#anyway.... harassment and hate speech are already illegal so why do they feel they need more than other citizens?

[masgwi]

Kristyn Wong-Tam is introducing a private member's bill today that would allow the attorney general to temporarily designate addresses — such as where a show is taking place — as community safety zones, and anti-LGBTQ harassment, intimidation and hate speech within 100 metres would be subject to a $25,000 fine.

Wong-Tam was joined at a press conference today by drag artists who say that organized protests at their performances are negatively affecting their livelihoods and have them fearing for their safety.

Scarlett Bobo, who has competed on Canada's Drag Race, says she has been subject to hate crimes and hate speech in recent weeks and just wants to feel safe and valued in her work.

[xxladylovexx]

The crusade to cancel my talk at Toronto Public Library

Meghan Murphy

October 18, 2019

This week, three Canadian writers launched a petition demanding the Toronto Public Library cancel a room rental for a sold-out event, ‘Gender Identity: What Does It Mean for Society, the Law, and Women?’ Sounds frightening, I know.

The local women organizing the event, a group called Radical Feminists Unite, asked me in June if they could bring me to Toronto to speak about gender identity legislation and women’s rights, unhappy that the debate was not being given space in their city. This is not an uncommon sentiment. The events I have been asked to participate in generally have been organized by regular women who have serious concerns about how gender identity ideology and policy could affect, and already is affecting, women’s sex-based rights. Canada in particular has been resistant to this discussion. Due to media blackouts, harassment, bullying, threats of violence, smear campaigns, censorship, and ostracization, a few brave women have had to force the conversation, at great risk.

In January, a couple women took it upon themselves to organize an event in Vancouver, ‘Gender Identity Ideology and Women’s Rights.’ These women had no budget, no public or political power, no history in activism or organizing events, and no agenda, other than to open up a conversation they feel is desperately needed. The panel, held at the Vancouver Public Library, featured me and two other longtime feminist activists with impeccable records fighting male violence against women. The organizers and I received numerous death and rape threats, were protested, and were libeled by politicians and the media. The VPL forced us to move the event after hours (to 9:30 p.m. on a weeknight), claiming that protesters posed a risk to patrons and staff. They attempted to charge us thousands in security fees in an effort to pressure us to choose another venue, surely aware we didn’t have that kind of budget. The chief librarian, Christina de Castell, issued a statement saying the library did not agree with ‘the views of Feminist Current,’ my website. Castell did not say which views the library disagreed with (protecting women’s sex-based rights or the idea that sexist gender stereotypes are not innate?), but regardless, she should not have taken a position, as a representative of a public institution meant to be neutral, nor should she have spoken on behalf of the VPL, as not everyone at the library is in agreement with her apparent opposition to both biology and women’s rights. Vancouver’s mayor labeled me ‘despicable’. Canada’s national public broadcaster, the CBC, located across the street from the library, refused to cover the event or contact me for comment, despite hosting a panel prior to the event, speculating whether panelists might say anything constituting ‘hate speech’. Of course none did. Despite protests, the event went off without a hitch and was incredibly respectful, inspiring, and galvanizing. The impassioned talks are available on YouTube for anyone to watch and see for themselves.

But why bother? Listening to words and forming an educated opinion based on said words is no longer a popular pastime.

Things have played out similarly in Toronto. The primary difference is that it is now writers leading the charge. You know, people who should be invested in reading and using words correctly.

Not only that, but writers of all people should be defending freedom of expression and a public library’s decision to uphold its mandate, which, per the TPL’s response to the petition, is to ensure meeting rooms are available to the public ‘on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use’. The statement goes on to say: ‘As a public institution, our primary obligation is to uphold the fundamental freedoms of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.’

This response was unacceptable to the writers and thousands of Torontonians (many of whom I’m certain would consider themselves ‘progressive,’ even ‘feminist’) wanting my talk canceled. Indeed, those who have signed the petition, ‘Stop Hate Speech from Being Spread at the Toronto Public Library,’ have publicly stated I am guilty of ‘hate speech’ and compared the organizers to a ‘hate group’. The petition, authored by Alicia Elliot, Catherine Hernandez, and Carrianne Leung, reads:

‘Those who want to disseminate hate speech today know that they can misrepresent, then weaponize the phrase ‘freedom of speech’ in order to get what they want: an audience, and space to speak to and then mobilize that audience against marginalized communities. While everyone has freedom of speech, we want to once again point to the limits of those freedoms when certain acts and speech infringe on the freedom of others, particularly those in marginalized communities. We also want to point out that hate groups do not have a right to use publicly funded facilities to meet and organize. This is precisely why TPL has a community and event space policy: to determine who and who does not have the right to use its facilities. There is a difference between denying free speech—and what is known as deplatforming, which is when you refuse to allow hate speech to be disseminated in your facility. This has been an effective tactic to stop those who capitalize on spreading hate speech, such as Meghan Murphy.’

