EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: His father is on trial for "harassing" feminists on Twitter -- and you could be next

Could someone please point me in the right direction to find the feminazi? I don’t have twitter atm, but I would really like the chance to butt heads with her. I’m a woman and I can fight just as nasty if not worse.

@ LLRFU “I could go on forever.” I thought you were going to…. :)
I would like to add to your comments, names of great women leaders: Queen Elizabeth 1,and 2, Queen Victoria, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Aung San Suu Kyi,Harriet Beecher Stowe, Ellizabeth Fry, (not to mention great females in science and medicine: Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie, Lise Meitner, Irène Curie-Joliot,Barbara McClintock, Dorothy Hodgkin, Rosalind Franklin) …you might be interested to know also that the following were INVENTED by women: car heaters, Monopoly,fire escapes, life rafts, residential solar heating, the medical syringe , the electric refrigerator, the ice cream maker, the computer algorithm, much telecommunication technology, the dishwasher, wireless transmission technology, closed circuit television security, square bottomed paper bags, central heating, Kevlar, Computer Software, BEER, windshield wipers, liquid paper, the circular saw, invisible glass, scotch guard, retractable dog leash and Nystatin (the first non-toxic anti-fungal drug for humans)…ALL THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT women couldn’t own property in the 18th century, which included intellectual property like a patent. Such property was considered to be owned by the woman’s father or husband…so despite these silly laws and patriarchy, women were great inventors…no doubt before the 18th century…

And by contrast great male leaders: Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, Max. Robespierre, Augusto Pinochet,
Kim Jong Il…well you get my drift…any list can say anything, LLRFU…and you do yourself no justice comparing historical discoveries by men when women were forbidden an education for 18 centuries or more. You can hardly claim superiority when your predecessors walked around with their feet on the necks of women and made great discoveries…hardly something of which to be proud. What will really be interesting is the next 200 years…as women are gradually being freed from centuries of oppression, time will tell where things will go…the tragedy is that great minds were wasted throughout history to satisfy a perverted one-sided culture…like the United Negro College Fund used to say “a mind is a terrible thing to waste”…

@barb Harris Great comments! I agree anyone who can raise a son like Clayton cannot be all that bad!

What is disgusting is how even Greg’s son’s are coming under attack from those aligned with Guthrie and Reilly.

Check out this tweet which accuses Greg’s sons of “intentionally inciting hatred toward’s Guthrie”

https://twitter.com/a_picazo/status/623603173421219840

And this tweet was not from some obscure twitter user. It comes from a National Post writer who wrote about the trial http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/alheli-picazo-regardless-of-the-verdict-in-the-guthrie-case-weve-already-lost

I cannot understand how the charges against Elliott were not thrown out at the preliminary trial stage (makes me worry about how good his lawyer is ). Praying that Greg is acquitted.

With an acquittal I hope that Elliott will go after the Toronto Police (Det Jeff Bangild) and crown – Marnie Goldenberg for malicious prosecution. I hope he will sue the accusers and their accomplices for defamation – there are literally thousands of tweets to support defamation charges as the above tweet proves. We have the criminal offense of libel in Canada. I hope that Guthrie, Reilly , Rae Et Al will be charged with criminal libel. I hope that Heather Reilly (aka @ladysnarksalot aka “Heather Arr” on Facebook) will be charged with perjury. She LIED under oath about the reason why she changed her twitter avatar. She first claimed she changed her avatar from a picture of herself to a cartoon because she was fearful of Elliott. The defense provided evidence that the avatar was changed long before she ever communicated with Elliott. Perjury is a very serious offence – just yesterday an RCMP officer was sentenced to 2 years in prison for perjury – I hope Reilly gets sent away for at least 2 years!

Phew! I had to wait to watch the interview until I had the time, and then felt compelled to look at the defence submission as referenced by a few commenters here. It’s a long haul but worth the time. Now I have to go and read the National Post coverage. Honestly though, two things come to mind. If I were Greg Elliot, I’d be right back in court suing those two and anyone involved with the initial charges up to the eyebrows. And the second thing is, anyone who can raise a kid like Clayton who politely requests that supporters not respond in the manner these two women have conducted themselves – probably won’t sue – but certainly deserves all the respect and support we can afford him.

Can’t find the wording of the petition. Is everybody signing a blank petition? No idea what the petition asks, or of whom. I’d also like to know what he’s accused of and what his response is, preferably transcripts of the tweets in question. But just based on this very sketchy report, I’d say you should be petitioning the company that fired him and the justice (?) who “banned [him] from using the internet” (what, he can’t use e-mail or online banking anymore?) reminding them that you’re innocent until proven guilty in Canada, and that any draconian interim measures must be justified by solid evidence of danger to the public.

