HBB seeking legal redress against Calgary Expo


The Honey Badger Brigade is now seeking legal advice to hold the Calgary Expo staff accountable for their acts of abuse and discrimination against us. We have made attempts in the past week to diffuse the situation by attempting to contact Mr. Kelly Dowd, president of the Calgary Expo. We have received no response.

On April 17th 2015, the Honey Badger Brigade was forcibly evicted and our booth ordered removed, despite our operating well within the rules of the Expo and its policies of conduct. We were not given a chance to dispute the alleged complaints. The organization violated its own stated policy in the process and has released conflicting claims regarding its reasons for our removal.

Those claims indicate that we were removed due to our Men’s Rights Activism and unpopular view of modern feminism. Therefore it is our belief that the actions taken by the Calgary Expo staff were of a political nature and contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of association.

If so, this eviction was based in discrimination, an act that has defamed and abused us. While we would prefer to settle this outside of a courtroom, we are prepared to take every legal action needed to ensure that ourselves and other future exhibitors will be treated equally, and without such a denial of their fundamental human rights.

Our letter to Mr. Dowd:

Honey Badger Brigade

PO Box 990
Kelvington, SK
S0A 1W0

Email: honeybadgersradio@gmail.com

Sent by: email and regular mail

April 22, 2015

Kelly Dowd
Calgary Comics and Entertainment Expo
720A Edmonton Trail NE
Calgary, AB
T2E 3J4

Email: reddskullcomics@shaw.ca

Re: Calgary Expo, Honey Badger Brigade ejection.

Dear Mr. Kelly Dowd:

Given the unfortunate sequence of events at your Calgary Expo this April 17th that led to the ejection of myself, my booth and fellow members of my group Honey Badger Brigade therefrom, I find it necessary to bring to your attention the following information for your immediate disposition.

By your organization ignoring the massive eruption of outrage by social media to your staff wrongfully and without just cause forcing us to evacuate our booth from the Calgary Expo, by not having any communication thereafter with us, I have taken the initiative to begin a process exploring a remedy thereto.

Summary of the incident in question, our ejection.

On Friday the 17th of April, 2015, I was ordered to remove the contents of my booth, BF3821, forfeit my Calgary Comics and Entertainment Expo badge and was ejected from the Calgary Expo 2015 along with other members of my group, the Honey Badger Brigade. Their names are; Hannah Wallen, Karen Straughan, Anna Cherry, Rachel Edwards, Mike Stephenson and Brian Martinez. Also involved were volunteers, Jonathan Doyle and Sage Gerard as well as Anna Cherry’s cosplay partner.

Background leading up to the incident of ejection.

The Honey Badger Brigade booth was initially registered under the media group name I had considered for our group’s publishing efforts, “Insert media”; the link went to honeybadgerbrigade.com. We later decided that we would not use that name for our group publishing efforts and I requested that Exhibitor Coordinator, Ken Poole, update both the name and the link to Xenospora and xenospora.com, respectively on January 22nd, 2015. At that time the booth was planned to be primarily for Xenospora, the comic I wrote and all the other members of the Brigade have helped to support making it a reality, but would include work related to Honey Badger Brigade and an anti-censorship statement as well.

After our fundraiser went live but before we had fundraised the entire amount successfully, I asked Ken Poole if I would be able to update the exhibitor name on March 14th, 2015 using the xenospora@gmail.com address. I included our booth number in the email.

After the Gamergate and Honey Badger fans funded additional members of Honey Badger Brigade to attend the convention I requested that Ken Poole update the booth name through the honeybadgersradio@gmail.com address on March 31st, 2015. I inadvertently requested that he change “insert media” to “Honey Badger Brigade” at that time and did not provide a booth number. Despite the fact I had used insert media instead of Xenospora and had switched email contact addresses, Ken Poole was able to make the connection between insert media, Xenospora and Honey Badger Brigade and fulfill my request, regardless. He expressed no concern over our registration change or the final name, Honey Badger Brigade. I then attempted to update the link through the Calgary Comics and Entertainment Expo website interface.

Ken Poole never gave any indication that these name changes were a problem. Nor did he raise any concern over our group in any manner what so ever. The booth would be called “Honey Badger Brigade.” The comic would still be included and was still displayed in the front of the booth. “Honey Badger Brigade” is the name that Expo staff had printed on the booth’s display placard, placed at the top and center of the back curtain of the booth. It was also printed on the badges the expo provided to the group, in the booth listing in programs handed out to attendees and others at the convention, it was also the name we were listed under on the Expo’s website.

Description of the Incident

On Thursday, April 16th, 2015, the first day of the Expo an Expo staff member at the table across from our booth was overheard saying “we need to start shutting down some booths” by Hannah Wallen, who witnessed two ladies talking to the staff member, a man. One of the ladies replied “yeah, like that one” and motioned toward the Honey Badger booth. These statements could have been taken multiple ways, including as a joke. To clarify this, two members from our group asked the Expo staff member involved what it was about. He denied that the conversation had occurred and said he had not been a part of it. Our group members returned to the booth and after a discussion decided to start recording all interactions with staff and public under Hannah’s advisement.

I had previously requested permission to livestream(record) in our booth from Expo Media staff member Alex Kingcott using the honeybadgersradio@gmail.com account with the name “Honey Badgers.” She replied that we did not need permission but thanked me for asking and mentioned that few do.

After the conversation that Hannah overheard, most of the members stayed with the booth the rest of the day.

Thursday evening, myself and Sage Gerard attended the Women Into Comics panel. Following Hannah’s suggestion and over her concern about potential false accusations, we took an audio recorder with us. During the panel discussion, in response to a statement made by one of the panelists about Men’s Rights Activists, I stood up and asked to speak and was given permission by the panel as I identify as a Men’s Rights Activist. I was given permission to speak both asking for it initially and again after identifying myself as an MRA (men’s rights activist.) She spoke briefly and a short discussion resulted from her statement. The audio of this, as well as a recording of the entire panel discussion, can be found on the Honey Badger Radio youtube channel.

After that, other members of the audience interjected with their viewpoints. At one point Sage Gerard raised his hand to speak and the Panelists granted him permission. At no point did it appear to be anything occurring of concern, but a lively discussion and demonstration of diverse viewpoints.

The rest of the day was uneventful. Everyone approaching the booth was either already a fan, interested in the artwork and the comic, or politely curious. There was no conflict or confrontation, no complaint, and no staff approached us to complain or warn the group about any behavior.

The first hint the Honey Badger group had that anything was amiss came when it was pointed out to us by others that there were people online bragging about getting the booth shut down and the group ejected. We had still not been contacted by any staff.

Sage Gerard, Hannah Wallen, Mike Stephensen and myself, took first shift at the Expo on April 18th Friday morning. We turned on our recording device again and entered the Big Four Building(where our booth was situated.) A little after we arrived at our booth we were approached by Expo staff member Shayne Henkleman, a female member of Expo staff and two security guards.

Previously Shayne Henkleman had given me his business card on Wednesday April 15th so I could send fire safety information to him in regards to the stretch fabric funnel structure we had set up. I did so via xenospora@gmail.com and included our booth number. Shayne Henkleman had also approached our booth twice while we were setting up on Thursday April 16th first to ask again about the fire safety information, which I told him I had emailed him and also offered to show him and a second time to inform us our booth was not in compliance (due to part of the back exhibit protruding from the booth six inches). In both cases I complied with his requests immediately.

After approaching us on Friday morning, to our utter shock and disbelief, Shayne Henkleman ordered us to tear down the booth and remove it and ourselves from the premises. He refused to give us an on-the-record reason why we were being ejected.

I handed the recording device to Hannah who put it away in the booth. As a group we moved with Shayne Henkleman towards a side entrance. Shayne Henkleman stopped us and informed us that he would only speak to me and only if no recording device was being used. I asked if my husband could come with me and he allowed that.

Once I was alone with the Expo Staff they informed me I was to pack up the booth and leave the Expo with my fellow group members. In addition I was penalized with a 10 year company wide, nationwide ban from all of Calgary Expo’s affiliated events. Shayne Henkleman stated that harassing behavior at the panel discussion was the reason for the ban, but would not describe the specific behavior or explain how or why it was considered harassment. Shayne Henkleman stated that there were multiple complaints including 25 on social media. It is unknown to us how many (if any) of the social media accounts complaining to Calgary Expo belonged to actual attendees.

There was no investigation that we are aware of. The Honey Badger group was not asked for an account of any events during the previous day. No attempt was made to further inform the group or even give the group a chance to respond to the accusations. Shayne Henkleman aggressively repeated the eviction order. We were in shock, devastated by the action of the Calgary Expo staff. My husband, Jonathan Doyle, spoke further with Shayne Hinkleman while Hannah, Sage, Mike and myself attempted to comply with his draconian order.

After Shayne Henkleman had ordered us to leave, Rick(last name not known) approached us to indicate we should be out of the building by the time doors opened. That gave us ten minutes to disassemble a booth that took us 3-4 hours to put up. Security staff remained nearby as the group struggled attempting to comply without having brought the required tools or protective materials for the artwork and installation components. Expo Staff implied that if we were not quick enough about it we would be ejected without the material from the booth. The reason they gave for rushing us was that attendees entering and seeing the booth coming down would “look bad”. They had no concern about the damage to my art, or to our safety.

This incident contravenes the published policies and procedures outlined in Calgary Expo’s materials. Their own policies specifically state that verbal warnings and requests to cease the behavior should be the first step in the process of dealing with complaints about exhibitors and attendees.

Later, multiple accounts were released on social media in response to complaints and outrage from fans about our ejection, some of which contradicted each other. Expo staff at first repeated the accusation of harassment and claimed that the ejection was not political. Another source stated that the reason was due to the switch in email addresses during the initial communications while reserving the booth. This source claimed that despite approving the name change and using the new name on Expo-created material, Expo staff did not know the group was the Honey Badger Brigade. This simply could not be true. If that was the case it contradicts the earlier assertion that the ban was not political, as politics is the only reason why knowing the group’s name would result in rejecting the application for a booth including a comic artist’s work.

Calgary Expo has not provided us any information in writing or on the record as to why we were ejected or the extreme and severe punishment of being banned for 10 years. Their social media account initially retweeted an article on “The Mary Sue”, implying full or partial agreement with the account of events described in that article. The article itself suggested that HBB “tricked” the convention into hosting an HBB booth because the initial communication and registration was conducted through email addresses other than the HBB webmail. They posted a quote from our fund-raiser which was satirical in nature as “evidence” that we had been planning for decades to “infiltrate” the 2015 Calgary Expo and spread a “totalitarian” message in support of freedom of expression. The article also made prominent mention of our support of “gamergate” in regards to why we were ejected. That “retweet” has since been deleted by Calgary Expo.

This incident contravenes the published policies and procedures outlined in Calgary Expo’s materials. Their own policies specifically state that verbal warnings and requests to cease the behavior should be the first step in the process of dealing with complaints about exhibitors and attendees conduct.

Given that we knew many of our fans were planning to attend the Expo specifically to meet us, we arranged an alternate spot in a public park (Reader Rock Garden) near the convention grounds so that they would not be deprived of this opportunity. We convened there peacefully on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, and chatted with the fans who joined us, some travelling 36 hours to get there.

On Sunday, security staff at the convention gathered directly across the street from us where about 25 of us were chatting, taking photos and enjoying the sun. At around 3:30, a police officer in a van pulled up and spoke to us. He informed us that Expo security had called police over concerns we might try to “crash” the convention and protest or otherwise cause trouble. We assured the officer that we were only there, in a public park, to meet those individuals who had purchased tickets and/or traveled to the convention in hopes of meeting us. He informed us that as we were members of the public and were not violating laws, we were welcome to stay in the park as long as we liked. In his words, “you seem like a really nice bunch of people. Have a nice day.”

Given the serious gravity of this situation including but not limited to a violation of our Charter rights, I request your written response by the end of business this Friday, April 24, 2015. Failing a response with a satisfactory resolution to this matter, will leave us no choice, but to pursue all lawful remedy to protect the interest of the Honey Badger Brigade, my intellectual property Xenospora and myself Alison Tieman.