The problem is I’ve never engaged in hate speech. I have made very basic statements about biology, such as ‘men aren’t women’ and ‘male bodies and female bodies are different.’ I have also argued that some spaces should be women-only, including changing rooms, transition houses, and prisons. I have said that individuals cannot change sex through self-declaration and that a boy is not a girl because he prefers dresses to pants. I have said that women have particular rights in this world due to the fact of being born female. I have said that women have not experienced discrimination in the workplace, in the home, in universities, and in politics because of anything they feel or because they somehow ‘identify’ with feminine stereotypes. In fact, it is the desire not to be limited to gender roles that inspired feminists’ ongoing fight.

Usually, I say this all warmly. I’m not generally an angry person but quite jovial, in fact. I don’t spend much of my energy hating anyone beyond slow walkers and morning people. I’m just telling the truth.

The writers who initiated the petition say they will no longer participate in events held at the TPL unless the library cancels my talk, which is fine, I suppose. It is their prerogative if they wish to hold readings for their friends in spaces untainted by free thought. Surely the condos their parents bought them have shared rec rooms available for such gatherings? Cozy bubbles seem better suited for those needing to protect themselves from triggers such as people with different opinions and experiences, anyway.

The whole scene strikes me as nauseatingly elitist, especially the entitlement with which these ‘progressive’ people approach members of the public — in this case, women with no particular social, political, or economic power — as though they should have the power to determine what we all think or say. As though they have the right to dictate what a library, of all places, should allow to be discussed within its walls.

These protesters are primarily middle- and upper-class people who have had access to opportunities most people in this world have not. Who live in relative safety, free from state persecution — who have the privilege of freedom in a world that continues to host dictatorships and incredibly repressive regimes that quite literally jail and murder those who fail to toe the party line. They have taken a postmodernist theory invented primarily within the walls of academia — that is, the notion that material reality is determined by inner feelings — and are attempting to impose it on the general public via force. These people have taken on the position of dictator, threatening to throw those who won’t adopt their nonsensical mantras in jail. Indeed, a former politician with the NDP, Canada’s leftist party, publicly claimed the event was ‘illegal’ while her supporters said I should be jailed.

On Thursday, Toronto mayor John Tory said he had contacted the library in an attempt to have the event canceled and is ‘disappointed’ the library declined to do so. What is in fact ‘disappointing’ (indeed, appalling) is that the mayor of Toronto does not understand the TPL’s mandate as a public institution and opposes freedom of expression.

These leftists seem unaware that opposition to free speech has not treated their presumed heroes kindly. They have so easily forgotten Emma Goldman, who was imprisoned for distributing information about birth control. And Rosa Luxemburg, arrested and killed by the GKSD, a German paramilitary unit instructed to suppress the communists. Surely the suffragettes deserved to be jailed and beaten for fighting to win women the right to vote, as their ideas were deemed too ‘radical’, not only by their opponents but other feminists and abolitionists. They have apparently not paid much attention to the female activists arrested and tortured in Saudi Arabia for advocating that women be allowed to drive. Journalists continue to be murdered in Mexico for reporting on police corruption and the drug war. But no matter. Protecting free expression is clearly a relic of the past, before we had multi-billion-dollar social media companies on hand to police dangerous speech. (‘On top of that, she has been banned from Twitter for violating their Hateful Conduct Policy’, the petition reads, as though In Big Tech We Trust is an appropriate mantra for supposed social justice advocates.)

At what point in history has suppressing subversive speech benefited the marginalized? Or anyone, really?

The CBC again failed to include the organizers or myself, the speaker, in its ‘coverage’ of the event. On a segment that aired Wednesday, Gill Deacon, host of Here and Now Toronto, spoke with Elliot, who stated that I was ‘trying to take away the rights of people’, ‘preach[ing] against human rights’, and did not believe ‘transwomen should have protections’ under the Human Rights Act or Criminal Code, claiming this constituted ‘spreading hate’. That none of this is accurate was of no concern to Deacon or Elliot. The CBC sees no need to allow me to speak for myself and explain my apprehensions because, I assume, my arguments are so reasonable people might agree with me. While Elliot claimed that I was ‘lying’ when arguing that gender identity legislation could override women’s rights, this has, unfortunately, already happened, as we’ve seen men transferred to women’s prisons, where they have assaulted female prisoners; women forced to leave shelters and transition houses on account of being made to share rooms with men; women and girls made to compete with and against males in sport; women’s organizations denied funding for having a women-only policy; and of course as we’ve seen a number of estheticians dragged to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for declining to wax a man’s balls, because that man claimed to be female. What Elliot says there is no evidence for, there is ample evidence for. Which of course she would know, had she ever read my work, listened to my talks, or engaged in conversation with me, rather than using her platform to spout bigoted nonsense.

Ironically, if not for free speech, these individuals would not feel so safe to libel those they don’t like — which appears to be the go-to strategy of the Woke and Online. One wonders why they believe their speech should protected — even when hateful or slanderous — but not the speech of others. It is a modern hypocrisy I will never understand.

