Badgers heading back to court again?


On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, at the Provencial Civil Court of Alberta, the Honey Badger Brigade received a ruling on its case against the Calgary Expo and The Mary Sue. This ruling was read aloud by the judge, with our legal adviser Harry Kopyto attending by phone.

At the end of the trial itself, the Honey Badgers were hopeful that we’d received a fair hearing and would see a verdict in our favor on all counts. Our physical evidence proved that the assertions printed about us in The Mary Sue, and then promoted by the Calgary Expo in response to queries regarding our expulsion, were false. That is, that our booth had been not been registered under a false name, but as Honey Badger Brigade, and that we had neither created a disruption nor engaged in any harassment; that the Calgary Expo did not follow their own stated policies, part of the exhibitor agreement referenced in the contract, in their handling of the incident in question, and therefore had not fulfilled their end of the contract between booth vendor and venue; and that as a result Alison suffered financial losses that fit the legal definition of special damages. Our evidence and our opponents’ explicit defense testimony proved that the accusations they publicized were made with malice and caused reputational damage. Our evidence and our opponents’ explicit defense testimony proved that there had been no negative public reaction whatsoever to the presence of the Honey Badger Brigade at the Calgary Expo until The Mary Sue’s editor Sam Maggs began discussing our presence there, and her friend Soha, not present at the expo, publicized our attendance, with negative commentary, on Twitter.

Our opponents did not submit any evidence. They did not call any witnesses other than Shayne Henkelman, testifying on behalf of Calgary Expo. Their entire case was based on the testimony of one Calgary Expo employee who by that time was the only representative on the side of both defendants, who had both fired their lawyer.

The Mary Sue didn’t even show up for court.

Due to these facts, it came as even more of a surprise when the judge ruled against us on all four causes of action. This was further compounded when, in the course of stating his reasons for his ruling, the judge demonstrated that his decision was partly based on treating physical evidence which had been entered into the record, upon which he had ruled, as if it did not exist.

Alison Tieman had submitted both the full-length recording of the entire panel discussion at which she has been accused of creating a disruption, and the segment that is alleged to be “harassment.” During the proceedings, Alison had requested to have the entire, full-length panel recording played for the court to show that her behavior was not dramatically different from other attendees at the panel. The judge had denied that request, stating that he would take it under advisement that her behavior was no different, but that if our opponents contested that version of events, the recording would be played. Later, in his ruling the judge stated that he could not be sure he’d heard the entire incident and therefore could not be sure that the allegations of harassment were not based on something from the panel discussion that had been excluded from the recording he did hear, in effect stating that his ruling was in part based on his own refusal to hear evidence he deemed relevant to the case.

He stated that Alison had full knowledge of the Expo’s contract when she applied, but ignored the Expo’s failure to follow its own policies regarding its process for handling conflicts, such that their response to the situation denied Alison the full measure of the contract she signed. His acceptance of our opponents’ arguments regarding Alison’s actions relies in part on considering the exhibitor agreement’s anti-harassment policy contractual. However, the policies the Expo ignored regarding its conflict-management procedures are also part of the exhibitor agreement. Therefore the judge’s reasoning indicated that upon signing that contract, Alison became fully obligated under it, including an obligation to follow all of the policies referenced in it, but not entitled to expect the company she’d agreed to do business with to be equally obligated to do the same.

Additionally, his stated reasoning for why the Expo was not equally obligated included claims from the defendant’s arguments which were directly discredited by physical evidence, including the claim that the FBI had deemed gamergate a group that disseminates hate messages. Again, no physical evidence supporting that claim was submitted, while Alison had submitted physical evidence disproving it.

The judge indicated that his ruling was partly based on a misreading of the evidence regarding Calgary Expo personnel’s tweeted promotion of The Mary Sue’s claims about us, which he described as if they had come from an uninvolved 3rd party and not the Expo, and had been published on the Expo’s Twitter account by said 3rd party and not the Expo. The testimony and physical evidence in the case show that the tweet in question was composed by Expo personnel and displayed on social media via the Expo’s official account in response to a 3rd party’s question as to why we had been evicted.

These and other errors in the reasoning given for this ruling create a case for appeal.

Based on the stated logic of the judge, this would set the same precedent into law that, had we chosen not to fight in the first place, would have been set into the social matrix. It would pave the way for business entities to accept money from consumers for goods or services, refuse to provide the purchased product and keep the consumer’s money, then publicly defame the consumer as a person of fraudulent business practices, using as their excuse a condition (in our case, political unpopularity) that was not explicitly addressed in the sales contract.