Yours truly

Honey Badger Brigade
Alison Tieman
Founder/Creator, Honey Badger Radio


CC Naheed Kurban Nenshi – Mayor of Calgary
Stephen Harper – MP
Yvonne Fritz – MPP
Charles Adler

In preparation for potential legal action we have started a legal fund. However, we do not yet have a funding goal as we are not yet able to assess the expense until we have more information. Anyone wishing to help us in our fight against discrimination and censorship can donate to it here:

Hannah Wallen
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Hannah Wallen

Hannah has witnessed women's use of criminal and family courts to abuse men in five different counties, and began writing after she saw one man's ordeal drag on for seven years, continuing even when authorities had substantial evidence that the accuser was gaming the system. She is the author of Breaking the Glasses, written from an anti-feminist perspective, with a focus on men's rights and sometimes social issues. Breaking the Glasses refers to breaking down the "ism" filters through which people view the world, replacing thought in terms of political rhetoric with an exploration of the human condition and human interactions without regard to dogmatic belief systems. She has a youtube channel (also called Breaking the Glasses), and has also written for A Voice For Men and Genderratic. Hannah's work can be supported at https://www.minds.com/Oneiorosgrip

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="151932 https://www.honeybadgerbrigade.com/?p=151932">338 comments</span>

  • Yayyyy just popped $25 towards the legal fund – wish it was more but my pension income limits my generosity. Will do what I can to advertise the cause tho 🙂

  • I’dgladly match donations you receive to the Expo to defend against your deceitful and scurrilous claims. It’s shameless how you attempt to deceive people and whine about being victimized as women whilst shaming feminists as “damseling”. It sounds like you actually know you have no case, and just got caught lying, but I look forward to the counter-suit.

        • So…you really aren’t opening up your pocketbook, are you 🙂

          Now, if you were a false flag sock puppet constructed by the HBB to encourage more donations, well, it worked 🙂

          • That seems like a non-sequitur. Expo hasn’t yet started panhandling like the HBB, so there is nowhere to open one’s pockets to.

            I can flush a couple bucks down the toilet in honor of your fleecing, if you like.

          • oh yeah please do. I hear destroying your country’s currency is totally not a problem. It’s for a good cause right? 😉

      • They don’t need a counter argument. The Expo also have freedom of association, speech, and conscience and is not required to be compelled to associate with people that break the implied contract they entered when soliciting for a booth.

        • Actually they do. They could also lose any form of government funding, and the city of alberta could be dragged in legally on this as well since they’re a sponsor of it. That of course comes from the fallout from adscam.

          You don’t seem to understand that the laws are vastly different in Canada when it comes to stuff like this. The courts weight heavily towards the individual in cases like this as well.

        • But aren’t they compelled to keep the explicit contract they made with people who bought booths? Specifically, aren’t they required to follow their own written policies?

          Or is your hypothetical “implied contract” only a one way street? 🙂

          • The exhibitor’s agreed that the CCEE shall enforce their rules as they see fit and are not compelled to refund any lost fees due to a finding of noncompliance. They also agreed to hold harmless the CCEE, so threatening suit is another breach of the contract that they didn’t uphold.
            The CCEE shall have the full power in the interpretation and enforcement of all contract regulations contained herein, and the power to make such amendments thereto, and such further rules and regulations as shall be considered necessary and proper. The foregoing represents the agreement between the undersigned Exhibitor and Calgary Comic & Entertainment Expo, the promoters of the Calgary Comic & Entertainment Expo for the convention held on April 16-19, 2015.

            SETUP & MOVE-OUT
            Exhibitor setup and move-out instructions will be provided in advance. Exhibitors that require special attention, please contact the CCEE for special arrangements.

            The Comic & Entertainment Expo Committee reserves the right to remove any person(s) who does not comply with the rules and regulations outlined in the Exhibitor Agreement, and the policies and procedures outlined on the website. No refund shall be given to exhibitors who are removed from the show.

          • “reserves the right to remove any person(s) who does not comply with the rules and regulations outlined in the Exhibitor Agreement, and the policies and procedures outlined on the website. ”

            The assertion is that HBB complied with all rules, regulations, policies and procedures. CalEx did *not* 🙂

            Now, you can try to find safe harbor in the first clause, which alleges to give “full power in the interpretation”, but that sounds like boilerplate that isn’t going to hold up well in court 🙂

          • If any reputable attorney agreed with you, the wouldn’t be panhandling with an open letter.

          • It’s an observation, not “no true Scotsman” argument. They don’t have legal representation. Probably for a good reason.

          • By conditioning your statement on “any reputable attorney”, you’ve effectively given yourself “no true scotsman” out, since even if they find an attorney, you’ll assert they’re not reputable 🙂

            Of course, you’re right – maybe you weren’t thinking that far ahead 🙂

          • What’s with all the smilies.

            Anyways, you can whine about my “conditioning”, but anyone would look at this and run away unless they were guaranteed a non refundable retainer to maybe write a scary letter. Free money, basically, but by writing this rambling screed as a sort of weird demand letter, they’ve chucked any actual leverage they might have had.

            Further, they don’t have an attorney and they don’t have any explicit goal, yet they are still soliciting for a “legal fund”:

            “In preparation for potential legal action we have started a legal fund. However, we do not yet have a funding goal as we are not yet able to assess the expense until we have more information. Anyone wishing to help us in our fight against discrimination and censorship can donate to it here:”

            That fucking bananas, but it’s your money. It’s your right not to care at all what it’s actually going to be used for. Most people would turn right around and wheel the hell out as fast as they can.

          • I smile because I find you amusing 🙂

            I smile further because your bluster about “matching donations” actually encouraged more donations to the cause 🙂

            $1300+ and counting, since you first trolled 🙂

          • I encourage everyone willing to donate all their savings to HBR. Take a loan if you have to. Pile stacks on stacks.

          • You were playing “look, I’m going to talk smack about how I’ll fund, dollar for dollar, against this legal fund” 🙂

            Again, I’m suspicious that TtMonster is a false flag troll to encourage more donations 🙂

          • Thank you!

            I know if you try hard enough, you’ll be as good one day too 🙂

          • “…rambling screed as a sort of weird demand letter…”

            ^^^ Proof that you know nothing of the law, and have read few legal documents. Amateur.

          • “Reputable attorney” is like “congressional action” and “military intelligence” – a contradiction in terms. XP

          • Bullshit.
            But keep trying. The more publicity, the better. The Expo can ignore the HBB, but it can’t ignore a lawsuit.

          • Alright, time to stop stalking me around.

            We’ll revisit this in a couple weeks when this goes all Sarkeesian Effect. Or maybe not, MRA/GG seems to have a high tolerance for people taking their money. G’day.

          • But you’re so cute 🙂

            As for your bluster about matching donations, pics or it didn’t happen 🙂

          • Oh no! Look who bolted from the thread! Just so you know, we’re at $7,345 and counting. Better start putting for overtime at the peanut factory

          • Enjoy throwing good money after bad as they pad their pockets and do jack shit with the legal system.

          • Quoth the TtMonster, “I’dgladly[sic] match donations you receive”.

            No mention about whether the donations are actually used to pay a lawyer – simply the statement that you would match donations.

            But hey, your recanting is duly noted 🙂

          • “Alright, time to stop stalking me around.”
            You’re the one who came here. You the stalker.
            Or do you have some victim mentality where you can never be the one in the wrong?

          • “If any reputable attorney agreed with you, the HBR wouldn’t be panhandling with an open letter. ”
            Reputable lawyers have to be paid. That’s one of the things that makes them reputable, as opposed to being advocates.

          • “The exhibitor’s agreed that the CCEE shall enforce their rules as they see fit and are not compelled to refund any lost fees due to a finding of noncompliance.”
            That provision of a contract is invalid under Canadian law.
            Try again.

        • Expo permitted the booth under their own volition (it’s up to them to do due-diligence). They had several opportunities to revoke/had open channels of communication had there been issues. They didn’t, so the contract holds.

          But we’ll leave all that to real lawyers and those with experience in contract law, rather than the Internet.

        • Wrong! Canada has Human Rights Law that can’t be violated due to “freedom of association” excuses.

        • So, the Expo has the right to break an explicit contract because HBB may have broken an implicit contract?

        • “break the implied contract”

          How did they break it? By participating in a discussion?

        • The Expo is obligated to publish truthful rules that they actually stick to when they engage in commercial activities (like sell space to vendors for booths). To publish one set of rules and expel based on a different set of rules is not just poor behavior, it’s fraud under both common law and statute.

          Any implied contract is always overridden by the actual terms of a written contract. Implied contracts are for “handshake deals” in order to give some sort of structure to the adjudication when informal agreements go wrong.

          Expo is not obligated to be nice to people they disagree with (though that would be good business sense). This freedom does not allow them to defraud such people or endanger their safety or their property. On exit people need to be given sufficient notice to safely exit the premise. 10 minutes to breakdown a booth is simply not reasonable by anyone’s standard.

          • I posed the exhibitor contract elsewhere that shows the expo was fully within the bounds of the exhibitor agreement to toss them to the curb.

          • can you believe how completely female dominated AVFM’s audience is? That’s awesome. Are you an uneducated woman like the bulk of AVFM’s readers?

          • shut up troll. you’re a troll. troll troll troll troll troll………..troll. I called you a troll.

          • You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]

          • I bet you believe that “slavery contracts” are perfectly legal as well.

            The actual law allows anybody to put pretty much anything on a piece of paper. But when you go to court the judge examines the contract to see if it complies with the law. From the evidence that has already come out, it clearly has not, which means the judge will modify the terms to comply with the laws of Canada within the great common law tradition that’s been around hundreds of years. That’s not going to work very well for the Expo because that tradition has never been very receptive towards unfair, one sided, arbitrary use of power.

          • > I bet you believe that “slavery contracts” are perfectly legal as well.

            Yes, of course. I support the enforceability of the voluntary agreement exhibitors enter into to display their wares at an entertainment convention, so clearly I support slavery contracts. That is completely logical, comparable, and an excellent display of proportionality. I always enjoy these illuminating discussions with the brilliant minds of the MRA/GG wing of the web.

          • At what point do you draw the line, then? If someone puts in a clause that insists that they are solely in charge of interpretation of the contract, and that they may do whatever they want to violate the contract, do you really believe that the contract is legally valid, subject to no further judicial review?

            While you’ve demonstrated that you understand the legal distinction between libel and slander, it doesn’t seem like you’ve bothered to learn much about contract law. 🙂

          • The line between entering into a voluntary agreement for a non-essential service like an entertainment expo and a “slavery contract” is quite clear. Being continually disingenuous doesn’t really engender any sense of goodwill.

            Society is full of agreements in which people enter that they do not explicitly negotiate because they are freely exchanged, non-essential, consumer transactions. There are no extraordinary or unconscionable circumstances that compels anyone to enter into an agreement to have a booth at a trade show if they don’t like the terms. Take them, or leave them.

          • I was asking for your line between an enforceable contract, and a non-enforceable contract. The slavery contract that someone else mentioned is simply an ad absurdum example of your current logical basis. 🙂

            In the case of the contract language you cited from CalEx, your assertion thus far has been that there is nothing in the language that can be disputed, even though the plain reading of it clearly indicates that CalEx has no responsibilities whatsoever, and that exhibitioners can be treated immorally, unfairly, and arbitrarily without recourse.

            Putting the shoe on the other foot, would it have been valid, by the contract language, for CalEx to summarily eject all women exhibitioners from the expo? Would it have been valid, by the contract language, for CalEx to summarily eject all homosexual exhibitioners?

            If you don’t believe that those other hypotheticals would have been valid, can you express *why*?

          • You support unenforceable contract provisions. I wondered just how far you’d go with that piece of idiocy. Congratulations, you’re not a complete moral toad. You’re able to be a hypocrite. Awesome step up you’ve managed to evolve into.

            [golf clap]

            Now can you manage to understand that the same process that invalidates enforcement of slave contracts is what the Expo has to worry about here? I’m rooting for you. I know you can manage it.

          • You seem to have profound issues with other people’s informed opinions. My position is clear. I don’t give any fucks about your general wharbling.

          • Your position is clear, but it’s not right from a legal standpoint.

            Maybe from a philosophical or theoretical stand point, but not from the stand point of reality.

          • “You seem to have profound issues with other people’s informed opinions. ”
            he has no issues with other people’s informed opinions. He has an issue with your uniformed opinion.

          • “Yes, of course. I support the enforceability of the voluntary agreement exhibitors enter into to display their wares at an entertainment convention, so clearly I support slavery contracts. ”
            That doesn’t make them legal, which was the question.
            It does make you a fringe crackpot. It makes you sound like a parody of a libertarian.

          • And it is fairly clear that their indemnification provision is nothing more than an invalid exculpatory clause.

            But hey, if you want to assert that convention groups should be able to arbitrarily kick people out even if they obey the letter of the contract they signed, that certainly is your prerogative. The judicial system most likely will take a different opinion 🙂

          • > I will give you no guesses on what I think of your slanderous opinions – fool.

            Slander is oral defamation, so you probably mean “libelous opinions” since we are communicated through a written medium.

            However, defamation only applies to matters of fact, not matters of opinion. Opinions can’t be defamatory by definition and to attempt to punish expressing opinions would obviously be an affront to the fundametal freedoms of speech and opinion.


          • In which case you are welcome to express your fact free opinions and I will give them the weight they deserve 😉

          • Well, thus far we’ve only established that you don’t know what you’re talking about, as a point of fact.

          • I think we’ve established that you’d prefer to use the strict legal usage of the word “slander”, and that your opinions are in fact, #factfree 🙂

          • Legal usage seems to matter after a post threatening to sue based on questionable understanding of legal principles.

          • Sure, but since you’re not a party to the legal action being proposed, surely you don’t consider ever statement here in response to you something that must be held to legal standards…do you? 🙂

          • When someone’s only response is to call me a fool, I think it’s worth pointing out their lack of intellectual standing.

          • The way you point that out is to call it what it was – an ad hominem attack. Attacking their common use of a word is actually a less effective tactic. While you gain intellectual standing in the eyes of those who are pedantic, you miss calling out the *real* issue you had – which was being called a fool.

            Now, you may or may not be a fool, but you certainly seem more interested in arguing than actually arguing a point 🙂

          • oooh so that’s how it works. It’s fine to talk shit about other people as long as it is not a matter of fact but of opinion. That’s great.

            You’re a brainwashed, left wing lunatic who beats animals and eats cadavres and it’s shameful!

            See? just a harmless opinion.

            wow. your version of free speech is awesome. I can speak ill of anyone without being liable. I shall take to twitter to use this new found knowledge 😛

          • No, you made a statement of fact. I either did or did not beat animals or eat cadavers. There is no opinion on whether those acts happened. That’s what facts are.

            You can of course think I’m crazy, which is your right to an opinion.

          • It is my opinion, that given the chance, you would beat animals and eat cadavers.

            If you *haven’t* done so, obviously, it’s only because you lacked the opportunity 🙂

          • Wait, I thought we were writing, not talking 🙂

            Something about slander versus libel…?

          • oh I know it’s a statement of fact but you apparently don’t as evidenced by your first post in which you claimed this:

            ” …to defend against your deceitful and scurrilous claims. It’s shameless how you attempt to deceive people and whine about being victimized as women whilst shaming feminists as “damseling”. …”

            You stated this as fact without any evidence that it indeed is a fact which makes it defamation by YOUR definition.

            and yes. I was trying to trick you. Thanks for complying 😀

          • You still here? Well since you are obsessed with whining in here – I don’t need to know jack shit about legal niceties – that’s not my job bozo.

    • So far the only person we know has been dishonest about this is the person who runs the Calgary twitter account, and I guess whoever wrote that MS article but them lying about something is hardly news. I’m sure they are just victims though. Victims in desperate need of your money to defend themselves from this evil woman who is totally a terrible person because well, you said so. 😉

    • You’d have to be employed to afford donations to anyone for anything and your type is likely too busy curled up in the fetal position in their childhood bedroom under mommy and daddy’s roof while you complain about how harsh and unfair the world is and spend your day retweeting inane crap.

      • I think you have me confused with the leeches you are financially supporting who are just using your money to payoff their credit cards.

        • Actually, it seems Anita has plugged you quite deftly. Your initial bluster has been recanted, and your credibility has drifted into negative territory 🙂

          • I’m really not concerned about how this crowd finds my credibility. I said I would match donations to defend against legal claims. HBR have not filed any suit, so the basic initial steps haven’t even been taken. We are quite far from the hypothetical scenario in which Calgexpo or their representatives have to actually do anything. Based on pressing the KiA thread, I’d say nothing is coming of this except for them running off with your money.

          • Of course you’re not concerned about credibility 🙂

            And you know, and I know, and everyone else knows, that you do not have the integrity to actually do as you have said. 🙂

            Pics, or it didn’t happen 🙂

          • Wait, you’re trolling a crowd funding page, but accusing others of creeping on *you*? 🙂


          • “You know there would be no war if you guys would stop fighting us and let us do what’s best for you…”

            A sure sign of someone who’s authoritarian is how angry they get when people oppose them. XD

        • I was sort of on the fence as to whether I was going to donate anything (money’s s a little tight this month).. now I am definitely going to! Thanks TTTreatise for helping out the honey badger’s cause … idiot.

          • I fully support you and anyone else who is so inclined to donate to ® them. More the better. Pile it on the fire!

        • I have a question and I legitimately would like to know the answer. what is your opinion on the whole Anita Sarkissian crowdfunding thing? Do you view that the same as this or worse? Do you have any objections to her pocketing all that money?

  • This is one of these situations where the outcome will either be absolutely fantastic or absurdly bad. I’m hoping for the former.

  • Dropped a benjamin to support the cause – please don’t accept any settlement that doesn’t include both a refund, an explicit written apology, and a discount on future booths for the HBB 🙂

    • More than two thousand dollars in the first two hours! TTrash or whatever it calls itself is going to have to dig very deep in the next 29 days 😉

  • I was considering going to the Denver Comic Con this year, but I was concerned with their rules so I asked them to clarify their anti harassment stance. They said “harassment is defined by the harassed”. I then asked if I could wear a Gamergate shirt and they said : “This falls under our “custom” rules as “hateful symbols aren’t welcome at Denver Comic Con” And their latest clarification, (this is on twitter) “If someone feels they have been harassed it is harassment.”

    • Tell them you feel like their response harassed you 🙂

      Or tell them that you consider their use of the word “Con” hateful towards convicts who are labeled with that derogatory term 🙂

    • I’d steer well clear of that kind of crazy, even if you keep your head down and play nice it sounds like its false accusations waiting to happen for some poor sod.

      • By the “if someone feels” standard of proof, there is no such thing as a false accusation…at least not until we can read minds 🙂

    • >”If someone feels they have been harassed it is harassment.”

      Them it’s long past time for the SJWs to taste the pain of being forced to abide by Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals Rule #4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the

      By hammering them with claims that our feels are being hurt, then they’re either going to have to throw everyone out OR stop being the puppets of the SJW bullies or become thoroughly exposed hypocrites in how they operate and suffer the loss of business being aggressively anti-fan deserves.

      Unfortunately, the majority of con goers will still go because they don’t care about what the SJWs are doing; they just want to have nerd fun.

        • It’s been the Left’s handbook for over 40 years, but lately sane folks have realized that the tactics it espouses are just as useful for good causes and are using them. Of course, the Left is howling with outrage over their own playbook being used by the other team against them, but wah. Live by the Rules, get a taste of the Rules in return. They started it, so turnabout is more than fair play.

          • It’s not the fucking left. Stop the false dichotomy bullshit. In the great horseshoe, all are the same.

          • What brand tinfoil is your hat made of? I can always tell when someone is a liberal who can’t cope with the fact they’re just a couple steps shy of where the authoritarian SJWs are because they whine about how GamerGate et al aren’t Left vs Right issues when that’s precisely what they are.

            SJWs are 99.44% Leftists which is why their bully tactics are given full media support and any opposition is falsely labeled “right-wing.” Surveys and simple observation show that most GamerGate people consider themselves liberals and they frequent use slurs to describe the non-liberal people who oppose the SJWs fascist tactics even though they’re their allies despite having different political views.

            Meanwhile, the radical authoritarian Leftists who drive the SJW agenda and how it’s portrayed in the media pretend they’re just rational moderate folks and it’s them crazies at the ends of the horseshoe that are the problem. Yeah, no.

          • Oh god, you are just addicted to that left/right shit, arne’t you?

            No, I’m not a liberal, and I am most CERTAINLY not an SJW. I’m friends with Janet Bloomfield for fucks sake.

            What’s YOUR tinfoil hat made of? You can come on here and claim you don’t use the same tactics – but you do. It’s all underhanded, Fox News-esque wordplay.

            YOU are the reason they use slurs.

            Meanwhile, the people in charge don’t really adhere to any one political ideology except the almighty dollar, and we’re left here bickering between each other like spoiled children over their scraps.

            Stop it.

          • Blah-blah-woof-woof. When you scream “Fox News” as if it’s an all-purpose mic drop putdown, it reveals who the puppet who imagines he has no strings.

            That you are directing fire at someone who is opposed to the SJWs makes you a useful idiot to the SJWs, Bub. Take your paranoid Ron Paul/Alex Jones blather and tone policing and get stuffed. The reason you’re peddling horseshoes is because you imagine yourself to be on one side when you’re actually on the other and by projecting this cognitive dissonance on others you hope to silence the voices in your head.

          • YOU are the reason they use slurs.

            Why do you use slurs, then?

            Meanwhile, the people in charge don’t really adhere to any one political
            ideology except the almighty dollar, and we’re left here bickering
            between each other like spoiled children over their scraps

            Of which “people in charge” do you speak?

          • Politicians? The lobbyists feeding them?

            Are you seriously so daft you can’t figure that much out?

            Why do I use slurs? Because I see idiots. Idiots everywhere.

            The lefties cry about the righties and the righties cry about the lefties and it’s all completely and totally fucking pointless.

          • ” Because I see idiots. Idiots everywhere.”

            Not everyone should visit a maze of mirrors it seems.

          • Its not about dollars either, since these SJW dominated organizations are actually driving away potential customers. Its about power, for the SJW fanatics, to be able to control others.

          • In short, I don’t fall into any bullshit paradigm, and I don’t believe someone’s political leanings lead them to feminism, or caused feminism to become as horribly toxic as it is.

            You misrepresent the situation and therefore make discussion on the topic that much more difficult.

          • Reality doesn’t care about your feels, Bub. Whining about paradigms and dichotomies is the antics of someone who can’t cope with the way things are because they’re too busy demanding that his feels not be ruffled. Waaaah!

          • that was pithy
            So far your argument seems to be, everyone is an
            idiot, etc, etc, everyone is wrong, and it’s all pointless. One presumes
            you consider yourself, smart, right, and know what the point is. I’d
            guess you also know how to deal with the mystery point. When you finish
            trying to impress us with how stupid we are would you tell what the real
            point is and how to deal with it. Hopefully it’s between give up, and
            take no prisoners.

          • There was no need to be pithy, when someone is so far off base with their jabbering, there’s no real reason to dignify their response with another aside from pointing out how stupid they’re being.

            Of course I don’t know everything, and while I’m smart, I don’t have any answers.

            I just feel like I’m sitting in a room between two groups of people shouting at each other pointlessly, because that’s a path that’s getting us exactly nowhere.

            I’m not sorry you feel stupid, your insecurity isn’t really my problem.

          • A simple question, are there any extreme feminists that are not also extreme leftists.

          • They certainly call themselves liberal or leftist, but there are more people like myself and like Leibfarce who strongly oppose them, but think of ourselves as left.

            A question for you: does the fact these extreme feminists think of themselves as left, make them left?

            If you say “yes” then does the fact they call themselves “fighting for equality” make them fighters for equality? Does the fact they say (or even believe) that they are fighting for “justice” make them fighters for justice? I could add more examples. The answer to these is, obviously not. Obviously they can think of themselves as being for “fairness” and “equality” and “justice” but in reality, so often, they fight against these very things.

          • OK, I’ll give you that, they are far more totalitarian than leftist. And you are also right that their pius words about equality, diversity, and social justice are phony, when their real goal is power. It is actually kind of refreshing to find there are some liberals out there who recognize what a threat the SJW totalitarians are, and are trying to fight them. I can work with regular liberals. I may mostly disagree with them on many issues, but they are people capable of compromise and honesty. But I still see most of academia, most of those who identify as left, and most of the dem party, under total control of the SJW totalitarians, and dont see near enough pushback. Where for example is any prominent dem politican who is actively pushing back against these extremsts. Obama certainly is not, his Dear Collegue letter actually facilitated their extremism. Perhaps people like Jim Webb or Joe Manchin, but they are a distinct minority. On the non political front, I have also seen some pushback from Alan Dershowitz.

          • Richard, by hearing me out, weighing my argument, and deciding to acknowledge that I have a point there, you’re already ahead of just about ever “SJW” but you already know that 😉 Although I as I said in the AVFM forums I’m going to refer to UJWs, Unequal Justice Warriors or SIWs as above..they don’t deserve to be given the compliment of being labelled as if they are for ‘justice’

            And as someone wrote on the forums, the concept of Justice does not deserve to be denigrated by being associated with them. I don’t think all conservatives try to put down the idea of justice, but some do, using “SJW” as any label, in general, and also in specific examples to misuse it (against those for marriage equality for example)

            You bring up a big issue, one of the biggest ones, Fear. Yes there is not enough pushback, naturally, people are scared, And those who have the most to lose are those who are surrounded by a UJWs framework..I think the most important thing to remember is that surrounded by the framework does not mean that everyone or most everyone, agrees with it.

            The vocal ones are propagating some of the worst things. There is a mixture: those who have doubts. Those who partly agree but partly have their eyes open. Those who mostly disagree but live in real fear of speaking out. Two types of fear: fear of being attacked by UJWs, but a second fear is they don’t want to be associated with (what I think is over time a smaller and smaller part of MHRM but is definitely there) namely people like the one who made a comment on Alison’s post about how “all women” are like this, and “all women” just want to be lazy and do no work, etc. So every time we conduct ourselves by taking the high road, we help the MHRM. But I have to admit my feeling is that the first fear, right now, is probably the biggest one. There is a Manufactured Outrage Complex, attack tactics, and media that for fitting in or for “go with any trend” are happy to duplicate it, amplify it, and so on.

            There will be a tipping point.

            There was a tipping point for LGBT rights. Even supporters initially were afraid to speak up. Then they were able to speak up, some of them. Then more and more. And initially they were very careful of not saying anything too strongly. Over time, not only more people said it, but they went from “we really shouldn’t be violent against LGBT” all the way to “We *demand* full equal rights in marriage, employment anti-discrimination, everything”

            We’re many years away from full tipping point but maybe not as far as we think…Compare MHRM today versus even just 4 years ago…If we come from a place of caring and love, not of reaction and hate, and are an open place for a diverse group but one which shares core values, then we can grow, and more people will join, or at least not consider “evil” this thing called MHRM, and will jump ship from the toxic parts of all types of UJWs (unequal justice warriors) and Social Inequality Warriors…I mean I’m not just liberal, I’m left, but there’s stuff out there that’s just crazy, like “only a trans person should play the role of a trans person on TV” or else they are offended, so it’s not just on gender feminism, it’s other things..It really is the worst of superficial “left” rhetoric with authoritarian and fascistic tendencies…an ugly wave through society that we need to move away from

          • You have made some reasonable points again. On the term SJW, I myself have said the feminist radicals and race baiters claiming to speak in the name of social justice do not care about justice, and are not very sociable. The problem is you allowed leftist radicals to hijack what could have been a reasonable term. But once they did, it is now theirs, and most people now think of them when they hear about social justice. It may be unfair to you, but that is what happens when you allow the radical left to hijack the language. If people who supported real social justice, rather than Marxist radicalism, had spoken out a lot sooner, and a lot louder, against the Marxist radicals using the term, they might have been able to reclaim the term, but it will be very difficult now.

            I have the same feeling about the term liberal, which at one time meant constraining gov injustice, standing up for the individual, and promoting civil liberties. Unfortunately todays extreme leftists have again hijacked that good term to the point where it often means the opposite, Marxist radicalism. The closest term today for the classical meaning of liberal is libertarian (although people who support the civil liberties and personal freedom positions of libertarians, but not the free market economic and small gov ones, sometimes call themselves civil libertarians, which I think is also reasonable). But if I ever see somebody using the term libertarian, when they are supporting mostly ideas that the vast majority of libertarians would not, I will shout loudly to reclaim our term.

            On gay rights, when all they wanted was the right to live their lives, without gov and other people harming them, I was all for them. I even supporte giving them the right for civil unions with all the rights of marriage, although since many still consider marriage to be a religious sacrament, I had reservations there. The problem is much of their movement has also been hijacked by radicals, to the point that they dont just want to be left alone, but they seem intent on attacking and harming anybody who personally has religious reservations about gay marriage.

            On diversity, I think one of the biggest mistakes of the diversity lobby is they distorted the meaning to restrict it to only favored victim groups, when it should be for good fair treatment of everybody. Another is take is it is now used only for cosmetic features, race, women, muslims, but is not also used for an even important goal, diversity of ideas. To the leftist radicals, diversity and free speech means you agree with them only.

          • Lots to cover here. A few comments I hope are more self contained. Maybe easiest first is LGBT equality. I think we should distinguish between what the average LGBT person wants, versus what local groups call for (I think the first two are probably fairly close) versus large national groups, versus the national media echo chambers, manufactured outrage, anything for more viewers, attacks etc. The last one has a lot toxic in it, and will no doubt think it’s ok to not just poke fun at straights in a good natured way, but (some of it) will go way too far. The third group, you have to look at in a case by case basis. The first two, I think are positive mostly.

            Could be a whole discussion here, but I’ll leave it at that, suggesting we need to distinguish these. Too often the media culture war complex wants you to think they are the same as LGBT people and local groups, and anti-gay people ALSO want you to confuse the two (because they want to use your distaste at one, to attack the other, to attack individual rights). When two opposite groups each with power, agree on that deliberate confusion, it’s hard for everyone else to avoid it.

            On the term libertarian, that’s also a whole discussion, a big one on the concepts, and as for the word, you might not be happy to hear it but the term, as I understand the history, has in fact been stolen, but in the opposite direction, originally was a Left term meaning against both centralized religion, centralized government, and also centralized private (including corporate) power, and has been stolen in the U.S. by those who are strongly for instead of against, corporations running the world and with almost unchecked power. Actually the neoliberal “liberals” are the real extremists, and left libertarians don’t like them either. I’d rather focus on gender issues on this board, but I know I have seen several, I think mostly from UK or continental Europe, who are not extremist, but called themselves left libertarian and could dialog with you.

            Did the reasonable left “allow” the extremists to take over the term “justice” or is that like saying Poland “let” Germany invade? I think the truth is yes, you’re right, many could have spoke out more, and probably me too, but at the same time, I think it’s also true that it was more like a powerful aggressive force that took over territory, no matter what the rest say or thinkg. This included fake leftists, and it included the same corporate power that I don’t like, the same corporate takeover of the culture that (and I have to agree with some social conservatives here) put money above anything else, above truth, above morality, so corporate media learned when it’s convenient to repeat sound bites and partly did the hijacking, partly supported the hijacking by others. Unlike what Fox tells us, radical university professors don’t have that much power. The echo chambers of huge media conglomerates, do, and they are mostly doing it.

            So an aggressive group took over the territory of some parts of some social movements, unfortunately. As for choosing the term SJW that is different, isn’t it? I’m not sure did those people called themselves SJWs? No, I think it was mostly conservatives calling them that, as a way to criticize them, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly.

            “Your substitute term Unequal Justice Warriors is interesting and descriptive.”

            I’m trying to use that term regularly now. When I use the term I do not mean that everyone that is called SJW is someone I call UJS..some people are unfairly called SJW who want just no discrimination in jobs for sexual orientation..but the ones who deservedly are criticized, yes, they are Unequal Justice Warriors. I also like to use that term because “Equal justice under the law” is one of the things liberalism was supposed to stand for, so I like to point out that contradiction.

            Most importantly, I want to emphasize about your comment at the beginning that it’s not just what is “unfair to you” (unfair to people on the political left) to call them SJWs.

            The bigger problem is that it is unfair to society, to let people fighting in unjust ways, get to be associated with the term “justice” It’s also unfair to justice itself to be associated with unfair dishonest things. So those are far more important than what is unfair to “the political left” and that’s the reason to not call them “SJWs” The toxic ones should instead be called Unequal Justice Warriors, they want an unequal type of “justice”

          • The term SJW was indeed a term created by their critics, but the people being criticised did repeatedly say that everything they did was done in the name of social justice. So basically the extremists hijacked Social Justice from you, and we added the word warrier to it, because it looked to us like they were waging a from of warfare. In a way I think that label may have done you a favor, by clearly differentiating SJW from the more general term social justice, which if enough of you join in the attack against the SJW types, you can still reclaim. I dont buy the Polish analogy, because Poland was totally out manned and outgunned, while if as you say most of the left is not radical, and they were in the vast majority, if they acted could have stopped it. But I think too many on the moderate left just saw the SJW fanatics as a good way to generate outrage to motivate the base, and never dealt with them as a threat until it is now almost too late for them as well. So instead of comparing you to Poland, I think a better comparison would be the appeasers, who could have stopped Hitler early, but did not act in time.

            As far as gays gently teasing straight, of course that is OK, provided we can tease them back in the same way without provoking the outrage machine. I had a niece I was very fond of who had a personal experience with that. When she went to college, she ended up living with a bunch of LGBT people, and not only got along with them, but often told me how much she sympathized with them and liked them. But eventually she told me she got fed up and left, because they constantly teased her about being straight, but if she teased them back, as friends often do, they got all huffy and mad at her, and she thought the situation had gotten one sided.

            On libertarian, I question your claim it was hijacked by free marketeers. I have been closely associated with the party for over 30 yrs, and the ones I know always believed in small gov and the free market, and libertarian writings to the party founders, in the early 60’s, also lauded the free market, and thinkers like Hayek and Ayn Rand from the 50’s did also. I have a tough time believing the libertarian party is not libertarian, since they were the ones mainly responsible for popularlizing the term and getting many to believe in it. Before the founding of the libertarian party, very few had even heard of the term, and in fact it might have been them that initially made it up. The libertarians have always been a small gov movement movement, both on economics and gov, and on personal freedoms and civil liberties. Some left leaning libertarians only buy the personal freedom and civil liberties parts, which to me makes them partial libertarians, still better than most, but not complete libertarians. The same for right leaning libertarians who are libertarians on small gov and the free market, but may be questionable on personal freedoms.

            On libertarians wanting big corps to cartelize the world, that is a false charge from the left. We want a free market as much as possible, that is it. In fact I believe big gov actually encourages the kind of corporatization you describe, because the big guys can afford to buy cronyist gov favors, while the small guys cant. The less gov favors that are available to buy, the less advantage to the big corps. You may notice that libertarians and the tea party were pretty much the only major groups to oppose the bailouts, while both dems and establishment repubs backed it (I suppose the OWS people opposed it as well, but they acted like such loons, and had so many Marxists, anarchists, and just plain thugs, that they totally beclowned themselves).

            On the excesses of some radicals being used by the other side to tar even those who are more moderate, I agree. It is the very reason why the dem party is in danger of losing everything, if they dont police their own radical excesses and corruption soon enough. The same thing happened to repubs during Bush, and it cost them big in 2008. It will happen to the dems, total minority party status, if they dont get control of their radical and corrupt fringe. Its already pretty much happened, since the repubs, after 2014, now have majorites everywhere, except the presidency, which the dems may lose in 2016, leaving therm with almost nothing.

            Ironically one reason I am currently working for repub victory is not manly because I think they will fix everything, because they have their problems too, but because I think the only thing that will reform a dem party that I think has been totally taken over by crooks and radicals is total electoral defeat, because parties only reform when they lose, if they are winning they think they are doing things right.

          • I agree with most of your first paragraph. And the Poland analogy was deliberately hyperbole. However, when you say “if as you say most of the left is not radical, and they were in the vast majority, if they acted could have stopped it” the reality is, majority in population does not make majority as far as power. It’s enough that 10% or 1% with power act. Or even that 1% doesn’t have to have power, it just needs to act in ways that serve the powerful. The majority is afraid, or confused, or has moderate views, but those with moderate (in this case moderate in the context of Left) do not speak up as much, do they? You can have 10% of the Right “sell” the Iraq war, if they control the media and control the discussion that way. Even if most conservatives were (initially, right after 9/11) not necessarily for invading Iraq. The same with the Left, if a few have views that the powerful including media power centers, find useful, they will amplify, repeat, over and over, and control the narrative that way. That’s what I mean, and it’s unfortunate. Before too long, the corporate media will tell the world that being gay is all about buying gay products they want to sell (and probably straight people will have to buy stuff too just to prove they are fair) but is that the fault of the majority of LGBT? No, 1% or 10% can promote that, and they will win, unfortunately, because that 1% will serve the interests of the powerful corporate who want to sell something. Sometimes they sell us war. Other times they sell us cultural wars. Other times they sell us products to buy. I’m simplifying a little, to emphasize the parallels, which I admit are not perfect, but I hope you see what I mean.

            From the websites I’ve seen, interviews, articles, videos, you’re not being fair to OWS. Out of 100 how many were “thugs”? Or “Marxists”? Very few. Plenty of college students wanting not to have all money spent on wars and then be in student loan debt for rest of their lives. Some old 1960s peace types, nothing terrible about that. Some environmentalist folks. ACLU types, Ralph Nader citizen rights sympathizers. Things like that. Of course the media prefer to put on TV the drummer dude, white guy with dreadlocks, with pot smoking art behind him, or the handful all black wearing anarchist groups, or a stereotype hippy chick wearing 1960s clothes and not much of them since that’s what TV likes to have on. And if it was Fox TV, it was really caricatures rather than showing reality.