Unfortunately for these protesters and petitioners, the TPL will not be canceling the event, and I will continue to speak the truth in the face of threats, slander, harassment, ostracization, and actual hate speech. I will do this not because I have anything personally to gain from doing so but because I could not live with myself otherwise. I will not be silent while women’s rights are eroded, and I will not lie either under duress or to make friends. My integrity is worth more to me than my comfort or popularity, and yours should be too.

Meghan Murphy is a writer in Vancouver, British Columbia. Her website is Feminist Current.

[florrickandassociates]

TGF Thoughts: 3x04-- The One With Lucca Becoming a Meme

Under the cut! 3x05 coming... sometime. 

The One with Lucca Becoming a Meme is one of the most complex, layered, reflective, and thoughtful episodes this show’s ever done… and I don’t think I’ll have that much to say about it. Sure, there’s a lot to think about, but I don’t have answers-- and I don’t have much to add to the conversation that hasn’t already been said. I don’t think my perspective on most of the issues this episode raises is going to be very interesting!

It’s still storming in Chicago. TONE SETTING!

Maia’s in with the partners, explaining her actions and her arrest. The charges are under review. Maia denies having a drug problem (she sounds surprised Julius would even ask) and says the drugs were “foisted upon me by Roland Blum.” “Foisted, but not planted,” a partner points out. Maia doesn’t try to argue the point, which leads me to believe that after Blum gave her drugs and warned her that if she turned on him, he would have the police search her car, she decided to knowingly piss him off and kept the illegal drugs in her car. Maybe she doesn’t have a drug problem but my goodness that’s a big common sense problem.

She says she accepted the drugs from Blum because “the standard playbook goes out the window.” Fair. Why’d she keep ‘em, though?

Speaking of things going through windows, the next subject is the laptop Maia threw! Adrian admits that everyone loses their temper sometimes. Maia, interrupting, insists she didn’t lose her temper. Yes. The way to show you didn’t lose your temper is to not even let a name partner finish his sentence in defense of you. Also, I feel like she DID lose her temper in that scene. “I had to let him know I wasn’t intimidated,” she explains.

“There may be better ways of doing that,” Diane chimes in. Maia agrees, and so do I. Maia breaking that window may show she’s unpredictable, but it also shows a lack of self-control and ability to direct her anger. Maybe to Blum it shows that she’s not intimidated, but to me it shows that she so badly wants to be seen as a badass that her judgement (along with the standard playbook and that laptop) goes out the window.

Anyway, Maia apologizes for breaking company property and offers to pay to replace it-- the right, mature move.

After Maia leaves the room, the partners are divided on what to do. Some want to fire her since they fired someone else for a similar offense (he was using, though) and others think Maia’s charge isn’t as bad so she should be suspended. Shock of all shocks, Diane is in favor of suspension.

Diane points out that Maia doesn’t have any other issues, and Julius mentions her arrest at the end of season 1. That’s not fair. Being privileged enough to believe your foundation is “helping Africa” or whatever is ignorant but it’s not criminal, and that’s really all she was guilty of then.

The partners are going to vote on Maia’s fate in four days. In the meantime, Diane is attempting to bring Liz to what I can no longer call the #WhiteLadyResistance.

Diane goes to visit Maia in her newly-windowless office and jokes about closing the door. Wait wait wait, Maia still has that office? Her case is over and SHE BROKE THE OFFICE.

“Am I fucked?” Maia starts off the conversation. “Wow, Maia, all grown up. No, Maia, you are not fucked,” Diane replies. What a professional way to start a conversation.

Maia will have to be drug tested. She sounds surprised.

Maia apologizes to Diane and Diane doesn’t accept it. She says, correctly, “you should’ve had some supervision with Blum.” 100% agree. I said it in an earlier post but I’ll say it again here: this is the only argument I can see for why Maia should keep her job, for why an exception to the drug arrest policy should be made. Maia was not capable of handling this case on her own-- even before Blum showed up I thought she seemed to be doing a bad job-- and it is the partners’ job to be aware of that. Would every associate have accepted the drugs? Highly, highly doubt it. Is it clearly Maia’s fault that she gave into pressure when she had no support or supervision? I don’t think so. If Maia is underperforrming (and I think she is, though it’s not clear whether or not the show thinks she is) then the partners need to understand what projects to staff her on and what projects she can’t handle. There should be a clear process for discussing case strategy, for reporting new developments in a case like working with Blum, or for partners looking out for foreseeable issues like having a co-defendant represented by a deranged addict. A large part of this mess is bad management. That doesn’t excuse Maia’s terrible judgement, but she never should’ve been put in this position.

Maia and Diane have no clue what’s up with Julius and Marissa. What’s happening is that Marissa’s giving Julius good advice. That’s about it; don’t have much else to say except that I laughed at Marissa saying “twelve kids” when she knows he has six.

#WhiteLadyResistance now has at least two black women in it, so I’m going to just have to call it #Resistance. I could still call it #LadyResistance but I don’t think that works. Anyway, does anyone find it odd that Diane is totally on board with a group assembled by a con artist? I guess she did fall for it too…

#Resistance wants to go after Not!TaylorSwift, who just so happens to be a client of RBL.

Without Diane’s presence, #Resistance went through her client list. Does that mean she turned over her client list to this group!?

Maia phones Lucca (who is off of work) to ask about her drug test troubles. She wants to know about false positives in drug tests. She just expects Lucca to have the answers (and Lucca does, because Lucca’s great).

An obnoxious white lady overhears Lucca discussing drug tests and decides it’s her place to judge Lucca’s skills as a nanny (it doesn’t occur to her that Lucca could be Joseph’s mother). This lady is terrible: she can’t take a joke (and Lucca makes some really funny ones in this scene!) or even consider for a second she could be wrong.

Obnoxious white lady calls the police on Lucca because Lucca… exists. Awful and, sadly, realistic. I’m glad TGF took on this plotline.

Credits!

Republican leadership thinks Julius is a strong candidate but they don’t want him working with Eli Gold’s daughter. Don’t think I have that much to say about this plot. It’s fun that Marissa gets to do her dad’s job, it’s nice that Julius gets a plot of his own, it’s understandable that Marissa thinks Julius is the lesser of two evils if she knows there’s going to be a Republican judge. That’s… all I got.

The next day at work, Lucca begins to get anonymous hate emails. Maia, wearing another one of her strange outfits (this one looks like she’s wearing a blouse under a sweater, except part of the blouse is a scarf and the sleeves of the sweater are too short), comes into Lucca’s office and asks for more advice on drug testing. The internet wasn’t clear, but Lucca is an expert on drug testing apparently.

Maia hears the incessant email notifications Lucca’s getting and reads a few messages. “Woah. Those are the kind of emails I usually get,” Maia replies. This is maybe my favorite Maia line yet? Shows self-awareness and shows that she’s strong enough to deal with the harassment while still reminding the viewer it’s something Maia has to deal with on a daily basis.

Maia drops the pretenses: she actually used Blum’s fentanyl lollipop. She. Tried. It. It was her first time doing drugs, but she still did it. On her own time. Yikes. Idk if I think experimenting with drugs once is enough to warrant firing, but it is highly illegal and… Maia knows that shit’s illegal and addictive as fuck. She also knows that Blum is unstable and should’ve been able to see enough steps ahead (even without his warning) that he could accuse her of being an addict.

How the HELL did Maia manage to delay a drug test? If drugs can leave your system and she’s given warning of a test, then of course more time is better for her. They would test her immediately if they tested her at all.

Lucca answers a call and gets sworn at. She answers a second call and it’s the Washington Post asking for a comment on the Mothering While Black video. Seems that someone (many someones) recorded Obnoxious Lady confronting Lucca and it’s gone viral.

“Congratulations, you’re a meme,” Marissa informs Lucca. Is that what a meme is? Just anything that goes viral? That is not how I use that word.

Everyone at the firm is watching the video. Diane and Liz only look up from the video to follow Not!TaylorSwift into Adrian’s office. She’s been photoshopped into looking like a tiki torch Nazi and she’s not happy about it. But she refuses to denounce Nazis because that’s too political. Get the fuck outta here!

How the FUCK did she write a song about Carl Reddick that got mistaken for a KKK anthem???? I want to read the lyrics.

NotTaylor and her manager are idiots who think suing her fansite is the way out of this. Diane, Liz, and Adrian immediately point out that this is… ill-advised.

Also the photoshopped pic is coming from #Resistance so why did they really need NotTaylor to be Diane’s client? Everything Diane says to NotTaylor is something that any good lawyer or PR person would say, and I feel like NotTaylor is only Diane’s client to make the plot more engaging and resonant.

Why is NotTaylor even RBL’s client? She wouldn’t likely be based in Chicago and if she’s so big on being apolitical, RBL is a bizarre choice of a firm.

NotTaylor’s speech about music not being political is nonsense, garbage, incorrect, etc. Oh no! Art might be political! To my mind, art is INHERENTLY political.

It’s time for another TGF short, and this one kind of loses me. It’s not really explaining anything and the only people who will understand it are… the ones who don’t need an explainer. Meh. The animation’s fun, as always.

The partners want Lucca to have security (Jay) and Lucca wants to forget this ever happened. As the partners explain their case (with an assist from Marissa), Lucca realizes that all of the black people in the room know the names of the black police brutality victims, and none of the white people know them by name. It’s a good point.

Diane insists it’s not true, but Lucca gives an example and none of the white people can answer. Shows what they actually pay attention to-- all of them would claim to care, but none of them know the names.

One quibble: Laquan McDonald is not the example the writers should’ve gone with here, just because these are lawyers in Chicago who worked at a firm that regularly handles police brutality cases while a police brutality case that drew nationwide attention was in the Chicago courts. They would ALL know his name for that reason alone. (Lucca’s point, of course, still stands.)

