Helen Clarke chairs plan to censor internet to prevent anyone hurting feminists’ feelings.
UN to Censor the Internet to Save Feminists’ Feelings
Helen Clarke has chaired a UN working group and published a plan to censor the internet to prevent anyone from hurting feminists feelings.
I am not kidding. I couldn’t make this stuff up.
According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of “you’re a liar’ and “you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”
Apparently this is not just “harassment” but it is “violence”.
Yes that’s correct. Telling a feminist that she is ‘a liar’ is “violence” so bad that the entire internet needs to be censored to prevent it.
http://www.broadbandcommission.org/events/Pages/4th-WG-G-Meeting.aspx
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/
When the pendulum swings it always swings too far (left or right) and takes time to settle at equilibrium. For many decades women were treated as third class citizens under the male thumb (stay in kitchen barefoot and pregnant)so their revolt in the 80s onwards was hardly surprising and the backlash against males by a feminist minority will continue a while yet I imagine.
Comment by Jon — Tue 29th September 2015 @ 10:55 pm
Thanks Vman
The Breitbart link is worth a read.
Biologically males have stronger logical processing. Females have stronger emotional processing.(Brain chemistry research proves this to be true)
Evident in these “all women” groups that are trying to use false democracy, IE dictatorship by invite to force there idealism on us.
It is illogical to think that censorship of the internet is real.
#1 Jon
Some issues had more equality than they may appear, but they were acted on to fix other issues. As you indicate, swings to far. An example being the sexual bigotry of Helen Clark and cohorts, creating different support and structures for females in education compared to males in the same circumstance. This bigotry is now showing up in many areas of society in very negative ways.
Also the major changes happened in the 70s with the creation of the DPB. The slow degradation of social standards, and increase in abusive relationships, and negative results for children predicted at the time, all to real today.
Creating the Ministry for Women in 1984 was not an act of, or attempt to have equality, or an attempt to achieve it in any government behaviour. It was, and still is an act of bigotry, with evil intentions.
It is not a backlash.
It is a culture.
Thanks Helen.
For creating “Helen” NZ.
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 8:27 am
Does anyone know what happened with ‘Gamergate’? Video gamers were getting mad because games were being sold that were glitchy garbage, and they started wondering why these games were getting great reviews from game reviewers and journalists. They then realized that game reviewers and journalist were dishonest sell outs, and they started making noise. Did the game companies run a diversion using Sarkeesian, diverting attention from the real problem of bought journalists to the fabricated issue of sexism in games? That would be a win-win situation for the corporations and the social engineers. You have to wonder.
Interestingly, on the Colbert report, Stephen Colbert asked her to specifically name games she thought were sexist. She wouldn’t. He challenged her to name three games. This should be no problem considering all the games she talked about in her YouTube series videos. And yet she STILL refused to name any sexist games. This was puzzling. Perhaps she couldn’t remember the names of offending games that Jonathan McIntosh wrote in her Tropes vs. Women script (fun fact: McIntosh is the producer and writer of that series so things Anita is saying on video were actually written by him and aren’t necessarily her thoughts or research). This seems pretty unlikely considering all the talks she’s given but why else wouldn’t she name any? Perhaps she thought that if she publicly called out blockbuster game franchises on national television as sexist, too many people in the ‘real world’ would see she has no idea what she’s talking about because anybody who has played these games know the clips are cherry-picked. She begrudgingly did name one, Grand Theft Auto, the safest possible game to name since it is often scrutinized for its violence and adult themes. So basically Anita didn’t say anything of any substance on the show.
Comment by Doug — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 11:10 am
Jon has a good point here. We were at the bottom of the pecking order AND with men having 3 million years of domination compared to our supposed domination over the last 50yrs. If the world is still full of violence after the next 2.95 million yrs then we will give you another shot at ruling but until then then just accept that the better gender is in control.
Oh! You will be pleased to know that Ms Clarke is about to rise in status and political control at the UN in order that women get control and dominate WORLD WIDE. Only then will we have world peace and true justice.
Comment by Helen — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 8:14 pm
Whilst I can understand your thoughts Helen it is the “get control and dominate” agenda of males or females that creates the problem and politicians are the worst offenders. With a pony tail pulling village idiot in charge of a government where femmes like Tolley, Adams, Collins, Bennett et al run amok this country is the butt of many jokes overseas. True equality is needed but that might take 2.95 million years to achieve.
Comment by JONO — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 8:26 pm
Helen (#4): Typical feminist arrogance and disrespect towards the male gender whose intelligence and effort have provided most of our technology, amazing standard of living, systems of law and government including democracy, philosophy and ethics, etc. The claim that women will do it all better is pure bluster. Women in control won’t achieve world peace any more than they achieve post-separation peace in their own lives. And as for ‘true justice’, feminists have never had the slightest interest in that, only their own advancement regardless of how unjustly this is achieved. Numerous women treat children unjustly by depriving them of their family units in favour of mummy’s new horizons. Under women’s demands our justice system has increasingly abandoned fundamental principles of justice such as treating accused as innocent unless proven guilty and the right of an accused to face an accuser. And many women continue to demand more injustice such as treating any woman’s allegations against a man as true, restricting the right of police and accused men to question women complainants, maintaining our unjust protection order laws and demanding that unfortunate men whose rights are stripped by protection orders (without any fair trial) to be treated even more violently by the state. World peace and true justice, yeah right.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 10:00 pm
Man X Norton (#6) whilst I agree with your “justice system has increasingly abandoned fundamental principles of justice” statement, however, not all blame for that can be laid at feet of women since males still dominate the judiciary and law society and other lawyer groups.
Comment by JONO — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 10:07 pm
#4 Doug – Gamergate have had smaller local hookups. One in England recieved a bombthreat from SJWs. One in Canada following the honeybadder brigade being thrown out of the calgary comics expo (lawsuit pending I think), and one soon in LA. I think I remember one hookup was also going to be in Wellington (but did not follow up).
Milo fronted in yeams of three, with GG vs news media debate, basically why didn’t the media do any simple research or fact check before publishing lies from SJW, some progress made.
Gamegate has actually had the main claims resolved, new editorial policies at game websites and publishers (panic that they would loose credibility and readers). As with the debate the MSM responce has been slow but indications of positive movement.
What is more disappointing is that feminist frequency has been called in with some staggering contracts to help Sony, Intel and perhaps others, and now the UN draft anti harrasement policies. While these may be needed/desirable and may help in cases of genuine threat, this group have proved with every utterance they do not know what they are talking about. Personally I think there is a growing risk aversion in companies (expanding H&S laws and court cases?) and they are reaching for the “experts who aren’t”. this is like asking an exocist if demons exist or the Drs who testified against Peter Ellis with claimed qualifications (a certificate of participation at a weekend seminar on satanic child abuse). Also Randy Harper (knowen doxer with a harrasement conviction), is I hear, getting work as an anti harrasment of women expert after developing block bot for feminists.
Key to disappointment is that the FBI advice is to log threats, not make them public/respond to them or in any other way let them know you exist, and most ISPs can be easily traced and the threat assessed. Also do not comment on pending investigations. For someone who traveled with FBI/police escourts she does not seem to have heard this advice. And the threats she has lodged with the FBI have been demed not serious (although this does not say not hurtful).
Anita’s Marketing degree is certianly paying off.
Canadian Association For Equality has also held a speech by Cathy Young which alsong with critizing rape stats also highlights that there is gender equality in online abuse, but one sided reporting. (don’t quote me but I have heard that FBI stats show more credible violent threats against men)
For more information see Milo Y, honeybadgers or sargon of Akaad all on you tube.
Comment by JnF — Wed 30th September 2015 @ 11:50 pm
Jono (#7): Quite right the white knight chivalrists are also responsible for male-bashing laws, but it was women’s demands that led to this, and those demands lacked any consideration of fairness or justice towards males.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 8:32 am
#4 Helen
Just because the person in charge is female or male, is no indication of how violent they will be.
Was Boudica violent?
Was Victoria violent?
Has Elizabeth been violent?
Or was it Thatcher?
Was Elizabeth the first violent? Or was it just the men who stood beside her, willing to fight for her England.
Joan of Ark?
Firstly the “human” race is not 3 million years old.
The nearest separation event from ‘animals’ was 73,000 years ago with the Toba extinction event. Even with that some scientists separate us even more, to a species with as little as 30,000 years of history.
Prior to that one can assume that we were the same as our nearest relative. Bonobo, and the are a matriarchy. Who in similar ways to us, use sex to create, or force social cohesion and compliance.