            Wikipedia confirms what I heard here, in 1800s and close to first half of 1900s libertarian mean left..but I’m not going to try to stop you from using the term, just fyi it went back to 1800s and meant opposition to concentrated commercial power as well as government and religious concentration of power.

            I think both U.S. parties will get worse and worse, if people adopt your strategy of punishing them, without also at the same time changing the rules of the game. But if you believe that giving millions of dollars as favors to politicians is the same as what the Founding Fathers thought of as “free speech” then unfortunately we might not agree on how to change the rules of the game, how to change the system.

            I do agree with you on how it’s gotten pretty bad in attacks and just tone of rhetoric. I don’t want to give any support to the white racism but I have to say, even on issues of race, yes, the media, Salon, TV, “Dumb things White People Do” type articles, all is the opposite of the true spirit of what liberalism was supposed to be. And the word conservative has been hijacked too. There were Republicans in early 1900s who were against concentrated corporate power. Instead of selling wars with lies. Pretty sad state of politics today.

            On a more constructive note, I hope coalitions of left and right and middle can happens. I’ve seen more people on youtube, including lots of women speak out, or start to speak out, against totalitarian culture wars and false narratives. Eventually bigger people will be brave enough to speak out.

            Good discussion, but maybe on AVFM we can discuss in coming weeks things like taking back the word Justice, things like left right coalitions, things like a more civil discourse instead of vicious attacks (including avoiding participating in them ourselves as much as we can) and resisting the Unequal Justice Warriors. Nice talking to you, have a good weekend.

          • I read the wiki, and you are right, in the 1800’s the word libertarian, called left libertarian then, was often associated with socialist and anarchist tendencies. The libertarianism I think of mainly came into being in the 1950’s, and really came into being with the foundation of the libertarian party, as a combination of laissez-faire economics, small gov, and 1800’s classical liberalism, which back then was mainly concerned about individualism and civil liberties.
            You are right about the ability of small numbers of activists to sell bad policies, and that it happens to the repub party as well. I agree that the Iraq war ultimately turned out to be a bad idea (although made worse when Obama left too soon in 2011, after the surge had actually stabilized things somewhat). Although ironically Obama fell for the same bad idea when he took over Libya.
            You may also be right as well that there were some good people in OWS as well, but the creeps and idiots took it over to enough of an extent to pretty much discredit it, and you dont hear much about them today.
            The tea party is not quite what it used to be either, but that is partly because they won to some extent, since I would rate about 30% of the repub house, and 20% of the repub senate as tea party, and the repub party has adopted many tea party right libertarian ideas.
            On corporations, I dont oppose corporations per se, since they are really just voluntary associations, as long as they are not monopolies. It is really when corporations go crony capitalist, and combine with big gov, that they become really destructive. In that respect, I think many leftist ideas make that worse, because big gov and big corps tend to go together.

          • Richard, I wrote a reply, saying I agree with much but pointing out the ways in which the last statement is not the case and even often is the opposite..but then deleted it. I’m not sure if this is the best place for an extended political discussion about politics and policy and corporate power. If you want to by email I am 4malelib at gmail but if you’re busy that’s ok if you don’t email, ok with me to let you have the last word on this economic and political exchange. Good discussion

          • But you do. You fall into the complete BS, that everything has just monetary reasons, without any ideological or religious components. Rather stupid.

          • I’m sorry, but we’ve all seen and experienced the insatiable power of human greed. This is the root of all evil, and it boils down to… monetary reasons. People use other people’s ideological leanings to their own advantage to gain power, that doesn’t mean they follow that ideology themselves.

            I am against all ideologies, as they only serve to keep the ideology alive, not any real purpose.

            “Complete BS” lol. And here you were mocking me for my supposed thinking that I have all the answers.

            Dunning-Kruger, thy name is you.

          • Correct. The SJW radicals are pretty much all extreme leftists. The backers of gamergate include all idealogies, liberal, conservative, and libertarian, with their only commonality being they hate the excesses of the SJW totalitarian Marxists/Fascists.

          • “It’s not the fucking left.”
            Why do people just say wrong things like this? Censorship is a defining quality of lefties. Have you ever seen a conservative censor anyone’s beliefs? I admit, we do avoid people’s subhuman language.

          • “Have you ever seen a conservative censor anyone’s beliefs? ”

            Actually they invented it. It has always been a tool of the established order to forestall social and political change.


            More recently in the US we have had censorship at the school board level of school textbooks dealing with evolution. And I recall how certain literature was not allowed in high school in the 60s, as part of Cold War paranoia.

          • Actually the Jerry Falwell types used to try their share of censorship, although they were nowhere near as bad as the extreme leftists have become.

          • Then man up and give us some examples please!

            As a liberty minded individual, I see consistent efforts from the left to deny those they disagree with their free speech rights. Again and again I see conservative or libertarian speakers shouted down, harassed, denied the right to be heard on college campuses, which are supposed to offer “the free exchange of ideas.” And, I visited forty American campuses last year, finding many where “free speech zones” are now required for people to speak freely. Just look at what happened to Christina Hoff Sommers just last week.

            Hate Crimes? Was that imposed by the horseshoe right? Speech Codes? “Microagressions” for the campus hothouse flowers? “Free Speech Zones?” “Safe Spaces” so you won’t have to hear ideas you disagree with and can hold onto a stuffed animal? The fake campus rape crisis? The banning of even letters to the editor from Global Warming skeptics? Was the Duke Lacrosse hoax, pedaled by the right? The U.V.A. hoax? “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot?” Is Baltimore being torn up by right wing mobs? Was Ferguson burned by right wingers?

            New Labour wants to ban Islamophobia and make it a felony offense, does that come from the right?

            I keep hearing about an authoritarian right boogie man, a theocracy, but keep in mind that it was overwhelmingly liberty loving Christians who gave us the written Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place, documents that we have a hard time living up to. This nation was and remains overwhelmingly Christian, just the dreaded theocracy that we keep hearing about has never been imposed.

            From the French Revolution, to the Russian Revolution, to Post-War Berlin, to National Socialist Brown Shirts, mob violence has been a creature of the left. All these regimes rewrote history, banned critical newspapers, imposed speech codes. While in America, always a center right nation, until recently when the left consolidated its hold on the educational system, the media, the entertainment industry, much of big business and has now produced a shadow government within the bureaucracy, we used to have a free and fractious press, where people were free to offend and be offended.

            This “pox on both their houses” crap is just a false equivalency.

          • You know… if you take a horseshoe, hold the bend, and then squeeze the two sides together… what do you get?

            A LINE!

            The real question is, why do you need the freakin’ horseshoe shape to begin with?

          • I prefer a complete circle, because once you get extreme enough on either left or right, they both end up at the same place, totalitarian. Leftists like the claim they are the exact opposite of Fascism, but in reality Fascism and Marxism are pretty much the same in the relation of authority to the individual. Both Fascism and Marxism are collectivist, centrally planned, big gov, free speech suppressing, and totalitarian, the only difference is the lies they use to fool the rubes. The true opposite of both Fascism and Marxism is libertarianism, at the opposite end of the circle, with regular liberals and conservatives in intermediate positions. That is another disagreement I have with the horseshoe, that moderates are the opposites of totalitarian, in reality libertarianism is the opposite, and moderates reside in the middle of the circle, between all 4 poles.

          • Yep. It doesn’t matter if its National Socialism or International Socialism. In line with all the i(Pod/Pad/whatever) stuff I now refer to international Socialists as iNazis.

          • A small grammar distinction, because you can be on the opposite side or portion of a circle. In that respect, libertarians are on the opposite side of both Fascist and Marxist totalitarianism, who reside right next to each other, on the totalitarian side of the circle, with liberal and conservatives being on opposite sides in between.

          • This is feminist authoritarianism. The left, like the right, is a kaleidoscope of different ideas and ways of thinking.

          • And feminism is one of the most prominent, see abortion, see war on women propaganda, see Hillary for Pres.

          • Feminism represents only a shrinking 18% of all Americans, who are continually disillusioned with the idea.

          • Oh you mean the 18% that now have guilty until proven innocent on college campuses?

            Saying they aren’t the majority doesn’t make them less liberal or leftist.

          • And the point goes completely over your head.

            Keep fighting that boogeyman, see how far it gets you.

            You’re just as addicted to righteous indignation as these feminist fucks.

          • Well amaze us all with your dizzying intellect and explain how they are not left or lib and not the driving force behind the LIBERAL FASCISM on display in this article

          • I think his point would be if somebody goes enough toward the extreme end of leftism/liberalism, they become totalitarian, and cease to be liberal, just as a fascist is more totalitarian that right wing.

          • My point is you don’t even have to go to the extreme end of the spectrum on the left to get fascism. Main stream liberalism has plenty of totalitarian tendencies, just look at the complete lack of tolerance of others from the supposedly tolerant liberals.

          • That is because mainstream liberalism has gone so far left today, that they are extremist totalitarian. Liberals used to believe in free speech and due process, but they dont anymore.

          • But those feminist totalitarian 18% now drive the political agenda of the dem party, also control our colleges, and also the Obama justice dept.

          • Oh I know, but I’m hoping with dwindling numbers, those people will have less money and even less support.

            It’s just easy to stir up trouble when women are involved, pretty much smashing any idea of patriarchy or what the fuck ever the harpies are preaching nowadays.

          • OK, now you have said something I can completely agree with. But the only way I see to end the lock of radical feminism on the dem party is to hand them continuing political defeats. Parties only reform when they are defeated, if they keep winning, they just become more convinced they are right.

          • Progressive social democrat here.

            Not all liberals are feminists. Feminists scream that the conservatives are bigoted and attacking them. How do conservatives react? By blaming Obama for everything wrong on the planet, telling black people they aren’t being oppressed and that white men are oppressed, and that immigrants should go back to their home country.

            You turn this into a political, us vs them fight. People who didn’t care and wanted to side with conservatives think you don’t dislike feminists and you just hate anything that has been opined by a liberal.

            That why most liberals don’t join mens rights sites and it’s so easy to paint us as conservative hate groups. If you aren’t going to join your friends who believe what you do, then you’re going to lose the culture war and you will see true liberal fascism by becoming the evil that they preach about.

            Feminism has conservative feminists too. They don’t believe that women are totally oppressed but they believe women deserve more rights. If you are going to fight a diverse group that has members from all sides of the political spectrum then you better be know who your real enemy is because it’s not liberals. It’s feminists of all forms.

          • That was a wonderful series of strawmen and claims not made you just beat up. I particularly liked the moral equivalence of the “but conservatives just blame Obama for everything line”.

            Feminists as they were previously know do not exist. Feminism today is purely screeching radical liberal and fascistic in nature. All they espouse are purely liberal tenets.

            Feminism used to be about equal rights. many are still still confused that that is what today’s feminism is about. it’s not. Today, feminism encompasses lesbianism as superior to heterosexual. Don’t believe me, read their own literature.

          • They espouse totalitarian tenets, that’s it. You’re just too stupid to see the distinctions between the two – maybe not too stupid. Too indoctrinated.

            It’s funny, a lot of you people are just like them.

            So myopic in the pursuit of your political ideology.

          • The crushing of dissent and any dissenting voices is purely totalitarian and it’s being done purely in the name of liberal causes.

            How is this anyone’s fault but the liberals?

          • Feminists.

            Sorry, dude, but the distinction must be made. Not all liberals are feminists, even if liberals are feminists.

            It’s a specific brand of liberalism, which we must specify as feminism.

          • Sorry bub, you are arguing a point that is irrelevant. This case, not a hypothetical is all liberal.. Please show me an article about non libs doing this that is less than 50 years old.

            It’s totally weak to argue what one did not say.

          • “Feminists.”

            I have been reading all the comments in this section, and you’re attributing all the problems the left is having to feminists, which is simply not the case. Most of the problems in the left are caused by a runaway version of social justice, a problem which has been written about by more than one liberal college professor, and has been written about by many commentators, mostly in the academic sphere:


            So yeah, collectivist and psuedo-marxist thinking has invaded the left, enjoyed the respect and power given by Americans (such as yourself, myself, and others) and now the inmates run the asylum.

          • You misunderstand. But, your own ideological thinking gets in the way of seeing anything other than what you want to see.

            The first problem, “attributing all the problems of the left is having to feminists”

            No, when we’re speaking of fucking FEMINISM, don’t include the entirety of the LEFT in with feminism.