Everyone’s shaken by Lucca’s observation, including her friend Marissa. Marissa confronts Lucca and asks “do you think I’m racist?” Really, Marissa? You know better than to say that. Also, yes. You asked that question. So, yeah, a little bit.

“My grandparents went to Selma,” Marissa points out. Stop digging yourself a hole, Marissa. Lucca’s not attacking you personally. Being called out is not the worst thing in the world. If you don’t like that she’s right, then do what Diane does and fucking SAY THEIR NAMES instead of being upset that someone might think you’re racist.

Lucca points out that her white colleagues don’t bother learning the names of black victims and Marissa’s response is to worry that she’s being seen as racist, not to worry that racism exists or that people have died because of the color of their skin. Ugh. I expected better from her. It can’t feel great to be told you’re not as woke as you thought you were but even still.

Diane handles this SUPER well, googling the names of victims and saying them out loud. She, unlike Marissa, understands that Lucca’s right.

Adrian and Liz talk about Lucca’s comment, too. Adrian says he’s “accepted that there’s a certain amount of bias in my life no matter what, and I’m just looking for some everyday kindness and respect.” Liz pushes back, wondering what it means if white colleagues are kind to them in good times but would “break off into their own tribes” in bad times. Adrian’s response is to worry about the racists he can see, not the racists he can’t see.

Lots of highly visible racists are flooding Lucca’s inbox, still. Julius swings by and asks Lucca to talk to a new crop of associates because “they need to hear from a fourth-year.” Is Lucca both a fourth-year associate and the head of matrimonial law? I feel like she doesn’t need the fourth-year title anymore.

Lucca notices-- and comments-- on the racial makeup of the new crop of associates. They’re mostly white.

It’s time for Maia’s drug test, and what does she do? Fake it with Marissa’s help. There’s someone else in the bathroom, another lawyer, and it’s unclear to me if this is to up the stakes and make Maia worry that it’s Jay or if it’s a seed planted for later.

Jay’s driving Lucca home. Lucca still thinks it’s silly; Jay doesn’t. Lucca shares her observation that the new associates are mostly white with Jay. He’s surprised she noticed, which strikes me as odd. First, I was under the impression that Diane, Marissa, and Maia were the only white people employed at the firm, so I feel like just about anyone would take note if a new batch of hires were majority white. Second, Lucca NOTICING doesn’t seem weird or new to me. Lucca VOCALIZING her observation is new.

Then Jay mentions there’s a pay gap. The best offices and salaries go to the new white employees. Jay doesn’t want to say more, but Lucca insists. She asks for the data so she can decide whether or not she’ll help.

The way Jay explains it in this scene makes a lot of sense-- not sense as in it makes sense the white people are making more (that doesn’t make sense, of course) but sense as in it answers my questions. It sounds like it’s only recently that they’ve started hiring lots of white people, and it’s those white people (not ones who were promoted from within the company) getting the best offices and best pay. That’s consistent with what Adrian will say later about the market.

“You fire that bullet, it will start a war,” Jay warns.

#Resistance is-- obviously-- responsible for the alt-right embracing NotTaylor. One member of #Resistance even goes so far as to insult Diane’s skills as a lawyer.

Jay has the salary information for Lucca in the morning. Most incoming senior associates are white, most junior associates are black and have lower pay. Oh, and Marissia got a large raise (large enough that she’s being paid as much as Jay is, even though Jay’s got several more years of experience). Lucca worries Marissa will get dragged into this and tries to back out, but now Jay’s even more pissed.

“Look. This isn’t just about money. This is about value. And I don’t know why my contribution is valued less,” Jay explains. That’s the crucial thing, I think, when discussing salary.

“It’s not. And it would be good to not attach it to individuals,” Lucca suggests. How can she know that, though? I know she just wants Jay to stop, but it’s a valid point. Is Marissa outpacing Jay? And if not, why is she making more money? (Just to note: I think that if Marissa is doing better, faster work than Jay, she absolutely should make as much/more than him, as long as he’s making enough to live comfortably on and her work is better even after you control for stuff like Marissa getting more assignments from white associates.)

Frank Landau comes to scream at Marissa. I wish it were Eli, but he’s in Albania.

Anyway, Marissa explains why she’s helping Julius, and it’s for very pragmatic reasons: the seat’s going to go red no matter what, and she’d rather it be Julius’s than a “creepy drunk frat boy.” Fair.

NotTaylor comes back and, shocker, suing her own fansite was a bad idea. Now she wants to issue a statement… about “love.” And unity. It’s… nah.

Jay goes to just Adrian and Liz about his salary concerns.

“It’s a mistake to equate salary with value,” Liz explains. Is it, though? Especially when it’s relative to another employee doing the same job? How else are you going to figure out how much you’re valued? And if you’re so valued, why aren’t you making more money? You’re valued, just not enough to be paid more.

Adrian says the partners won’t discuss financial decisions. Feel like there’s probably a better policy than that, but I see why they wouldn’t want to open that can of worms. Like, being aggressive towards an employee who somehow got his hands on confidential salary information is… not a good look.

Jay asks if it’s because Marissa’s white and Adrian swears at him. Adrian, you’re a name partner, YOU FUCKING KNOW BETTER.

Liz wants to know why they’re paying Marissa as much as Jay. Adrian says Julius suggested giving Marissa a nice raise last week. I hope he’s also paying her independently for her consultation because it would be really horrible of him to get his company to pay her more for work she’s doing just for him… (It sounds like this could be in addition to the consultations she’s doing; he’s just seen how much value she adds for the company.)

“This company keeps working because we don’t look at certain things, we don’t pick at certain scabs. We pay people more who we think we’re losing, we pay people less who we know are not going anywhere. Nothing to do with Marissa. It’s capitalism, Liz,” Adrian explains to his fellow managing partner. Liz understands this, but she also understands that (much like “pure meritocracy”) this idea in practice is often racist.

She, I would assume correctly, points out that the white people are more likely to leave their firm than the black people. “Hell yeah,” Adrian agrees. “What, you thought I’d say no? The ugly truth, Liz: Women are valued less than men because we think the men can leave us for better paying jobs. And black people are valued less than white people because we think the white people can leave us for better paying jobs. I hate it. But that’s the reality and that’s what I have to deal with. If we don’t keep this place afloat, no one survives.” I don’t manage a business and I have no idea what RBL’s margins are, but I buy this as an explanation-- not an excuse.

If RBL valued paying employees equal pay for equal work even if that meant having smaller offices or less pay for themselves or fewer employees, I’m sure they could find some compromise that would allow them to be equitable and profitable. Or, at least, they could strive to find one. Just saying, “but capitalism!” isn’t as much of an excuse as Adrian thinks it is. He’s just reinforcing the system.

Even though Adrian’s decided he’s the only partner responsible for planning for his firm’s future (seriously though, why is he always explaining his strategies to Liz and Diane), I don’t mean to say he alone should be working to end the pay gap. All I’m saying is that if everyone accepts that the system is the system and doesn’t work to change it, the system’s going to stay in place longer. If Adrian declines to take advantage of the opportunity he has to make a change, I’m not going to drag him for it-- he has many competing priorities and it’s gotta be very hard to balance the budget when you pay more than the market rate but can get away with paying less. But I certainly am going to say that Adrian is CHOOSING to reinforce the system. He has his reasons, but he has enough power that he could at least TRY not to be part of the problem.

(Also it seems like Adrian is actively hiring white associates for more $$, thus reinforcing the idea that they are worth more and have options.)

Liz points out that while she understands where he’s coming from, if this gets out, people are going to be angry. She’s right.

Jay, in fact, is angry and he’s sending the salary information to the rest of the firm so they can be angry too. Lucca warns him against it, but he knows he’s starting a war.

Julius insists on having Marissa as his campaign manager, which is a terrible idea I’m certain Marissa would’ve advised against. His meeting doesn’t go well.

Man do I wish we could see the salary information for any of the main characters, particularly Maia. I’d like to know how she compares to the other third-years.

Jay joins a group of black associates in a conference room. Everyone takes turns expressing their concerns over the types of cases the firm’s taking (more ChumHum, less police brutality), Maia getting an office, white associates choosing Marissa over Jay, etc.

Maia cluelessly interrupts this meeting, looking for Marissa. Not a good look.

NotTaylor is back. Now the alt-right is going after her trans sister and NotTaylor is in tears. And she’s ready to denounce the alt-right.

Liz and Diane confront #Resistance about it and #Resistance eagerly claims responsibility. Duh. Diane acts stunned they’d be willing to hurt someone for political gain, completely forgetting that she sicced the press on Tara in hopes of destroying 45 just weeks ago.

“Salaries are driven by seniority, Lucca,” Adrian explains in a meeting about salary concerns. First, his tone is going to solve nothing. Second, what does this mean? That if a white associate comes in as a fourth-year he’ll make the same as Lucca, even though Lucca’s a fourth-year good enough to run a department? Seems wrong.

Another big complaint: Maia’s new office and her drug arrest. Everyone except Adrian thinks it’s about race. Maia is absolutely getting the benefit of the doubt a black associate would never get, regardless of whether or not her offense was actually lesser than Alan North (the last associate fired for drug use). After all, for all we know, he could’ve used drugs once and gotten caught too.

Diane isn’t as hypocritical as I made her out to be above. She and Liz both decide to stick with #Resistance because it’s effective.

WHY IS THE SCENE WHERE THE PARTNERS DECIDE MAIA’S FATE SHOT ON SHAKYCAM, THIS IS A BAD CHOICE. (This director is the one I complained about in 621 and he otherwise did a fine job with this episode, but the shaky cam is really bad.)

Diane really tries to defend Maia, but it doesn’t work: the pay gap controversy tips the votes against Maia (Liz is the deciding vote), and she’s fired.

