, IL USA Signature Not