          • Yes, but when we are speaking of censorship based on social justice ideas (which overlaps heavily with feminism) we are speaking of the left, which is in the case of what happened at Calgary expo. Without tons of SJWs willing to hold up feminists like this, ejection from a games conference would not be possible.

          • Not all social justice is feminist, but feminism is a brand of social justice ideology.

          • Actually the AJW types are pretty much all leftist. The only way you do have a point is the people opposing the leftist SJW totalitarians include all free idealogies, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians.

          • SJW’s =/= the left.

            I’m a centrist, classical libertarian – classical liberal, if you will. Leaning a little more left than right.

            Some people on this hugbox would call me a leftie – am I with the SJW’s? FUCK no.

            You people have no objectivity here.

            I am against extremism in all it’s forms, left or right, SJW or Stormfront.

          • I am libertarian/conservative, so we are not that far off. And I would never confuse any true libertarian (leaning left or right) with a leftist, since a hard leftist has pretty much nothing in common with any libertarian.
            But if you are really libertarian, do you believe in gun rights, because that is a fundamental libertarian belief, but is also considered a conservative belief, and is opposed by most on the left. Do you want less gov and lower taxes (also libertarian), but also popular with conservatives. Both of those libertarian beliefs would separate you from the leftists, and would be quite popular with conservatives.

          • I believe in government where government is needed, and that taxes are vital to maintaining our ailing country – our infrastructure is often close to third world status, and I believe that as the most powerful country on earth, we should be able to take care of people when necessary.

            I believe in free speech and gun rights as well, within reason, and as long as there’s safety education included. Do you know how many people who haven’t gone through hunter’s safety in Wisconsin put their fingers on the trigger of a gun, or don’t know what or where the safety is?

            I use the horseshoe theory, which fits into reality.

          • You are not much of a libertarian then, because your whole statement is full of weasel words, with loopholes big enough to drive a mack truck through:.

            “where government is needed”. Even a marxist beleives that, they just have a lot bigger “need” for gov that I do.

            “take care of people when necessary”. Again total weasel words. A socialist thinks it is almost always necessary.

            ” free speech and gun rights as well, within reason”. Again even the most most extreme leftie will say that, snce they think any gun reg is reasonable.

            Lets do some concrete tests, which do not allow weasel words, to see whether you are a real libertarian, and not a fake one:
            1. do you believe gov regulation today has gone too far, and should be significantly scaled back, or at least definitely not expanded (like having to cut back on some old reg if you have to add a new one, a net regulatory freeze).
            2. do you believe gov spending should be significantly reduced (or at least frozen at present levels, and I do not mean present projections, but actual present spending for this year will not increase. any program that increases much be balance by a cut elsewhere).
            3. do you believe many present fed gov functions should be returned to the states.
            4. Do you oppose any new gun control from the fed gov, and mostly oppose it in the states as well.
            5. do you believe the present radical feminist college policies on internal rape tribunals (I cant call them courts, courts have due process) are an infringement on due process.
            6. Do you believe that SJW leftists have gone way too far in restricting free speech.

            If you believe at least 4 out of 6 of these things, you may be a real libertarian, otherwise you are at best a moderate, or even a leftie, bsing us about being a libertarian. And any leftist would oppose all of my 6 points, so this test will surely spot a leftie as well.

            And read my critique above on the horseshoe theory. Moderates are not the opposite of Fascists and Marxists, libertarians are. And libertarians are not moderates, splitting the difference on everything, because we do not compromise much when it comes to liberty. We only appear like moderates sometimes because we have positions on various issues that sometimes agree with the right, and sometimes agree with the left. depending on the issue. But wherever we take a position, it is a strong position, no weasel words.

          • Your interpretation is your interpretation. I quite honestly don’t give a shit what you think.

            I’m not going to take any more of my time contributing to the fun on your hugbox here.

          • My interpretation of libertarianism is not just mine, as you claim, but is backed up by most official libertarian publications, like the libertarian party platform, Reason Magazine, and the Cato Institute.

          • “But wherever we take a position, it is a strong position, no weasel words.”

            P.s Sure sounds like extreme feminists up in here.

          • No, it sounds like an extremist for liberty. And I notice you did not address whether you agree with any of my 7 points, so at best you are moderate, possibly leftist, but perhaps not extreme leftist, because at least you are willing to criticise extreme feminism.

          • I don’t owe you anything, bub, I’m not doing to sit here and get into a discussion with someone who doesn’t want a discussion, and who wants to sit here and label and psychoanalyze me.

            Enjoy the hugbox, fuckhead. You are sincerely no better than a feminist, and I’m sorry to inform you of that.

            “He who fights monsters” and all that.

          • I am interested in a discussion, that is why I asked about your views on my 7 points. It is you that dont seem to want a discussion. And I am not trying to psychoanalyze you as you claim, I am trying to find out your specific political positions, to determine if you are a real libertarian, or a fake one. I have certainly answered any question you put to me.

          • The nonsense about “infrastructure” is always a dead giveaway to me. The federal government needs to have priorities and those should be those outlined the constitution. Anything else should be done by the states.

            At every level the government largely ignores its most basic functions, then goes to the people, hat in hand, so we can “replace our decaying” infrastructure. Fool me once, but never again. President Obama’s stimulus was of course going to replace our aging infrastructure, but of course the money virtually all went to pay off his supporters in the bloated government.

            In California, where taxes are sky high, the state is forever going to its citizens for bonds and new taxes, always for a basic need that has been ignored. The pipes underneath the cities are a hundred years old, the last time I was there the roads were worthless, but they have billions to spend on a crazy “bullet” train to nowhere. Whenever I see the old saw about infrastructure, I know I have encountered an artful dodger of Clintonian proportions.

          • Except I’m literally speaking of infrastructure, a great American reconstruction project. Infastructure is connected, it isn’t just a state issue.

            There would be no bullet trains to nowhere.

            But then, your personal take on it is simple at best.

          • Remember the stimulus? There was a pot of gold there, what was it $800,000,000,000? Close to a billion dollars that was supposed to go to “shovel ready jobs” and “our crumbling infrastructure.” Where are all the new roads and bridges?

            Virtually all of that stimulus money went to the core constituencies of the Democratic party, a big chunk of 1.5 billion or so to Baltimore, hundreds of millions to the very neighborhoods that are looting now and nothing to show for it. Hundreds of millions to “improve Baltimore education,” and even though it spends more than all but two big school districts in the nation, the schools are miserable.

            And, that was how the stimulus was spent all over the country, loads of spending and no lasting effect and a few years later President Obama tells us that he never realized that “there is really no such thing as a shovel ready job.” No one told him projects have a long lead time? Meanwhile, they would claim credit for road projects that were in the works long before the crash and stick the stimulus label on them.

            So, I would have no faith than any new ocean of money for “infrastructure” would do any good, it would all be corrupted wasted as Washington does with any large pot of money for graft and corruption are its mother’s milk. The money ends up being spent where a Senator has influence not where it is needed most.

            As far as my take being simple, well, yes it is to a degree, because the problem is rather simple and that is that government at every level is inefficient and corrupt, so it should only be used for the things that we can’t do ourselves or privately. Government has to have a set of priorities where the first money that comes in goes to its most basic functions. But as I point out, that is not how money gets spent, it goes to where the influence is not the needs.

            Thus a state like California which is parched for water wastes hundreds of millions of gallons when water mains break and looses trillions of gallons in runoff because they have not spent anything on water infrastructure in decades. Meanwhile, they want to spend hundreds of billions of state and federal funds on Jerry Brown’s crazy train. Or look at the DOS. While they were complaining about not having money to protect their people in dangerous regions they were spending millions and millions of dollars in a spree of “green projects” and electrical recharging stations in places like Vienna.

            So, sorry but every one of these ideas, “a Marshall Plan for our Cities,” or a massive infrastructure spending plan, will never work, just more waste and corruption. The right way to do infrastructure is one well-planned and properly budgeted project at a time, the way a company builds a new office tower or a person builds a house, one foot in front of the other, but that isn’t “sexy” like throwing a trillion dollars at a problem all at once without oversight.

          • I too am on the left like you, and like you, I oppose these extremists. In fact in a threat on the forums of AVFM, I suggested how silly it is to call them Social Justice Warriors, that is giving them a compliment they do not deserve..they do NOT fight for justice but against justice. I suggest UJWs (Unequal Justice Warriors) because they promote unequal justice, or SIWs, social inequality warriors. Some other suggestions by others,

            See showthread.php?15751-Just-freaking-wow!-In-the-worst-way&p=138827&viewfull=1#post138827

            and comments below, on the avoiceformen forums (forums.avoiceformen) website.

            As for “aren’t all extreme feminists also extreme lefitsts?” here is a copy of how I replied elsewhere, saying not only are people like myself and Leibfarce left but opposed to them but also I said:

            A question for you: does the fact these extreme feminists think of themselves as left, make them left?

            If you say “yes” then does the fact they call themselves “fighting for
            equality” make them fighters for equality? Does the fact they say (or even believe) that they are fighting for “justice” make them fighters for justice? I could add more examples. The answer to these is, obviously not. Obviously they can think of themselves as being for “fairness” and “equality” and “justice” but in reality, so often, they fight against these very things.

            But when they say they are “liberal” and “leftist” you want to make an exception and say ok, they get to pick the label?

          • Except they’re feminists, not leftist. They might be part of the left, but they do not represent the left. I hope you can see how fallacious your reasoning is. There’s no objectivity.

            You’ll often find leftists arguing against feminists.

          • I am sorry, most so-called “Feminists” are leftists first, women a far distant second. Their hatred of western civilization is why they make common cause with both the communists and the Islamists. That is why “Feminist” moon bat Gloria Steinem is going to that dream state of the Social Justice harridans, North Korea, where everyone is equal, though a Kim or two is a bit more equal.

            Don’t you wonder why they can’t do more than issue the occasional hashtag when hundreds of African girls are kidnapped and raped by the Islamists? Don’t you wonder why they moan about a non-existent rape epidemic on American college campuses, but can’t seem to find the time to organize a protest at the Saudi Embassy? Don’t you wonder why Ms. Ali is not a heroine to the left for standing up to a Medieval religion and its brutal treatment of women? Instead, her lectures are protested and cancelled at those paragons of robust intellectual debate known as the American college campus?

            No, they stand time and time again with the head-choppers and baby rapers, because at heart they see things through the prism, the funhouse mirror of economic and cultural Marxism, where the “victims” are never, never responsible for their own actions, but evil Western Civilization, Capitalism and the Patriarchy are.

            In the end, ideology, a governing philosophy trumps everything else, even money, except perhaps if your name is Clinton.

      • They’ll care when the SJW target them for “triggering” their twitter PSTD by cosplaying as a character who was in an avatar of someone who called them stupid.

      • Maybe someone ought to point out that as a “public event” they might get sued for discrimination, just like the bakeries.

    • Oh yes, going back decades I’ve been told that very same thing, more or less word for word, by decision-makers about the “definition” of harassment.


      We’ve got to roll back this crap.

    • I saw that tweet. The mask on their avatar was triggering and made me think of being mugged in an alley. This made me feel harassed and i expect the Denver Comic Con to be expelled from the Denver Comic Con

    • Fight fire with fire. Close down anyone you don’t like by claiming harassment. The claim makes the crime true apparently.

    • I tweeted them that their tweet made me feel harassed, and for them to stop harassing me. While pointing out how ridiculous that is directly, in case they are that thick… and that is certainly possible since they think “if someone feels harassed, it is harassment” make sense.

      • Ah, so the Denver Comic Con is announcing that it will randomly eject vendors and congoers as well. This reduces the value of renting a booth or buying admission, then.

        • What if two people both accuse each other off harrassment? Assuming vagina means an instant win, what if it’s two women? Twins? Denver Comic Con should try using common sense instead of “social justice”.

  • This conservative, right-wing, pro-free enterprise, pro-liberty and pro-free speech Calgarian who got screwed over by the Calgary Expo last year just contributed $25 to the fund.

    TtTreatise doesn’t know what (s)he’s talking about – if a contract clause is illegal, then it is disregarded by the court, regardless of whether the parties in the dispute signed the contract. It is very unlikely that the Expo’s contract term which states they may enforce any policy in any way they see fit, whether it appears in the policy document or not, would stand up in court, because, with that clause in place, the contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

    HBB’s expulsion is nothing new for the Expo. They did it to me last year. As a volunteer, I didn’t have many legal options, but, since HBB was a vendor at the show and was expecting a return on investment, if I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t just be going to a refund of the convention fees, but also for lost sales (ten years’ worth), as well as punitive damages – because this shows malice and intent on the part of the Expo.