The last time I checked this is still a free society. For all you activists out there, it is time to stop getting your panties in a bunch. How can we have a free discourse when the only way you can win an argument is by yelling louder than your dissenters. You can’t unless your supporters in the legal system accept your fake sense of hurt. Grow up and get a life!

I think we can all admit that this case is, ostensibly at least, about criminal harassment. But when you really think about it, that’s not actually true, is it? Some would argue Elliott’s case demonstrates the extremes of radical feminism, but despite the spurious tweets made about the accused, Elliott, by a few self-described feminists, I would say it’s not really about feminism, either. So Joan, I agree with you on that point. But what I think the case stands for is imposing a particular, subjective viewpoint on the public and society to determine new limits for free speech, at least online and in the “Twit-o-sphere”, or whatever it’s called.
The fact that I don’t keep track of the terminology is my own little form of resistance to the character-limited medium that is Twitter, or as I call it, the Land of Twits. I absolutely abhor Twitter and, accordingly, don’t subscribe, nor do I follow anyone’s mind-numbing “tweets”. I choose not to participate at all, which is what the complainants in this case ought to have done, but didn’t. Instead, they actively followed him and engaged in a premeditated conspiracy to embarrass and discredit Elliott both online and “IRL” (or ‘in real life’, to use Guthrie’s own verbage). They could have made their own profiles private at any time, and claim to have “blocked” him, yet were still exchanging multiple “tweets” directed to or referencing him during the very period they claim to have been afraid of Elliott.
Seriously, read the defense submissions: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8A8TBLPhrPFT0hNLVpXZDNTT2M/view?pli=1
And while you’re at it, watch the entire interview. Quit complaining about the length of what you’re being asked to pay attention to and just do it. The fact that a source is particularly long isn’t a valid reason to oppose and decry it altogether, while remaining wilfully ignorant of its contents. To those who commented on this and mentioned a preference for greater editing, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t some people then question the veracity of an edited video? In fact, isn’t that what happened to the video in the Planned Parenthood story about “donated” fetal parts and tissues?

Closing arguments from the defense.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8A8TBLPhrPFT0hNLVpXZDNTT2M/view?pli=1

So do I understand this correctly? The judge has now to rule on this? My guess is the best he can hope for is that the judge will “stay” charges but there will be no acquittal .

But if many of you are just hearing about this issue for the first time this could be in part why….

http://www.fathers.bc.ca/HateSite.aspx

Sellers of antivirus software block MRA sites. And this site just might find itself on Norton’s shit list before too long.

The censorship of MRA issues is quite pervasive.

I must say…of many injustices I have tried to rally support for….this one I devoted no time to because I am not a “gammer”…but this one seems to have been the most heated battle ground yet.

An Orwellian nightmare.

This story certainly causes one to pause and consider the possibilities. Man or woman, if you get a crazy making up, exaggerating, twisting, and taking offense to imaginary attacks of your posts online, you could end up in deep water. It looks like it could happen to just about anyone. And if tweets, facebook comments, or posts in a comment section can be taken and used against you out of context in court, anyone could end up in a similar situation. It is a terrifying thought.

This ‘case’ is bizarre, to the extreme. The thin-skinned feminist activists (bullies) involved in bringing these fake charges are bad enough, but the “justice” system, especially the police and prosecution but also the judge, all desperately need to develop some basic common sense. If there’s anyone being criminally harassed here it is Gregory Elliot and his family.

Spent my lunch hour watching the whole clip…..interesting until I scrolled down to the comment section and I got instantly nauseated.
Sigh.

Has Joan not clued in that she’s never going to change our minds to her viewpoint? She argues vociferously the opposite of whatever we’re saying, even to taking offense when none is given. “Feminism” and “rape” are sensitive topics with her, and, frankly, she gets a bit irrational about them.

What the rest of us have to learn to do is just what the feminists want — tune them out. Do not respond. Do not rebut. Also, do not accommodate. On these particular topics she’s a noisemaker, like Jimmy. Leave it. Other topics she’s much more reasonable; on these two, she’s not. Don’t try changing her mind, don’t try “discussion” — it’s her way, or no way. I would treat a spoiled child the same way. (And yes, that was a “dig”.)

And, of course, she will take that “dig” as an attack, and respond accordingly — that’s her Modus Operandi…

I was going to comment on the story but I like to read all the comments made by the posters before I do. This one turned out to be a pissing contest between Joan and all the men she hates. Which reminded me of what my Father once told me, he said son “never get into a pissing contest with a skunk, you will never win”, guys you will never win.