I wrote a post earlier this week about whether or not I think firing Maia is justified, so I won’t write it out again, but to summarize my thoughts in one word: Yes.

There’s a song by The Wild Reeds playing over the scene where Diane tells Maia she’s been fired and I am very proud of myself for recognizing the artist.

Lucca watches through the window-wall as Diane delivers the news to Maia. You know what this (and, tbh, every?) episode could’ve used more of? LUCCA! QUINN! One the pay gap war starts, we don’t hear about the viral video again, and we should’ve. The experience made Lucca more interested in taking a stand at work… anything else? Is that it?

I like that we get to see Diane walk into Maia’s office, greet her, and deliver the news. It would’ve been easy to just imply it, but it adds a lot to see the firing actually take place. It’s clear how hard this is on Diane-- Maia is her goddaughter, after all-- and showing the whole sequence makes Maia’s firing feel more consequential.

Also, THERE WAS NO ROLAND BLUM THIS EPISODE AND FOR THAT I AM GRATEFUL.

[fightersagainstnarccistic]

In Conclusion

If you think the constant postings from the Fighters Against Racism Forum don’t influence the leadership of the HEMA community, think again. Here is a sampling of things that are clearly influenced by this hateful community and are also things that, if the HEMA Alliance bylaws and code of conduct was actually strictly enforced, should require them to step down and be removed from the organization.

Discrimination against police officers and unjustly calling them all Nazis. 

Police officers are clearly being discriminated against by the HEMAA if a HEMAA officer is posting something like this. 

Here is an example where Brennan Faucher (the guy who advocates for killing people) posted a video made by one of his instructors about “white privilege” in the HEMA Alliance group. This was a manipulative tactic designed to encourage bullying and harassment of others. Many people protested the ideas in the video. People got banned from HEMAA just for disliking the post. 

Feel free to watch the video yourself by the way. It’s a rabbit hole of fallacious reasoning that basically boils down to “HEMA is racist because Europeans are the only ones who made museums and preserved historical documents” which is factually incorrect and demonstrates a spectacularly limited knowledge of the history and culture of other countries, and “white people in HEMA don’t get harassed by police for sword fighting in public spaces” which is also not true, either.  HEMA is not a common sport and many people are unaware of it, so doing it in a park can attract unwanted attraction regardless of your ethnicity if you don’t let the police know ahead of time. People who specifically pointed out the fallacious reasoning used in the video were banned from HEMAA. 

But anyway go ahead and jump down the rabbit hole to Wonderland, if you dare. Here’s the video link. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPz1ABlGhs

And here is HEMAA President Kat Fanning, in responding to a thread in another HEMA related forum about the bannings, declaring herself to be the entirety of the HEMA Administration to justify it.

She also disingenuously claims there is no political line in the HEMAA. It is disingenuous because they have promoted a political organization using their official branding.

Despite popular misconception BLM is 501( c )(3) nonprofit that organizes and provides funding for 16 chapters across the United States. ( https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/black-lives-matter-foundation/ ) This means endorsement of the “movement” is also endorsement of a political organization that created that movement.

Beyond this, promoting this cause causes HEMAA to risk losing its nonprofit status.  (501)( c ) (3) corporations must be created for specific purposes and are prohibited from participation in other kinds of purposes, such as endorsing unrelated political campaigns and issue advocacy. They also cannot discriminate against members based upon political affiliation criteria, either, especially when this discrimination results in denial of participation at something like a martial art school (which is what HEMAA membership is structured to allow for. HEMAA affiliated schools are required to only train HEMAA affiliated members).  

Regardless of how you may feel and what you may personally believe about the causes they endorse as individual officers and as an organization, the reality is that these people are lying about what they do and they do not pass their own purity tests. They are breaking their own rules while using the rules to justify the bullying, shunning and harassment of others. And their desire to politicize the HEMAA jeopardizes the nonprofit status of the entire federation and its members that rely on its insurance. 

Ironically, if one was to strictly follow the HEMAA’s own rules the things its members say and do in the FAR group would be considered a violation of them as well, as well as many of the things HEMAA officers have themselves said and done publicly. 

https://www.hemaalliance.com/provisional-code-of-conduct-and-safespace

But will they be penalized? Of course not. Because the leadership is an extension of the cult of Valkyrie now. They only kick out and shun people who aren’t strictly part of their cabal. 

All of these officers are guilty of violating the HEMA Alliance’s own bylaws and code of conduct policies by participating in and spreading the ideologies included in this forum. But will they ever be punished? Of course not. They can manipulate the votes by the member body any way they wish and appoint whoever they want into offices, and what the will of the federation may want doesn’t matter. And they can kick out and shun anyone they don’t like because they have so much influence in the events they run.

The only thing people can do is leave their clubs and organizations, and make new ones that don’t allow toxic narcissistic people to so easily control and manipulate everyone for their own selfish reasons.