      • While monetary compensation is certainly a *part* of a just settlement in this case, that should not be the sole or primary motivation. Alison and the entire HBB were wronged by the unconscionable actions of Calgary Expo. A finding of wrong doing on the part of Calgary Expo will help to ensure that the HBB as well as other similar groups who refuse to pander to the prevailing Feminist narrative can enjoy the freedom to continue their participation in fandom freely and without fear of arbitrary retribution from intolerant and bigoted ideologues.

        • Yes, the issues and opportunity at stake are larger than just financial compensation. Though the expo will doubtless try to settle out of court and hush it up if the case is strong.

    • My guess is that he’s trying to provoke someone to reveal confidential information, and his trolling is nothing more than a fishing expedition. He probably works for the Expo.

      • That account was registered a couple of months back specifically to post what it does, and for the reaction it gets, on ‘pro-GG’ sites.

        • That’s because they’re terrified and confused. Members of a cult rarely understand the actions of free men and women … We’re supposed to Listen and Believe.

      • Driversuz,

        This is MalLibForLiberation, I changed my name on google to Liber Namuh..I just posted here 5 minutes ago I hope you can make sure it gets posted.

        Right after the explusion from Calgary, I searched online for news stories about the Expo and long story short found this blog I had not heard of but apparently a big one thousands of comments, yes, feminist, and I tried to get them to let Alison give her side. That was 11 days ago. After lots of back and forth politely, then being 100s of comments behind, I posted followup tonight, with the url of this Honeybadgerbrigade, so they can read Alison’s account, and their readers (they do have a few open minded ones) even if maybe not the blog ownsers, but at least their readers can make up their minds after reading Alison’s account.

        I said I would include a post here with that website’s url, and I did, and challenged them to not censor, not delete this Honeybadgersbrigade url which I gave also (in a reply to my own post on their website) I hope my post here on HBB is not accidentally deleted ( though maybe you’re not a mod here too?)

        Let the record show that HBB is not afraid to have a link to this TMS blog…but will TMS blog be afraid to link to HBB??

        Actually their blog post is mostly 1-sided and refuses to quote Alison BUT has this amazing quote that Alison can use to strengthen her own (Alison’s/HBB’s) case from Panel m ember Brittney Le Blanc:

        “[Alison and Sage] Raising points about the way men are portrayed in comics struck a note with all the panelists, as we agreed that we want to see a diversity
        across body types, characters, races, etc in mainstream comics.”


        “Their questions did take up quite a bit of time at the panel and served to derail the topic onto another tangent, which was frustrating… I would say that it brought up some great discussions though, allowing
        us to talk about the lack of representation for people of colour in comics and to give”

        What? Wait a minute! The points Alison and Sage raised “struck a note” with the panel? and “it brought up some great discussions”?? Then how could anyone say this and then how can be possibly think of Alison and other HBB members as having been “Disruptive”?

        Le Blanc’s own words are a powerful counter (whether she meant it or not) to claims of “disruption! disruption!”
        Anyway I hope my link to the Themarysue (TMS) post in another comment here 15 minutes ago, makes it..and we’ll see if TMS keeps my comment with the url of this HBB page, or whether they delete it…(I asked them in my post: “if you think you have facts and morality on your side, then you’re not worried about a link to Alison’s giving her side, right?”)

      • is it troll or trollle or trole? anyway, AVFM still has a female audience. Only chicks read that crap, check alexa.

    • It’d be worth getting in touch with HBB to see if the addition of your incident might be of help building a broader case.

    • This silicon valley libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) atheist is happy to chip in. I’m sure that, retrospectively, I will feel much better about my contribution here than I do about the many months of Patreon contributions I made to Zoe Quinn before she went fucking ballistic online.

      • Fellow libertarian here … yeah I’m done waiting for this shit to sort itself out. Modern-day “feminism” is a trojan horse used by SJW’s to spread their fascist agenda. The hateful fucks are setting the liberal agenda back decades while claiming to be liberals. It’s perverse.

      • This libertarian(ish) german chipped in (with a small sum) too. It’s a bit far from home, but we had far more than enough of these people ourself. SJW just seems to be a fancy english abbreviation for “Blockwart”. These dumb, evil, small-minded creeps just piss me off big time.

    • I’m a progressive liberal, left-wing polytheist.
      I don’t have much money, but I’ve been spreading the word around as much as I can. What the expo did to the HBB was just plain wrong (as well as illegal).

      It makes me really uncomfortable how many of my fellow progressives have dropped the views on inclusivity/freedom that they had in the past to this new SJW idiocy.

    • Wasup, hope you kept your receipt:


      “We retained the legal services of Harry Kopyto. He is a very controversial figure in the area of human rights and discrimination law and a disbarred lawyer. However he has received awards for his work defending human rights–specifically he has fought for the rights of dissenters and underdogs, marxists, gay people, racial minorities and now us.

      He also works on scale, which is necessary since 30k is basically nothing when it comes to legal costs.”

  • All I’ll say is that even at this earlier juncture, you’ll want to have retained a lawyer just to inform your strategy.

    Hopefully that letter that you sent, was looked over by one!

    • HAHA.

      I’ve been so thoroughly entertained and informed by the HoneyBadgers over the past couple years that I can contribute on that basis alone.

      But I hope they use my money to mop the floor with SJWs.

  • If I had any money to my name at all, I’d send it your way. But I’ll support the cause in whatever other way I can.

  • “We don´t know what we are gonna do, but please, send us money just in case”. God, sure “Memories Pizza” has created a trend…

    • Chocho en lata, Honey Badger has made quite clear what they will do: Take legal action for redress. What they don’t know, as Ms. Tieman explained, is exactly how much it will cost. Legal cases tend to be like that.

      (So do wars, for much the same reasons.)

      • omg lol

        I can only imagine how profoundly sad your life is…

        You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]

          • Since Driversuz decided to ban me and I cant reply…I’ll just leave your fuck you here. You insulted me first(calling me a bigoted criminal thug), I called you out on it, and you ban me. Yeah great mods you got over at “avoiceformen”.

            blah blah blah….yes i had to find a thread to post this in, but whatever, you deserved a well earned fuck you for being unreasonable.

            you sound more like those feminists your site rails against.

    • What do a bunch of right wing bigots sending money to a right wing bigot pizza parlor that discriminates against its customers have to fucking do with helping fund a bunch of geek girls looking to take possible legal action to prevent future censorship at events?!

      I guess you only support giving money to wealthy adults from wealthy parents who whine on twitter about people on twitter being mean to them on twitter so they can pay their rent?

      • I’m so sorry, Anita, but Memories Pizza did NOT discriminate against its customers. The pizzeria happily served all clientele. On a hypothetical question regarding being asked to serve a Gay wedding pizza they replied it was against their religious beliefs to do so. This is what opened them to the the floodgates of vandalism, hate, death threats, and a nearby Loud and Proud lesbian high school coach “who wants to join me in burning them down”. I would tender the proposition that if you were to meet most of those who supported Memories Pizza gfm even you might agree they were not bigots.

      • Technical correction: but the the pizza parlor did not and does not discriminate against any customers.

    • Wow, you’ve come to the party late. This is standard for a lawfare campaign and something that’s been around since at least the 1970s. Both left and right do this and it’s very much a generic, non-ideological trend at this point.

    • Looks to me as if the Calgary Expo is going to be sending the Honey Badgers money before this is all over. And taking a big hit to their reputation, as the Expo is publicly demonstrating its contractual unreliability — buying a booth does not mean that one will be provided its use for the convention, nor the safety of one’s goods displayed there — one may apparently be ejected at the random whim of the convention.

      • I think Calgary Expo has already forgotten about this, as everybody else. Also, many other Expos are taking the same route not allowing hate groups propaganda.

        • “already forgotten about this, as everybody else.”

          And yet, here you are *facepalm*

          • You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (derailing and trolling). [Ref: 4917]

        • “Also, many other Expos are taking the same route not allowing hate groups propaganda.”
          Well that’s the issue here, isn’t it, that Calgary Expo acted on the word of a hate group.

        • First of all, I’ve heard the Honey Badgers are suing them, and have the law on the side of their suit. Secondly, how is merely supporting the Honey Badgers “hate groups propaganda?” Thirdly, why was Alison expelled for expressing an opinion on a panel after asking and receiving permissionto express the opinion?

          Would you be as content if it was an opinion or group you supported which had been expelled? Given the way in which the Official Truth is subject to change without notice, are you really okay with expelling people without warning for violating the Official Truth? How do you know that you won’t be on the wrong side of such ire some day?

  • I have no money. But I have written to the Expo’s sponsors. So I’m actively involved still! 🙂

  • I’ll be donating $50 sometime tomorrow, at the same time as I order a couple shirts (the one with the gg logo).

  • So when you can’t find a lawyer that’ll take your case…what will you do with the money? LOL…Harper…lol

    • This has got to be one of the stupidest spout offs I have ever heard.

      Since when have you heard of an attorney who wont take a case?

    • Ah aslan, still trolling like a pro I see….the only confusion I have, is what exactly do you get out of posting stupid comments without really baiting?

        • What if he’s being so pathetic because he’s actually trying to troll the trolls? #mindblown

    • Funny, I had a similar case 3 years ago, with even less evidence, in the end (after a 2.5 yr legal battle), the party I took legal action against settled out of court for 8x what they cost me, I wound up being compensated 5x what my estimated losses were…Iand had a weaker case than HBB.

  • Yes! I’m glad to hear this news because I want the Calgary Expo to pay for what they did. As Raging Golden Eagle once said “NOW EAT LAWYERS BITCHES!”

    • Oh Joy ! Yet another troll. I am anxious for what morsels of bullshit you plan on serving us with.

    • That’s actually an interesting point – if indeed there is a massive settlement from CalEx for their egregious behavior, perhaps it should include payment, including penalties for pain and suffering, to the original crowd funding backers. 🙂

    • If the crowdfunding backers deserve a refund, then the backers also qualify as plaintiffs as they have clearly suffered damages. You didn’t really think that troll through, did you?

  • How is it possible you can sign a contract with someone, when both parties to said contract are fully and openly knowing they are already in violation of terms of said contract before, during and after signing the contract? There has to be some onus upon the person who draws up the contract to agree the counter party is in compliance before accepting their money. If they want to eject the HBB after the fact then they should also agree they never should have accepted the $10,000 in the first place and return it. Otherwise provide a clear and convincing example of a violation of terms over and above anything expected of the counter party.

    I have a problem with the foundations of Patriarchy theory and Gender Studies. I was taught at a very young age that stereotyping people was both racism and faulty logic. My own observations when given a new stereotype presented so many exceptions to the rule that I always had to abandon the rule in short order. Yet Patriarchy theory and Gender Studies requires placing the entire human population into categories and subcategories that rigidly follow stereotypes, with strict rules of victimhood and privilege levels for each. This places Feminism and the whole social justice movement in lockstep with stereotyping, racism, sexism, favoritism, elitism, to say nothing of claiming authority over everybody else via mob rule.

    • Most of the $10,000 went for travel expenses. The Badgers can reasonably claim their expenses as damages, but I think they paid the Expo less than a grand for the booth.

      I think it’s possible that the con staff didn’t realize the Badger’s weren’t in line with the Expo’s “positive and safe” mandate. But when the Honey Badger’s put up a poster with a GamerGate logo on it, every man, woman, and child at the con nearly wet themselves in terror, and the staff realized that something had to be done.

  • I was glad to see The Rebel do an interview with Alison. And they will keep on top of this.Also good to let Charles Adler know about this I will contribute to the Honey Badgers and certainly hope the Calgary Expo will respond decently but if not — then legal action is a must. I’ve already posted some on my FB page and will continue do so.

  • The totalitarian nature of the Calgary expo, not to mention the intolerance towards dissent shared by their kind, has got to come to an end. It’s popular and very easy to just cave in to their kind as it usually has no long term negative effects, well enough is enough. Legal action is definitely the right way to go, their kind thinks they can get away with abusing human rights so long as it is the right ‘kind’ of human. Time to make an example of them and deter others from thinking it is OK to treat people this way.

  • Best of luck you all. Between this and what DenverCon said about #gamergate shirt wearers… I am very concerned about the increased politicization of fandoms and convention circuits. I wish I wasn’t broke to help with the legal fund, but I will help in anyways I can!

    Including continued coverage of this event as it develops. If situations like this amp up, I fear for our fandoms

  • I hope the Calgary Expo gets a ton of bad publicity from this. Those wannabe Stalinists deserve a public roasting.

  • Just out of curiosity, why do I need to write my address to pledge money to the HBB legal crowdfunding page?