Also Helen you are ignoring the reality of history.
For example the Roman’s and Greek basis for present society was one that replaced matriarchy societies. IE were females were the rulers. Also these societies existed were there was no such thing as a father of a child etc. Were are they now? It happens to be the case Helen, they failed.
And those labelled the patriarchy that replaced it failed as well. And who were the people killing others off to give power to people? Yes Helen, mothers, murdering others to give their sons power.
Power corrupts, absolutely. No matter who has it.
50 years? 175 years of NZ, with a female head of state for 125 of those years.
If your concept of ‘true justice’ is something that feminists will give us, then you must be so proud of Clinton. She is responsible for creating Dogma that was accepted as truth by the courts. Now completely debunked as a lie. IE it is best to have full custody decisions, resulting in the devastation in the western world of the father child relationship. I’m surprised that her millions of victims in the US alone have not sued her for everything that she has. She, other than prison, at least deserves that.
All of those ‘bad’ behaviours rely on freedom of expression being crushed, or manipulated with propaganda for the offenders to act.
How good was Helen Clarke in destroying dissent of opinion inside Labours ranks?
Poor UN
Poor US
Will the new rules mean you cant hurt my feelings?
I prefer that you do.
If we cant argue, how do we resolve disputes?
And get.
World Peace and True Justice.
Thank you for your input Helen.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 8:38 am
Most arrempts to censor the internet fail. The police cannot even catch mass scammers and don’t count internet scams with their crime statistics.
Comment by Jerry — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 9:52 am
#7 JONO
Do those groups include the all female Lawyer groups?
Or the number of new lawyers, mostly being female?
Name a Lawyer who has presented a ‘male specific’ human rights violation case?
You are correct in putting blame on male lawyers as well.
Its simple.
Minimise the abuse of males, especially when they are young, and male crime will reduce.
Lawyers will then make less money.
It is also the case that any Lawyer that steps out of line and attempts to defend a male (victims of female sex offending) are crushed by the Judge and face threats from professional bodies.
Motive anybody?
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 10:37 am
Truth is not afraid of any inquiry. Feminism is all lies, false statistics and bullshit. The fems know that. They also know that they can not respond to inconvenient questions. Their only answer to that is to cry ‘hate crime’ and try to have the offending thought criminal silenced. This is not our way or our culture. Open debate is needed today more than ever.
Comment by Doug — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 11:17 am
#7 JONO
From the Law society
In 2013, 61.8% of new admissions to the profession were women
a vast increase from the 26.3% admitted in 1980
In New Zealand’s largest law firms – where 19.6% of all law firm lawyers work – almost half of all lawyers were women (49.3%)
Have you heard of.
Auckland Women Lawyers’ Association
So
Does the Law society have a men’s page? NO!
I suggest they read the Human Rights Act, it is a law, that applies to men as well. Not that any lawyer has ever noticed.
Why do females have less power and control jobs in this profession?
Patience, the effect of the 1980 statistic, the source of present senior lawyers, and represented by present rates of senior jobs, will not last forever. Like the teaching profession, give them time.
What about female only Law firms?
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 1st October 2015 @ 12:55 pm
#12 DJ,
Karen DeCrow – The feminist lawyer who became a men’s rights activist. Strongly identified as a feminist (president of NOW 74-77), and fought many women’s rights cases, took to the supreme court the fight for man who claimed paternity fraud (partner lied about being on pill (lost after appeal). Was skeptical of 90’s focus on DV and sexual violence but unsure what influence she had. Strong supporter of shared parenting, as many feminists are becoming, this enabling women to return to work.
Other feminist lawyers have taken similar suits with similar reasoning.
Of the law professors who signed a letter to Harvard criticising their sexual abuse tribunals (no one thought to ask the law school for an opinion before removing due process) that seem to have become the model for the US, At least one made her career out of fighting women’s rights and pay discrimination, and teaches human rights law. Her position is very consistent with men’s rights groups in the US.
More success for men’s rights groups (NCFM etc) comes in court using gender neutral HR laws than the policy process.
They may lack interest and therefore be few and far between, but remember a lawyer and their fees are hard parted. Some even come to believe that men can be shafted too.
Comment by JnF — Sat 3rd October 2015 @ 1:38 pm