It is not necessary to promote violence or encourage illegal activities, nor even to promote other political issues and causes, in order to prevent discrimination against race, gender and sexual orientation within an organization. It is mandated by federal law in the USA that such discrimination is not allowed by any corporation. The overwhelming majority of companies, nonprofit and for profit, all manage to abide by these laws without advocating hatred and violence -- and the ones who don’t pay for the noncompliance with lawsuits and revocation of corporate statuses. 

Additionally there are both federal and state laws that govern how a member of an organization can have such membership terminated. In some states it requires a properly conducted investigation from a neutral party following state mandated guidelines. The laws of the organized corporation must be followed, as well as the laws of the state the member resides in. And we rather doubt the HEMAA is doing any of this when they terminate memberships rapidly as they ban people from their Facebook groups.

Finally, we don’t think the HEMAA officers and other school instructors and owners who virtue signal truly care enough about these issues to give them the careful professional treatment they deserve, which is why instead they are just virtue signaling. They use these issues as a means of leverage and control over others which is why they so easily turn to hateful and irrational speech and behavior, instead of seeking to find genuine solutions to the problems. Their efforts to do advocacy is exceptionally self-centered, and more fixated on trying to find people to mock and harass than it is to protect anybody.

And how does Valkyrie fit into all of this regarding the FAR Facebook group and the HEMA Alliance?

Here is Valkyrie instructor Matlock Hargrove participating in the forum, who ironically enough is arguing with Roger Norling (one of the key figures behind the group) against censoring an individual named Anders Linnard from Roger’s website because Roger wants to debate with him. In order for Roger to virtue signal he needs an antagonist. The others in the group aren’t having it however.

Oh, and Randy Packer is also a member of the FAR forum group, too.

Mind you, we’re not willing to invest much more time into trying to find every damn post these people have either made or participated in, as that would just consume too much of our time. 

As we’ve already shown that Jason has written a post condemning Duello, here is some screenshots of HEMAA people endorsing Kaja’s post and agreeing to help Valkyrie bully Academie Duello.

Jason Barrons (&  Heather Barker-Barrons)

Jude Ledesma

Claire Elliot Smith

Robyn Alman

That’s several HEMAA officers right there willing to be public in their support of Valkyrie.

As well as David Rawlings and Keith Farrell, too. 

And many, many others as we have shown earlier in the prior posts specifically detailing Valkyrie and its members.

Even though we have only shown a little of the mountain of evidence against these people from what is publicly available to show, you should know there is more private ones we cannot show you stuff from without potentially violating privacy laws. 

Toxic narcissistic people do a lot of damage in society, even to children they teach. Here is HEMA instructor and creator of the Rearguard protective mask gear Jonathan Burke bragging about manipulating the children he instructs to hate America using fallacious reasoning and ignoring all of the actors who play heroes in American movies who speak non-English languages, such as beloved actors such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jackie Chan.

Looking at how these people do in their hobbies, just imagine what these people are doing in their careers. 

Even news media have noticed some of them participating in the violent clashes with police as part of Antifa mobs who are clashing with police officers,

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/18/us/portland-protest-arrests/index.html

If you spend a lot of time digging deep into the heart of the HEMA community, you’ll find a lot of club leaders participating in this stuff. Here is another group.

And guess who follows and is a member of this page?

Kat Fanning, President of the HEMA Alliance.

She is usually careful to not make her endorsement of this stuff public, but we caught her slipping up on this page.

By the way, we find this really interesting comment that someone made on Kat Fanning’s wall, which she has chosen to leave there for weeks and her comment to it is quite telling on what she thinks about Richard Marsden, as well as Michael Chidester liking the comment. Perhaps Phoenix Society is being prepped for their next target?

Finally we leave you with a post devoted to the blog they have created to provide a guide on how to turn HEMA clubs into antifa “Liberation Gyms”

https://fightersagainstnarccistic.tumblr.com/post/626484943349022720/far-historical-fencing-blog-that-promotes-antifa

To circle back around, as we said from the beginning, the cult of Valkyrie is at the very heart of all of toxic narcissism in the HEMA community, and they benefit from it with the range of influence they possess. The only way for the bullying to stop is for them to be exposed and for others to instead stop tolerating their bad faith acting, no longer fall for their virtue signaling and lies, and hold them accountable for the manipulation they do to pit members of the community against others to serve their own agendas. We also have to acknowledge that participation in groups like Fighters Against Racism is encouraging people to be violent and engage in illegal activity that is not part of the democratic process. 

These people we have exposed are all very responsible for the problems they create and division in the community. They have side-tracked people away from focusing on the growth of a sport and hobby and used it for a platform to fulfill selfish and narrow minded agendas while pretending to advocate for social issues. 

Back to the beginning

Next we look more closely at how “detrio”, moderator of popular HEMA community on reddit at /wma censors anything critical about Valkyrie while allowing their accusations and personal attacks against Duello to persist

https://fightersagainstnarccistic.tumblr.com/post/626365181118840832/abuse-by-detrio-moderator-at-reddit-wma-to-help