Jimmy and Terry and Joan. Unbelievable trio. Jimmy is just a disgusting POS, Terry is petty and Joan hates all men, but its fun sometimes to engage them and see the idiotic things they write and claim, however it also gets very tiresome and old very fast.
Oh well, skunks will be skunks.

@ Bill Elder Well Said!

There is a question I have that I hope the defense team investigates. If Someone blocks an individual and this person then continues to attempt to contact them or read their blogs how did they become aware of it? Is it possible they were also using other aliases or a network of friends acting as spies? How did they know this person was attempting to read their blocked posts? If this guy was stalking was he not also being “watched” and the person or persons watching him possibly guilty of the same “stalking” they accuse him of? Just curious.

Thanks, Lauren. I would donate but there does not seem to be a PayPal option.

I am a member of the club also. When you disagree with her she accuses you of trying to shut her up, calls you a liar and worse.

I remember that Al Rose, that is when I got my first eye full of what she is capable of. It was in the “Why I’m not a Feminist” thread, of Lauren’s. Lauren’s first one I believe.

Well, I don’t have the time (or the inclination) to sit through this hour-log video. And even if I did, I know from experience the dangers of making any kind of a conclusion about the propriety of laying charges or guilt/innocence based on sketchy knowledge derived from a selective accounting of events. In other words, at this point I JUST DON’T KNOW!

Having said that, I certainly agree that sections of the Criminal Code and various pieces of Human Rights legislation are direct threats to freedoms of speech, and are sometimes used as tools by the greedy and/or vindictive.

All said, “Looks like you like to attack men especially if they agree with Lauren.”

Or simply disagree with her. I am part of that “club” too. And you are right about twisting what you say.

@joan Abernethy. I want you to read the book: Why Nations Fail. The authors, very convincingly point out, that once you start an institution (like the Bill of Rights – now the Charter) it spreads and speeds up. Where it took men about 900yrs to gain full rights, it only took women 125yrs, gays 25yrs, and trans will only take 10. The Magna Carter was signed 800yrs ago (the fight for such a document started long before). If you search “voting rights”, it gives you a really good example of what I’m talking about – though voting rights are only a part of it. I want you to read the book; The End of Men, the Rise of Women. Even that super-radical, super man-hater admits that men are the official underdogs of society (should we get sole custody now?) and women would be nowhere if it weren’t for men! What’s created this “brains-over-brawn” society (allowing everyone to participate more fully), is inventions. Yup, you heard me – inventions. Starting with Human Rights, and Rule of Law, and moving to physical properties. Every form of mass transportation, every form of mass communication, farming techniques (allowing su to feed 6B people). the automated loom (allowing us to cloth 6B people), electricity and everything that runs on it, construction techniques, furnaces and air conditioners etc etc. Men were the Fathers of science, the Fathers of psychology, the Fathers of everything in fact. Your life as you know it, wouldn’t exist without all the amazing things MEN have accomplished. And I hate to tell you, us men don’t care if it’s a man or woman in charge, we just want them to do a good job. Are women doing a good job Joan? Steph Guthrie is tearing down Free Speech. Bev McGlaughlin – head of our Supreme Court has made it all by legal to hire a hit man to kill your husband if you’re in a bad mood, and has ruled that “truth is not a defense” in a court of law. Kathleen Wynn has continued on with the Green Energy Act, taking away ppls ppty rights. I could go on forever. Women are tearing down democracy, on some false notion of “equality”. You are displaying the childishness men were worried about, and the whole reason they wanted to keep women out of politics and the workplace. Nice going Joan – you proved they were right all along!! Now, don’t you dare respond, and stop using anything built, or invented by MEN!!!!!

CHAD, GUY welcome to the club, and all the others who JOAN has attacked, she has a way of twisting what one says to make a person look other than who they are.
I posted something personal once and she called me a scumbag lowlife, and said i like to kick women.
No Joan you never actually said those words ( but you did say i like to kick women) but what you inferred i was is a low life scumbag, and no Joan i will never forget that gross insult to my person.( anyone who would kick a woman is a low life scumbag hence your suggestion i am such)
Looks like you like to attack men especially if they agree with Lauren.
Every time Lauren post something you work overtime on here , i get the sense your days are gone and Lauren is the new generation of feminist.
And i, like the others will not respond to anything you say or read your dribble, haven’t read anything of yours since that time,

Petition – sign it!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/i-support-gregory-alan-elliott
Greg Elliot – Indie Go-Go page
https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/gregory-alan-elliott-twitter-trial-support-fund
Greg Elliot – Indie Go-Go page
https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/gregory-alan-elliott-twitter-trial-support-fund

They really need to lay a Private Charge against her. Like divorce, it’s the only way to level the playingfield!!