It is the Honey Badger Brigade’s position that this ruling cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, not just because what was done to Alison and to our group was wrong, but because of the implications of rolling over at this point. This is Alison’s fight, and it’s the Honey Badger Brigade’s fight, but this is also a fight for everyone like us who would be at risk for similar treatment at the hands of any corporate entity wanting to hide unfair business practices behind the mask of political correctness. Alison Tieman and the HBB are considering an appeal of the ruling and continue the fight in a higher court.

The appeals process is far more simple than the case has been to this point.
New evidence is generally not submitted during an appeals process. Rather, the party filing an appeal asks the appeals court to consider whether the original judge’s ruling was in error based on the existing evidence and the applicable law. Witnesses would not have to be in attendance.

[Edit: If we fight back in appellate court or via the court of public opinion by making the transcript available for everyone to draw their own conclusion from the proceedings, we’re still deciding on. Please stay tuned. – Alison]

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

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="159924">16 comments</span>

  • After listening to a few Diana Davidson videos, the impression you get is that the Canadian Justice system is highly corrupt. After decades of infiltration by feminism, the deck was already stacked against the HB’s. Maybe you get a good judge, but their being weeded out. If the HB’s had won, the precedent would be a disaster for the left and fake news in general. The left has no facts data or arguments anymore, only hurt feelings and slander. Take those away and nothings left for them. The judge knows he did a hatchet job. He might have even ruled just to stick it to Harry.

    • As someone who survived the Canadian justice system (as an 18 year old white male, looking at 3 years for assault with a weapon no less and having a defense based on testimony and circumstance alone against 6 testimonies) a mere 17 years ago… it’s not surprising it’s taken such a U turn away from justice towards vengeance at the hands of the ‘fear men–not see this’ social masters.
      The judge who sentenced my guilty verdict struck the assault charge from a weapon down to dangerous driving, sparing me jail time. I can only imagine what kind of monster jail at 18 after being a crown ward would have done to me.
      But the system works! It’s not bias! and it doesn’t destroy young men with potential!

      • I was repairing equipment at Mountain Institution back in the ’80’s. As the guard was escorting me out he pointed to an older inmate and told me, “you see that guy, he’s an innocent man”. He explained the guy had been foster father to a 15 year old girl that accused him of rape. Her word against his, he got convicted. Seven years later she confessed she made the whole thing up. Problem is, as the guard explained, it takes a minimum seven years to arrange a retrial. The guys wife had already left him, nothing left for him on the outside. But check out some of those Diana Davidson videos and some of the changes being made to Canadian law, because we’ve since gone from Kangaroo court to the Red Queen running the Mad Tea Party.

        Back to the HB’s defeat though, the Canadian system discourages litigation, plus the Charter of Rights allows for reverse discrimination in order to make up for past injustice. Unlike in the States where the SPLC has 60 conservative groups bringing lawsuits against it for labeling them as Nazis. In Canada the left has been given free reign to pathologize anyone they disagree with in public, and the victim has little recourse. It was pointed out to the government in the 1970’s that Feminist propaganda violated hate speech laws, but women were the victims of past injustice so reverse discrimination. Problem is, when is it determined that the reverse discrimination has finally rectified the past injustice, there’s no off switch to it. If libel and slander are allowed to go unchecked in order to discourage litigation, you can end up allowing more damage than from excess litigation.

  • This is… insane. utterly, utterly insane. What kind of retarded judge is allowed to OPENLY dismiss evidence and make a judgement in spite of that?

    I demand that judge be removed from his position immediately! That goes beyond a miscarriage of justice, that man is a threat to Canada’s entire legal system!

    • A judge in one of my own cases dismissed my whole defense saying it was “outside his jurisdiction” and so he made a ruling based on uncontested accusation. That then was abused as the basis of a ruling by a high court judge who otherwise could have considered my defense… Sadly legal systems all over the West are corrupt beyond recognition as anything we might consider “justice”.

      I agree with you that people need to make a big stink about it… write to your MP’s because their careers can actually be influenced by public opinion.

  • One step forward, two steps back. Tommy was freed the same day this happened. I guess Canada is worse than Britain.

    Still, I find it both amazing and depressing that the judge ruled this way. He seemed so reasonable. Was he faking it during the trial? Or was he threatened?

    I can’t believe the judge was male…. clearly a cuckhold whose job was threatened should he not just ‘ignore’ evidence he himself stated was relevant in the ruling, in order to make a ruling against you…
    This SCREAMS back door deal.

  • That ruling is a joke worthy of April 1st.
    You keep fighting. We got your backs.

  • Sorry guys, this sucks but not surprising, unfortunately. Courts are very political. My advice is to not appeal but cut your losses and move on. Canada courts are completely cucked. The judges all know each other and they don’t like to overrule each other.

  • Do not give up the legal battle. Push this as hard and as far as you can.

    And you can still release the transcripts if necessary later on.

By Hannah Wallen

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather