When the Police Knock on Your Door, You Don’t Have to Talk to Them


— Scenario 
Your girlfriend/wife made a false accusation against you. The cops are about to knock on your door. What do you do?

Your Rights
“There is also no obligation to answer the door when the police come knocking. There is no obligation to speak to the police at your door, and you can end any conversation with them whenever you choose.”


Toronto Criminal Trial Law Firm:
Rusonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Ross, Gorham & Angelini, LLP

Know Your Rights

Canadian Lawyers

Your rights as an individual are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These rights protect us from arbitrary and unreasonable exercises of police power, such as illegal searches or unlawful intrusions into our privacy.

The Charter is crucial where an accused person is being prosecuted based on illegally obtained evidence. When police breach Charter rights, the illegally obtained evidence can be excluded from the trial, meaning that the prosecution is not allowed to rely on it to prove guilt.

Most people do not fully understand the importance of our rights until they are charged with a crime. Below you can find explanations of the practical protections that our rights provide. This should not be taken as legal advice for any specific situation. When in doubt, contact one of us to determine what your options are in dealing with an interaction with police.

Your Rights in Your Home

A man’s home is his castle. This is not just a common saying; it is a centuries-old principle which is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The police or other law enforcement authorities can only lawfully enter your home under certain circumstances – otherwise, they are the same as any trespasser. The home is seen under our law as the most private place, but there are exceptions to your protection against police intrusion.

Police Coming to Your Door: Any person, including a police officer, has your implied consent to walk onto your property for the purpose of communicating to you at your front door. If the police have a legitimate reason for communicating with you, such as responding to a call or seeking information for an investigation, then there is nothing wrong with this. Police are not, however, entitled to abuse this ability by using it to conduct a “sniff” test – just going to the front door to see whether there is any sign of criminal activity when someone answers the knock. There is also no obligation to answer the door when the police come knocking. There is no obligation to speak to the police at your door, and you can end any conversation with them whenever you choose.

Police Entering Your Home by Invitation: The police may come to your door to speak with you and in the process ask if they can come inside. You do not have to let them enter, but they are allowed to under law if you give them permission.  If you are not sure whether to grant this permission, contact one of us before making this decision.

Giving the police permission to enter your home is not the same as giving them permission to search your home, but police may ask to do this as well and you may grant it. If you give police permission to search your home, then they can do so without a warrant. A search of your home by police is a serious intrusion of your constitutionally protected privacy interests and you should consult a lawyer for legal advice before making this decision.

Search Warrants: A search warrant is a judicial authorization to enter and search a place for evidence of a crime. They are often used for the search and seizure of illegal drugs or firearms, but may be related to a search for evidence of any crime. It may authorize the police to enter at night, and it may authorize the police to use force in making their entry.  Police can detain the people found in the home while the search is being conducted, and may make arrests or lay charges based on what is found. The police may also seize any number of items found during a search in pursuit of their investigation. The validity of search warrants can be challenged later in court, and issues related to the release of items that are seized can also be dealt with later. Anything that is seized as evidence will likely be held at least until the related charges are over.

Arrest Warrants: In certain circumstances, police will obtain a warrant to enter a home where a wanted person is believed to be in order to arrest that person. The validity of these warrants can be challenged later in court.

“Hot Pursuit”, Destruction of Evidence, and Other Circumstances: Even without a warrant and without consent, police have authority under law to enter your home in certain circumstances. Police officers may be entitled to enter your home to pursue a fleeing suspect, even if the suspect is entering a home that is not his own. This is sometimes referred to as hot pursuit, and may include a drunk driver pursued by police who pulls into his driveway and runs into his home.

Police may have grounds to believe that entering a home is necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence of a serious crime. This may include flushing drugs down the toilet or burning or destroying DNA evidence related to a sexual assault or a murder.

Other emergencies may justify a warrantless entry by the police, such as responding to a distress call made over 911, an ongoing domestic assault, or some other circumstance where police reasonably believe that someone’s life or safety is in danger.

Outside of Your Home: Your gated backyard is also a private a place, but the trash that you leave on your driveway is not private. Once you leave trash out to be collected, you give up your privacy in the contents, meaning that police are as free as the garbage man to pick it up and take a look inside.

Whatever the case, contacting a lawyer directly for legal advice at the earliest opportunity is the best way to know what your rights are in protecting the privacy of your home.

 Your Rights in a Vehicle

Getting pulled over by the police while in your car is a common experience for many Canadians. Despite how frequent this experience is, most people aren’t sure about the scope of the powers of the police to stop, question, search or otherwise interact with them during a stop of their car. Be it on the highway or a side street, your Charter rights apply to you and anyone else in your car. However, there are a few things that you should know to ensure that you are able to exercise your rights in the car if you need to.

Firstly, the law recognizes that there are a few issues that the police should legally be able to investigate in almost all driving situations. These issues include: whether or not the driver of the vehicle is licensed to drive; whether or not the motor vehicle is properly insured and registered; and whether or not the vehicle is in good working order.  Unlike other situations, the police do not need grounds to believe that your licence, insurance or registration documents are not up to date in order to pull you over to investigate these issues. The rationale for this is that driving is not a right, but a privilege, and the power for a stop of this kind comes from the Highway Traffic Act.

However, this power does not allow the police to pretend to stop a car for a legitimate investigation of a Highway Traffic Act offence. If the real reason the police have chosen to stop your car is because they don’t like the way you look or are just curious to stop you and see what you are doing, they will be breaching your right not to be detained, or arrested, arbitrarily, under s. 9 of the Charter.

Similarly, the police power to stop your car to investigate your licence, insurance, registration, or the safety of your car does not permit a wholesale search of your car or an investigation into the identity of your passengers.  Since your passengers are not driving the car, they are not required to identify themselves to the police, unless the police have some other reasonable suspicion or belief that they are involved in a criminal offence.  It stands to reason the police do not need to look into your trunk to see whether or not you have valid insurance or to determine whether or not you are wearing your seatbelt. Searches that go beyond the purposes of a Highway Traffic Act investigation will breach your right not to be unreasonably searched, protected by s. 8 of the Charter, unless the police can demonstrate that they otherwise had reasonable grounds or authority to search you.  

The police may request that you allow them to search your vehicle over the course of a vehicle stop. A word to the wise: this ‘request’ does not need to sound like a request, but can sound a lot more like an order. You do not need to consent to allow the police to do this. If the police are asking or demanding that you let them search your car, make sure you insist on calling a lawyer right away, before you make any decision or give any permission.

Of course, if the police have grounds to believe you have committed a criminal offence, or if they observe you committing a Highway Traffic Act offence, they may have a right to stop your vehicle and conduct further investigations of you, and in some cases, your passengers. If you are stopped by the police, insist on your right to speak to a lawyer without delay and to be told why you are being stopped. This is the best way to ensure that your rights are protected.

Your Rights on the Street

You are enjoying a walk in your area and a police officer tells you that he wants to speak with you.   Most people who encounter this situation will stop and speak to the police officer until it becomes clear that the conversion is over.  Most people believe that when a police officer asks to speak with you that you have no choice but to comply with the request.  In reality, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) affords everyone with many protections in these situations.

Section 9 of the Charter protects individuals from arbitrary detentions.  A “detention” occurs when the police through words, or actions, force you to stop and remain with them.  An obvious example of a detention is an arrest; the police by force ensure that you remain in their custody.  However, a detention need not be so obvious; the police could simply say “stop” or “don’t move” and a detention would occur. Further, even less intrusive police conduct can cause a detention to occur such as a group of police officers surrounding  you, an officer blocking your path in an intimidating manner; in these situations the police conduct can cause you to reasonably believe that you are not free to leave and these situations amount to “detentions” in law. Simply put, a detention occurs when the police’s actions cause you to reasonably believe that you are not free to walk away.  The police are only permitted to detain  you when they have reasonable grounds to believe, or suspect, that you are engaged in criminal activity.  If the police do not have the required grounds the detention is illegal and any evidence they obtain can be excluded at trial. 

The difficulty for you, and all other the citizen, being asked by the police officer for a conversation is that you do not know if the police have reasonable grounds to force you to remain.  The ambiguity caused by this reality can easily be resolved, simply tell the police officer that you do not wish to speak to him or her and ask “Am I free to leave?” If the police officer tells you that you are free to leave, you can simply walk away.  If the police officer tells you that you are not free to leave you are now detained and have to remain until they allow you to leave.  When you are detained, section 10(a) of the Charter requires the police to tell you why you are being detained, and section 10(b) of the Charter requires them to provide you with the opportunity to speak to a lawyer in private as soon possible.  When you are detained, you are also under no obligation to say anything to the police, you do not have to answer any of their questions or even give them your name and address; you are free to say absolutely nothing to the police. The police may make you feel like you have to answer their questions but the law allows you to remain silent.    If you do chose to speak to the police anything you say must be the truth to avoid being charged criminally. 

When you are detained the police have certain powers that allow them to search you.  If you are being arrested the police can search you and your clothing if they have reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be found.  If they police are stopping but do not have grounds to arrest you they can conduct a pat down search of the exterior of your body (they are not entitled to search your pockets) when they have reasonable grounds to believe that you pose a safety risk to them, yourself, or the public. 

During your next walk in your community you now know how to respond to a police request to speak to you.  Remain calm, ask the correct questions and the situation will become clearer.  The situation will be stressful but there is no need to feel helpless – you know your rights. 

Advertisements

‘Believe the Victim’ Mentality Undermines Justice

Related:
— Do Not Refer to Rape Accusers As “Victims.” Legally, They Are Complainants.
— Desire to Drive Up Rape Convictions Has Eroded Defendants Rights.
— Police Must Stop Automatically Believing All Rape Accusers
— Victim Culture Fosters Contempt for Defendants
Police Chief Tells Forces Not To Automatically Believe Rape Accusers
— Canada Liberals New Sex Assault Bill, Catastrophic Attack on Due Process
— Believe the Presumption of Innocence, Not Presumption of Guilt


  • A criminal justice watchdog group has just come out with a new report detailing how the “believe the victim” mentality “compromises the integrity of our entire legal system.”
  • In one recent instance, a UCLA student claims that the school “manufactured” sexual assault allegations against him in retaliation for his support of an embattled conservative professor.

Report: ‘Believe the Victim’ Mentality Undermines Justice

Nikita Vladimirov

A new report published by a criminal justice watchdog argues that the “believe the victim” mentality is compromising “the integrity of our entire legal system.”

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), a group that seeks to find “effective and fair solutions to sexual assault and domestic violence,” argues in a recent white paper that the “believe the victim” ideology turns the neutral role of an investigator “into that of an advocate” while also “systematically insert[ing] bias into the criminal justice system.”

The “believe the victim” ideology is generally popular among millennial feminists and progressives who believe that presumed victims of sexual violence need more power and protection against the so-called “rape culture” on college campuses.

In response to the pressure, institutions of higher education have adapted a system of internal trials that frequently adjudicates cases by relying on panels of professors and administrators who have little if any experience in criminal justice.

The handling of sexual assault on college campuses has been widely criticized by conservative groups and organizations, which argue that the system fails to protect the due process rights of the accused and presumes guilt before innocence.

“[The ideology] focuses on corroboration of allegations and collecting evidence to oppose anticipated defenses,” SAVE writes. “As such, the ‘believe the victim’ movement not only threatens the reliability of sexual assault adjudications, it compromises the integrity of our entire legal system.”

While the watchdog acknowledges that “sexual assault is an under-reported offense,” and that the “believe the victim” movement “seeks to improve reporting,” it also raises a number of concerns about the movement’s claims.

“From the beginning, the ‘believe the victim’ movement has been hampered by a questionable scientific foundation,” SAVE argues. “Proponents make sweeping pronouncements about neuroscience and its application to victim behavior with little or no supporting research.”

“With Orwellian precision, ‘believe the victim’ materials omit key words such as ‘due process,’ ‘complainant,’ and ‘allegation,’” the report states. “With each iteration, the ‘believe the victim’” movement has become less grounded in reason, fact, and fairness.”

The widely-criticized system of investigating sexual assault allegations on college campuses  has resulted in numerous accusations of misuse, including one recent case at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

On January 10, The Foundation for Advancing Institutional Accountability in Higher Education filed a Department of Education complaint against UCLA, accusing the school of “systematic misuse and abuse of Title IX.”

“UCLA and the University of California have refused to adopt or adhere to any procedures to ensure that due process and fundamental fairness is afforded to all parties (accuser and accused alike) in Title IX proceedings,” the document reads. “The University’s present handling of Title IX cases is effectively a mockery of due process.”

The group launched a complaint after the university allegedly attempted “to use the threat of a Title IX complaint to coerce a male student [Justin Gelzhiser] into resigning from his Teaching Assistant position in the Department of Communication Studies.”

According to the document, Gelzhiser was targeted by UCLA after sending a letter in defense of the now-ousted conservative professor Keith Fink and urging the school to keep the popular professor on campus.

“Shortly after he wrote the letter, UCLA devised a strategy to retaliate against Gelzhiser for fervently supporting Fink and urging the Academic Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom to investigate it,” the document alleges, arguing that the school later confronted Gelzhiser “with manufactured sexual assault allegations and demand[ed] that he either leave the Department or have a Title IX complaint filed against him.”

UCLA did not immediately return Campus Reform’s request for comment.

Five Men Exonerated in False Rape Accusations Pedophile Trial

Related:
— Research: False Rape Accusations are Common
13 Verifiable Facts Why Women Lie About Rape
— Woman Heads to Prison After Falsely Accused of 15 Men of Rape
Report: Innocent Men Charged with Rape to Boost Rape Convictions


  • Five men accused of raping women between ages of 3 and 15 in Cardiff.
  • Prosecution admits concerns over evidence of a woman who previously made false rape allegations.
  • Woman also lied about ‘psychically impossible’ abortion and based events on BBC’s Call the Midwife.

“Pedophile Gang” False Rape Trial Collapses

Ewan Palmer

Five men who were due to go on trial accused of being a part of a paedophile gang have had all charges against them dropped following serious concerns about the evidence given by the accuser.

Retired GP Stephen Glascoe, 67, and 61-year-old former social worker Patrick Graham, 61, were accused along with three other men of raping a woman in Cardiff in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The alleged victim came forward to claim she was abused multiple times between the ages of three and 15, as well as being given a forced abortion and being made to torture other children.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reason, recalled the alleged abuse while undergoing controversial regression therapy.

However, two weeks before the trial was due to take place, the case has been dropped after doubts were raised about the woman’s claims and her relationship with the investigating officers.

Among one of the key issues was her account of the abortion which Glascoe was accused of performing in his attic, which a consultant gynaecologist described as “physically impossible” and appeared to be based on scenes from the film Vera Drake and the BBC TV show Call the Midwife, reports The Times.

It also emerged that police knew the woman after she made a false rape allegation as a teenager and that she also claimed one of the men due to stand trial had sent her an Amazon package containing twisted wires similar to ones which were tied to her wrists when she was abused. She later admitted she sent the item to herself.

Christopher Clee, QC, defending Dr Glascoe, said that the woman had “throughout manipulated the proceedings, disclosing incidents of alleged abuse as and when it suits her purposes; these allegations emerging through counselling sessions which in themselves are of dubious standing”.

He added: “She has found a powerful ally in the police, who have acted upon her allegations without question, ignoring obvious lines of inquiry and seeking to undermine potential evidence that contradicts her allegations.”

Judge Thomas Crowther at Newport Crown Court ordered all men to be found not guilty and raised questions about the conduct of detective constable Beverly Norman after it was revealed the pair had exchanged 1,000 text messages, 530 emails and 118 telephone calls during the 18-month investigation.

The men are now calling for a national review into how police handle rape allegations.

Glascoe told the Times: “It was not long ago that women who were victims of rape were denied justice because the police did not believe them. Then after Jimmy Savile everything changed, and the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

“Allegations must be treated seriously but not unquestionably and believed from the outset. Rape and serious sexual assaults are common and false allegations are rare, but I know what happened to me is not unique.”

A South Wales police spokesperson said: “Throughout any investigation we regularly communicate with the victim in order to offer them support and keep them updated on progress.

“This particular case involved a vulnerable woman who required additional support, not only throughout the investigation but in the lead-up to the court case.

“She lived outside Wales, which meant that officers had to rely on electronic means of communication, such as text messages and email.”

Academic Fraud & Political Propaganda


Related:
Why Gender Studies Must Die (Full Transcript)
Gender Studies Full of Anti-Male Bias (Lawsuit)
Education & Indoctrination in Gender Studies


What I Learned In My
Women’s Studies Classes

Toni Airaksinen

When I first discovered women’s studies, I was lulled into a comforting sense that I had discovered the “truth.” It was as if my veil of ignorance had been yanked away, and I was blissfully seeing the world for what it really was.

I have taken seven women’s studies classes; initially at a nondescript state university and later at a women’s college in Manhattan. After taking those classes, I realize that not only was I deluded, but I was led into an absurd intellectual alcove where objective truth is subordinate to academic theories used as political propaganda.

Indeed, since knowledge itself is considered a patriarchal construct, feminist theories are the organizing principles of classes.

The theoretical backbone of women’s studies is grounded in three main conjectures: that of the patriarchy, intersectional oppression, and social constructionism.

None of these contentions can be proven or falsified. Yet, as a student, good grades are contingent on agreeing with them. So what do they actually represent?

No theory is more fundamental to academic feminism than the theory of the patriarchy.  Quite simply — and perhaps too simply — patriarchy is the theory that there is a regime of institutionalized male control over women.

Male control, and thus, its logical consequence — female oppression — is the foundational theory my classes were structured on.

But while patriarchy theory debuted in Kate Millet’s book Sexual Politics (1970), feminists soon realized that oppression didn’t exist just along the lines of gender.

Almost 20 years later, in 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw challenged the notion of oppression existing on just the “single categorical axis” of gender. She introduced another axis of oppression: race.

This led the path for intersectional, or inter-axis, oppression. But why just analyse oppression through the vectors of race and gender?

The hidden message of intersectional oppression is clear: oppression is everywhere. Perhaps you think this is an exaggeration. Surely women’s studies do not teach that oppression is “everywhere,” does it? (Yes, it does.)

So, if you’re not finding oppression: look harder.  The unfortunate consequence of this theory is that oppression will be found everywhere — even where it doesn’t exist.

Finally, the last theory my classes were predicated on is “social constructionism.” According to this theory, everything we can observe, such as gender differences, are because people have “constructed” them. Culture matters.

While this doctrine can yield valuable insights, it also engenders women’s studies’ biggest blind-spot: biology. Social constructionism theory was meant to subvert the former prominence of biological determinism, but perhaps it worked a little too well.

Decades ago, popular thinking was biology caused gender differences, nothing else. Now, the pendulum in theorizing has shifted. Nay, biology doesn’t determine fate, but culture.

Men are violent not because of hormones, but because of socialization into “toxic masculinity.” And women, who are more nurturing, do so because of sexist conditioning, says social constructionism.

In fact, merely mentioning biological differences can be wrongthink. Or worse, as I learned in one of my classes, it can be upsetting to genderqueer or transgender students. Thus, some of the root causes of what makes men and women differ — hormonal, neurological, and biological differences — is left out of the discussion.

Mentioning dissident academics is also wrongthink. For example, during a discussion on intersex individuals, I earnestly recalled an article I read by well-known academic Alice Dreger. “Transphobic and problematic,” my professor tisked.

We were also taught that our personal experiences were forms of knowledge, “lived experience.” This is why discussions that began with students rhapsodizing on feminist theory often devolved into emotional overindulgence. Class discussions trend towards group-therapy sessions. In fact, this is why my syllabi have often employed disclaimers telling students that “what is said in the classroom, stays in the classroom.”

In all, the thick academic prose of feminist scholars confers gravitas to what otherwise could resemble political propaganda. “The patriarchy is the root cause of everything! Fight it now!”… if only the word patriarchy was replaced with capitalism, it’d be similar to communist propaganda.

It’s no coincidence that many of my former professors had academic backgrounds in Marxism. In fact, it makes sense now, since redistribution of privilege (and not just capital) is an imperative for a utopian post-oppression society.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting that my professors are bad people. They’re not, and as people, I respect them tremendously. My concern is not with them, but with the subject content itself.

Oppression does indeed exist. But, oppression is complicated, far more complicated than can be distilled in an undergraduate academic setting.  And teaching students how to view the world through the lens of oppression isn’t just dangerous, but cruel. Nothing is more oppressive than having your professors teach you that you’re a victim.

Toni Airaksinen is a rising junior at Barnard College in Manhattan. She has previously written for Allthink and The Columbia Spectator. She tweets @Toni_Airaksinen

Flawed Methodology of Gender Pay Gap


Related Research:
Women Earn 98% As Much As Men – The Economist
Women & Men Are Paid Almost the Same Amount
In Major Cities Women Are Paid More Than Men
Gender Wage Gap’s Built on Flawed Methodology & Misuse of Statistics
Canadian Women Are Not Victims of Gender Wage Gap, But Their Choices
Gender Pay Gap is (Almost) Non-Existent – The Economist
Six Feminist Myths That Will Not Die


Is Medicare Paying Doctors Unfairly Based On Gender?

Chuck Dinerstein
American Council on Health and Science

A recent TIME magazine article highlighted a study which declared that Medicare pays nearly $19,000 less to female doctors. Since the government has stressed equal pay, this sounds alarming.

But is it accurate? The paper by Tejas Desai et al., in Post Graduate Medical Journal, looked at thirteen medical specialties using the Center for Medicare Services (CMS) public data files on part B (physician payments) for 2012. They concluded, “After adjustment for how hard a physician works, his/her years of experience and his/her productivity, female healthcare providers are still reimbursed less than male providers.”

This may get attention from journalists and those with confirmation bias, but it fails the critical thinking test among anyone who has dealt with CMS. The system may have flaws but it is impossible to be anything but gender-blind in making payments. Those are instead based on Relative Value Units (RVUs); a system designed to quantify the amount of effort a physician makes in providing a specific service.

RVUs are a controversial method, but now they are a healthcare standard. In simple terms, the greater the effort or medical complexity, the higher the RVU value. That value is multiplied by a conversion factor, itself modified by the regions cost of labor, malpractice and other physician costs, to arrive at a Medicare payment.

There is no way to adjust for experience, productivity or gender.

So how did the Desai paper reach its conclusion? Rather than use RVUs as a measure of work they used a surrogate, number of patients seen. The volume of patients cared for makes superficial common sense but it does not take into account the varying intensity of services provided. Their surrogate value actually eliminates CMS’s adjustment for complexity — the RVU. Similarly, their surrogate measure of productivity, number of services provided, eliminates complexity. Oddly, they equate productivity with volume, making no effort to consider the amount of varying work involved — exactly the opposite of medical reality and the RVU system.

In short, they created a straw man and got a prominent national magazine to claim it is real.

When you recognize the flaw in their surrogate measures, you can see that female healthcare providers instead were more likely to provide services of lower complexity (smaller RVUs) but even that is really irrelevant when it comes to males or females. It is the providers or their electronic medical records (tuned to code services at the highest RVU level possible) that tell CMS the service they provided, there is no gender factor.

Of course, we can ask why female doctors provide more lower complexity service; we can try and determine whether women routinely under-value their services or if they are more inclined to go into healthcare with smaller RVUs that nonetheless have a great deal of benefit to the public.

What can’t be done, and shouldn’t have been done, is concluding that CMS is discriminating in payments to women.


Dr. Charles Dinerstein, M.D., M.B.A., F.A.C.S. is Senior Medical Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. A retired vascular surgeon, he also writes a “more philosophic” blog at SurgicalAnalytics.com


“Feminist Edit-a-Thon” Ruins Wikipedia


Related:
Wikipedia Bias: Men’s Rights Movement Started in 1856, Not 1970s. 


Personally, I would like to see more women participate in Wikipedia, but women don’t equal feminism. We don’t need ideological “Feminist Edit-a-Thon.” Not all women are feminists. 


The objectivity of Wikipedia is being destroyed by organized ideological groups like “Feminist Edit-A-Thon” whose aim is to reshape facts they don’t agree with and substitute objective truth with crackpot theories from mentally unemployed gender studies professors.


“Feminist Edit-a-Thon” Ruins Wikipedia

An edit-a-thon (sometimes written editathon) is an organized event where editors of online communities such as Wikipedia edit and ‘improve’ a specific topic or type of content, typically including basic editing training for new editors. 

A “Feminist Edit-a-Thon” seeks to reshape Wikipedia by skewing controversial articles into feminist point of view. 

They use exclusively feminist sources from gender studies “theory” books to counter legitimate arguments of anything related to men’s rights or men’s issues.

They are also very active in editing gender related article to promote “theories” of gender fluidity and normalize gender related mental disorders by providing crackpot scientific sources associated with the heavily discredited ‘feminist science’.

So, why would anyone need this”Feminist Edit-a-Thon”? Well,  in 2011, (that’s 7 years ago) an internal study estimated that less than 10 percent of Wikipedia editors are female. And since then, feminists yelled “Discrimination!”, “Gender Gap!“, and some radical feminists like Sue Gardner, then executive director of the foundation, referred to Wikipedia’s male editors are “Misogynists!

In 2013, the results of the survey were challenged by Hill and Shaw using corrective estimation techniques [of the same study that was published in 2011] to suggest upward corrections to the data from the survey and to recommend updates to the statistics being surveyed, giving 22.7% for adult US female editors.

Has anything nothing changed in the past 7 years? We don’t know. No recent studies have been conducted.

Personally, I would like to see more women participate in Wikipedia, but women don’t equal feminism. We don’t need ideological “Feminist Edit-a-Thon.” Not all women are feminists. 

The objectivity of Wikipedia is being destroyed by organized ideological groups like “Feminist Edit-A-Thon” whose aim is to reshape facts they don’t agree with and substitute objective truth with crackpot theories from mentally unemployed gender studies professors.

In 2014, the Feminist-infested National Science Foundation spent $200,000 to study the so called “systemic gender bias” on Wikipedia. Wow! What a waste of money.

So, why don’t we see more women editing Wikipedia pages? It’s a choice, not a discrimination.

For example, Susan C. Herring, a professor of information science and linguistics, said that she was not surprised by the Wikipedia contributors gender gap. She said that the often contentious nature of Wikipedia article “talk” pages, where article content is discussed, is unappealing to many women, “if not outright intimidating.”

Joseph M. Reagle reacted similarly, saying that the combination of a “culture of hacker elitism,” combined with the disproportionate effect of high-conflict members (a minority) on the community atmosphere, can make it unappealing. He said, “the ideology and rhetoric of freedom and openness can then be used (a) to suppress concerns about inappropriate or offensive speech as “censorship” and (b) to rationalize low female participation as simply a matter of their personal preference and choice.”

Justine Cassell said that although women are as knowledgeable as men, and as able to defend their point of view, “it is still the case in American society that debate, contention, and vigorous defense of one’s position is often still seen as a male stance, and women’s use of these speech styles can call forth negative evaluations.”

Men’s Rights Movement Started in 1856, Not 1970s

Men’s Studies Department
A Brief History of The Men’s Rights Movement 

From 1856 to the present
By Peter Wright

A Brief History of The Men's Rights Movement (From 1856 to the present) by Peter Wright.png


Related:
Feminist Edit-A-Thon Ruins Wikipedia


Peter Wright

Men's Rights MovementThe Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) consists of groups or individuals fighting for improved human rights for men. Historically these groups consisted of men and women agitating for corrections to anti-male customs and laws, for the right of men to live traditional or alternative male roles, and to challenge the growing misandry that was attacking that freedom of choice via its manipulation of the social and legal environment. The accompanying and no less important of its aims has been to challenged the narratives and customs rooted in mainstream culture which have reinforced misandric attitudes.

The purpose of the MRM has occasionally been misunderstood, this because it has been poorly documented thus allowing the worst of false caricatures to inform researchers. To address the lack of documentation this book attempts to provide a brief overview of both the historical beginnings and goals of the movement.

Moreover, in the absence of a reliable overview the MRM has been vulnerable to annexing by gender-studies proponents who claim the first men’s movement was launched in the 1970s by second wave feminists. For example, the current Wikipedia entry on the men’s rights movement has suffered censorship of any material from the now century-long tradition of men’s rights activism addressing issues such as unfair divorce law, alimony, criminal sentencing and the like. In place of that long tradition the opening sentence of the Wikipedia article, one enforced by Wikipedia administrative editors, reads:

“The men’s rights movement (MRM) is a part of the larger men’s movement. It branched off from the men’s liberation movement in the early 1970s.”

Few serious scholars would accept that the MRM began in the 1970s, there being numerous examples of well-organized MR activism extending back into the 1800s (See Parts 1-3). Moreover, the ‘men’s liberation movement’ cited in the Wikipedia article was in fact a feminist initiative launched to foster more pro-feminist ideology among men, with the latter movement arising within the National Organization for Women.

The longevity of the MRM has been largely overlooked due to successful efforts to censor its existence. Such censorship is not new, being also described more than 100 years ago by men’s rights advocate Ernest B. Bax who wrote about efforts to block the circulation of his pamphlet on the legal disadvantages and discrimination suffered by men. Bax referred to censorship from “the influential feminist sisterhood” as being well known among publishers:

“[Socialist-feminists say] the pamphlet The Legal Subjection of Men — in which the present state of the law and its administration between the sexes is given — should be suppressed, and also in the representations made to the Editor from a ‘Women’s Committee’ of the body that I should be muzzled and any statements of mine adverse to Feminism be excluded from the party organs.” [Women’s Privileges and “Rights”, Social Democrat, Vol13 no.9, September (1909), pp.385-391]

“The apostles of feminism, being unable to make a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known.” [The Fraud of Feminism, (1913), pp.1-2]

As with the examples provided by Bax, the effort to censure men’s voices has continued through all three waves of feminism, as witnessed with the release of the contemporary MRM documentary The Red Pill, for example, which saw groups of feminists threaten and harass venues worldwide that had agreed to screen the documentary — venues which later reneged as a result of the intimidation.

For the purpose of fighting for free speech there has always existed a strand within the MRM that pushes back against examples of feminist censorship. Aside from that pushback, attacking feminism has never been the main goal of the movement despite claims by some that the MRM is “nothing but an antifeminist backlash.”

A brief survey of the last 100 years reveals that the MRM is concerned more directly with issues impacting men and boys such as alimony, genital mutilation of male infants, male homelessness, mental illness, false accusations, family court bias, suicide, child custody, low funding for male health issues, educational performance, and misandry in mainstream culture just to name a few. To that list I would personally like to see the history of workers unions added, which strived for humane and better working conditions for men, for what are early workers unions if not examples of organized men’s rights activism? That addition would see the longevity and scope of the MRM vastly extended, a project unfortunately too ambitious for the current small volume. Hopefully an author of the future will consider expanding the account with latter addition in mind.

The following pages provide examples of the early MRM in action, focusing in Parts 1-3 on the rise of men’s advocacy in the 1800s. In Part four, I provide a sample list of men’s rights initiatives from the 1800s to recent times, and Part five provides a few personal and co-authored essays penned between the years 2012-2017 that give a taste of contemporary thinking, with the concluding essay by Robert Brockway giving a general overview of concerns of the modern MRM.

With the publication of this material in one volume it is hoped that the historical record of the MRM will be set straight.

Peter Wright, July 2017.


You can order this book from Amazon.