If you go to Steph Guthries web page, she openly disparages “able-bodied Anglo Saxon White males”, chides them for being angry they don’t have power any more, then complains they have all the power/privilege and doesn’t even see her contradiction. I challenged her way back to cease using anything built or invented by men (which is just about everything around you, including human rights and rule of law).

Link to Closing Arguments (shows all their distortions)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8A8TBLPhrPFT0hNLVpXZDNTT2M/view?pli=1

Again – as with all the increasing civil atrocities we are exposed to, it is the courts and the judiciary who are on trial here – from what I have seen here the crown prosecutor’s office is filled with predatory, misanthropic tyrants with a fascist reflex. Judges appear to live in a bubble which separates them from reality and the rest of humanity and the law is being misapplied and abused by police, prosecutors and judiciary alike.
What ever this guy did (or didn’t) the treatment he received by the system was obviously harsh and inappropriate. Going through the system IS the punishment – for the not guilty this is a civil abomination.

My advice to MRAs is to refrain from debating on a personal level with feminists on line. It is policy makers and policy enforcers who need to be persuaded. And the most important thing that these policy makers need to be persuaded about is that feminists never broker as much of a voter block as they bluff and bluster they do.

There is also the point that though someone may block me say on facebook if their posts are appearing on someone else, page they might have access to the postings. I know some people also use more than one account. I may get blocked on one but I don’t know that it is illegal to use the other even after being blocked on one. If this person didn’t hack their account I can’t see how that would be a crime. Also twitter and facebook may have policies for their customers but that doesn’t necessitate if these policies were broken that a crime had been committed. It seems to me if a person was having persistent difficulties in dealing with an unwanted guest they might have tried contacting twitter and having this person’s accounts and i.p. address blocked if they were as they allege being harassed.

The whole blocking issue is questionable. Two people might be having a conversation and one person may decide to end the conversation either intentionally or by accident. The other person may attempt to contact the other person in hopes to continue the conversation, to apologize or find out if the person knew they blocked them. Is attempting to contact someone and being fearful they are spreading malicious comments about you a crime? Maybe a bit paranoid or taking yourself a bit too seriously but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is a crime. I have blocked people before both intentionally and by accident but I am no going to go so far as to claim because the person I blocked was upset that they were stalking me. Now if the person was making physical threats or death threats I could understand the fear factor. I know of a real life example of someone who had found that they were being talked about on a website. They weren’t a member of that website but when they typed their name in up popped some links making references to them and making libelous accusations. This person had no desire to join this group but when they simply clicked on the word cache at the bottom of the link an entire page opened up where they found these people making all kinds of libelous comments and talking about how to harass this individual and even a physical threat against them. My question is if someone was slandering you or making physical threats would you not be wanting to know? Is attempting to find out stalking? Personally I would have no interest in suing the crown even if that is where the money is. It is more important to me that people be taught not to abuse the process and destroy a person’s reputation with trumped up allegations if this is what happened. The only way people will learn is if it gets around that making false allegations against someone if this is what happened can cost you personally.

The whole blocking issue is questionable. Two people might be having a conversation and one person may decide to end the conversation either intentionally or by accident. The other person may attempt to contact the other person in hopes to continue the conversation, to apologize or find out if the person knew they blocked them. Is attempting to contact someone and being fearful they are spreading malicious comments about you a crime? Maybe a bit paranoid or taking yourself a bit too seriously but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is a crime. I have blocked people before both intentionally and by accident but I am no going to go so far as to claim because the person I blocked was upset that they were stalking me. Now if the person was making physical threats or death threats I could understand the fear factor. I know of a real life example of someone who had found that they were being talked about on a website. They weren’t a member of that website but when they typed their name in up popped some links making references to them and making libelous accusations. This person had no desire to join this group but when they simply clicked on the word cache at the bottom of the link an entire page opened up where they found these people making all kinds of libelous comments and talking about how to harass this individual and even a physical threat against them. My question is if someone was slandering you or making physical threats would you not be wanting to know? Is attempting to find out stalking? Personally I would have no interest in suing the crown even if that is where the money is. It is more important to me that people be taught not to abuse the process and destroy a person’s reputation with trumped up allegations if this is what happened. The only way people will learn is if it gets around that making false allegations against someone if this is what happened can cost you personally.

Guy, That’s okay, I think my whole point was missed. I basically stated than ANYONE, man or woman, exhibiting behaviours of sever Internalization and Exaggeration, was seen in the past as something needing to be dealt with on a Psychological level, and expressed that women in that same past, didn’t get the help they needed, and were being pushed onto whoever was “handling” them at the time.

I can’t understand why my after-acknowledgements always seem to get missed, but they do.