  • Not a lawyer, but I suggest you look at a civil action combined with the tribunals. Or if you can only go at it through one, use the human rights tribunals.

  • So the letter was written on the 22nd and you expect a reply by the 25th. You are asking for a written response. I’m taking you gave him the same respect by writing to him. Which means you gave 3 days for his letter to get to him, for him to write a reply and for the mail to get back to you. How fast does your mail mail deliver?

      • No you type emails. Anyone can write an email. I’ll make a gmail account and “write” anyones name on it. Also since they include a p.o. box it seems they want writen and not typed.

        • They included the p.o. box and their email.
          They sent this letter via regular mail and email.

          A reply from the email they sent the letter to, or an official Con email, would count as an appropriate reply.

          • You sure about that. I think they should have talked to a lawyer before sending that letter. Sounds kinda like blackmale. “Contact us or else”.

          • Not blackmail, either. They’re looking for a resolution before going to court. Honestly, they’re giving the con a lot more leeway than they probably deserve.

          • Just got a letter from my power company. They told me to pay my bill or they will take legal action.
            Are they blackmailing me ????

          • Blackmail requires a gain. They only want a response and a way to settle this without going to court.

          • Blackmail requires that the thing demanded not have a reasonable relationship to the threat. Answering a letter about your actionable behaviors certainly is a reasonable demand.

          • Actually sounds like the normal legal process to me. “We believe we have a case but would rather not spend the time/money taking this to court.”

          • Filing a lawsuit against someone goes nowhere near the legal definition – the only one that matters in this case – of blackmail.
            Taking legal action against someone is uh, legal. Perfectly legal.

  • I say take this as far and further than it “needs” to go. Don’t settle for “Okay, we will settle quietly out of court, give you your $10, 000, but not admit any wrong-doing. Do not reveal anything of the terms of the settlement”
    Taking this all the way and winning, will send a very clear message. It will say that righteousness is not necessary truth or fact and nor is it morality or even legal. Do the wrong thing and you could be held financially and legally accountable.
    You do not get to act with impunity against people you have designated as a hate group and dehumanised. You are not fighting monsters, you are hurting people.
    It is breaking their dangerous narrative
    I also would like to think that if Calgary Expo get hammered on the basis of acting on The Mary Sue’s advice and encouragement, that this may not only strain the friendship with Calgary Expo but it may have larger and broader implications for them specifically and Feminist/SJW rags generally.
    This could be a small but important battle in a much larger cultural war.

  • I hope you eviscerate those scum bags. Make sure you screenshot EVERYTHING, I have a feeling these turds will be going out of their way to cover their tracks, deleting tweets and what not. Keep tabs on everything

  • Please check the funding page urgently – on the last few checks on the page the funding amount has started to go DOWN – I hope this is just a harmless fault and not some hack but it needs checking asap!

  • Argg Rightwingers trying to hijack Men’s Rights in order to use it as a vechile for own adgenda.

    First off the rightwing has don’t much to censor people, remember the McCarthy trials where being suspected of being a communist got your life ruined. Not to mention all the censorship from Socons on issues of sexuality.

    The truth is for the MRA movement to move forward its support amoung the left, because stuff like getting shelters for abused men, resources education people on envelepment rape, ending wars designed to slaughter men, and so many issues.

    Who was it who got universal healthcare that saves lives, including for men, the left, who created penisons so men have resources to survive on when they get old, the left, who created unions that helped boost wages in male dominate industry, the left, who fought for greater work place safety saving the lives of countless men, the left. Who fought tooth and nail against conscription, which outside of Isreal affects only men, the left. Who fought for the right for two men to marry the left.

    The Rightwing MRA are good for fighting with radical feminists, but at the end of the day when come time comes for actual practical solutions to the issues facing men, male disposaliblity, men’s health, men’s safety, male economic issues, censorship of male voice, its the leftwing MRAs who will be the ones to come up with the actual solutions,.because it will take action by governments and social program spending and building instutitions, and so on and the right is too obsessed with drowning government in a bathtube to actual run it productively.

    The mantra of low taxes,.low taxes, low taxes, damn fucking feminists, cut taxes won’t solve any men’s issues and that’s what the liberartians really care about.

    • The problem with the left is that they don’t realize that Big Government is simply the Biggest Corporation Of All Plus Police To Force You To What They Want Because Guns.

      Now certainly, the left’s commitment to freedoms like gay marriage and drug legalization is notably absent on the right (so far)…but please, putting the left’s desire for expansive nanny-state government (rather than simply the strict protection of private property and liberty ala Bastiat), really isn’t a convincing pitch 🙂

    • Glad to read your note and happy to see that not everyone here is a right-wing libertarian or else a conservative. Yes we can cut taxes by spending much less on militarism. No, we cannot cut taxes by expecting that every homeless shelter, be just volunteering, or expect that veterans coming back with PTSD use only volunteers and no government programs.

      I think the extreme views that so often are seen as “feminist” these days sound more like right wing authoritarianism than left to me, but if they become the new owners of the word left, well, the I disagree with them, but I still believe in what I said in the previous paragraph and your comments Gyor are good points.

  • My adventures on a feminist blog trying to get them to allow Alison to give her side:

    Right after the explusion 11 or so days ago, I did a news search about the Expo and came across a blog I had not heard of before, apparently a feminist one called Themarysue (TMS). Foolishly? Or not? If I got one person to see that it’s not about “hating women” when people like Alison raise MHRM issues, it was a good thing.

    but I posted politely giving some different views and asking: Why be one sided?

    Why not quote Alison’s responses about what happened that day?

    Why not let Alison give her side of the story, I asked.

    When I was about 100 comments behind given how quickly people were posting, I stopped. In between, there were some people there who seemed to be interested in civil dialog. Others? Just wanted to delete my comments or keep changing the subject. After giving it a rest for 10 or so days, I took a peek today and found another hardline post insisting TMS did the right thing by not letting Alison or another HBB give their side.

    Below is the reply I just posted tonight, also challenging them to not delete a url of this honeybadgerbrigade page giving Alison’s side. I said I’d give the url of the TMS page in return:


    1) I posted on TMS: “Ruby, my comment about letting both sides have their say, was about this website post, that themarysue should have included also a quote from Alison along with the long one from Le Blanc

    2) A user named Ruby Dynamite wrote back saying “Noooooooope. The folks at TMS don’t have to do that or anything remotely like that. Sorry, but you’re not Rand Paul. You don’t get to go around telling people what they ‘SHOULD’ do instead of what they’re doing. The person who wrote this article covered their bases adequately.”

    3) My reply tonight:

    You’re right, TMS doesn’t “have to” do that, which is why I did not
    use the phrase, “has to” but instead used the phrase a human being uses when expressing their views, “should”.

    Surely you know the difference between “has to” and “should but bringing up Rand Paul, really? Yes, I do get to use the word “should” for the same reason as every other human being gets to use the word “should”, and it’s not because we “think we’re Rand Paul”

    The reason every human being gets to use the word “should” is because, as you know, that’s called “expressing your view”. Has nothing to do with thinking you’re Rand Paul. To say what you think “should” have been done is to express one’s view, one’s opinion. At the same time, others express their view that TMS “covered their bases adequately”. That’s you expressing your view, l expressed mine.

    When expressing your view, however, you did try to back it up with a reason why it was “adequate” to completely skip quotes from the other side giving their point of view (by the way, can we skip a silly game of “you think I have to give a reason? Who do you think you are? I don’t have to give a reason” Yes, I know, you don’t have to. I agree you don’t have to. I never said you have to. And you know I never said you have to. But I am pointing out you didn’t)

    There’s nothing liberal about silencing police civil expression of alternate views, and former NOW president Karen DeKrow among many others are spinning in their graves.

    I wonder, if I post a link to this page, with TMS’s points of view on the Honeybadgerbrigade website, will they delete it? If I post a link here of their point of view which I just found, will it be deleted?

    And will the party (or parties) who delete a url giving the other side’s side of the story, be demonstrating that they are too insecure to have an open discussion?

    In my view (and, no, I’m not saying TMS “has to” do anything, but in my view) yes it would show just that. I’m off to post the url of this TMS page now. I would not be shocked if they delete it, but they might not, and shouldn’t your side live up to higher standards, and not delete a url giving Alison’s letter giving her side? The truth and morality on your side, right? So surely you can live up to a higher standard, and not block out their url, right?

    I’m naive enough to think that there’s no good reason, not honest fair minded reason to exclude quoting Alison, to give her side of the story. And naive enough to think that if there was a good reason, it would have been given by now. Would have been given long ago.

    And what if the HBB website doesn’t censor your url? What if the HBB website or AVFM end up not deleting the url giving this page and giving TMS’s take on this, but in contrast, TMS does? History is pretty clear on which side tends to censor (it’s not the side that believes facts and morality are on its side) and the resulting contrast in that case, will cause even more “spinning in their grave”

  • The post “[UPDATED] Members of Gamergate Planned to “Infiltrate” Calgary Expo to Actively Disrupt Panels, Calgary Expo Has Evicted Them” is mostly 1-sided and refuses to quote Alison. At least they did in Update 4 include some HBB links. I tried 12 days ago and last night to comment there, that their actual article, too, should have let Alison be quoted too to give her side..

    But here’s the shocking thing:

    Even that feminist blog, themarysue, even while mostly 1-sided, has this amazing quote that Alison can use to strengthen her own (Alison’s/HBB’s) case since that post had a quote by Panel member Brittney Le Blanc. On the one hand, Le Blanc did try to criticize Alison by claiming to read Alison’s mind about Alison’s “intentions” to “derail” but Le Blanc actually *praises* Alison, deliberately or not, several times:

    “[Alison and Sage were] raising points about the way men are portrayed in comics struck a note with all the panelists, as we agreed that we want to see adiversity across body types, characters, races, etc in mainstream comics.”

    So they “raised points” that “struck a note with all the panelists”??

    Doesn’t sound like “disruptive” or “derailing” to me. Le Blanc is quoted also in Themarysue saying that:

    “Their questions did take up quite a bit of time at the panel and served to derail the topic onto another tangent, which was frustrating… [but] I would say that it brought up some great discussions though, allowing us to talk about the lack of representation for people of colour in comics and to give”

    Great discussion?? What?

    Wait a minute! The points Alison and Sage raised “struck a note” with the panel? and “it brought up some great discussions”??

    Then how could anyone say this and then how can be possibly think of Alison and other HBB members as having been “Disruptive”?Le Blanc’s own words are a powerful counter (whether she meant it or not) to claims of “disruption! disruption!”

    Of course now we also have Alison’s letter above with more details like “let’s remove booths…like THAT one” even before the panel ever started…

    But I would definitely use Le Blanc’s words above to debunk the narrative about “poor oppressed us got disrupted and derailed” and remind the Expo of Le Blanc’s words repeatedly each time they (or others) try using that dishonest narrative.

  • My legal education comes from Arkansas, not Canada, so I will have to limit this to general points.
    A contract is only enforceable if there is consideration on both sides. Consideration can be minimal, but it has to be something. If their contract actually states that they can arbitrarily eject people who’ve paid to attend without any reason, then it isn’t a contract. I don’t know how pleading works in Canada, but if you can, you should claim breach of contract and in the alternative, claim fraud.
    Telling your neighbor to leave your house is your right as the owner, but calling the police on them after they’ve fully complied because you’re a paranoid freak is harassment in pretty much any jurisdiction. Coupled with their sending out public statements about you establishes a bizarre pattern of behavior and I think you can make a good claim of harassment. (the real kind)
    Canada doesn’t have the kind of free speech protection we have here. If they made any factual claims about you that were false, and that could damage your reputations, they may be actionable as some sort of defamation.
    I’m going to assume that they don’t own the venue. I don’t know if Canada allows you to sue as a third party beneficiary to a contract, but if the agreement between the event organizer and the venue owner addresses safety, then rushing you out of the building might be a breach. This isn’t your strongest point. Use it last, if you have time. Here, it can be useful to beat up the other side with lengthy pleadings.
    Be prepared for counter-suit. They might claim to own everything that happens at the event. Stop talking about it publicly until you’ve spoken with a qualified, Canadian lawyer. Do not remove anything you’ve posted online until instructed to do so by a qualified, Canadian lawyer.
    You’ve done well to document everything and your letter is great. If Canada has a way to mail something with a return signature, you might resend the letter to be sure that they can’t claim not to have seen it. Otherwise, make no attempt to contact them again until you have spoken with a qualified, Canadian lawyer.

  • They got your money now….where’s the updates? Looks like they’re planning a vacation.

By Hannah Wallen

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather