Writers protest free speech at Toronto Library
It’s truly amazing how many libraries in Canada just can’t get with the idea that they need to police and restrict speech. The Vancouver Public Library came under attack for hosting an event with notorious gender critical feminist Meghan Murphy, and now the Toronto Public Library is being set upon by a petition of writers who, what else, don’t want Murphy to speak. Yet Murphy’s talk, “Gender Identity: What Does It Mean for Society, the Law and Women?” hosted by Radical Feminists Unite, is sold out.
Murphy’s biggest crime is believing that sex is not mutable, that biological sex trumps gender identity. For this she has dealt with aggressive protests, was banned on Twitter, and has been deplatformed numerous times. This time, it’s the brave writers of Canada, namely Alicia Elliot, Catherine Hernandez, and Carrianne Leung who feel the “need to share [their] disappointment” that the Library is hosting this event. They have demanded that Meghan Murphy be deplatformed. Additionally, they have expressed their surety that deplatforming is not a violation of free speech.
Notorious trans rights activist and alleged child sex predator Jessica Yaniv has made yet another dubious claim. This time, Yaniv has accused The Post Millennial’s Amy Eileen Hamm of sexual assault.
In a post to Twitter late Wednesday night, Yaniv accused Hamm of misconduct at a British Columbia courthouse. The misconduct would have taken place while Yaniv was appearing in court on weapons charges.
In the tweet, Yaniv also accuses the B.C. Provincial Court, the B.C. Sheriff’s department, and the B.C. RCMP of doing “nothing” about the assault.
“They are investigating that, but put that BITCH behind bars,” tweeted Yaniv. “She HURTS PEOPLE and the #LGBTQ Yes I am furious.”
Yaniv falsely accused Hamm of photographing her in the women’s washroom during a recess in her recent court appearance—an accusation that the authorities on the scene were quick to dismiss.
The weapons charges stem from a livestream with YouTuber and TPM columnist Blaire White where Yaniv was attempting to clear her name of allegations against her for sexual misconduct with minors and ended up brandishing illegal weapons.
The Post Millennial reached out to Hamm, who said,“During court recess, I entered the women’s washroom and saw JY standing in the common area. I immediately backed out of the room, fearing for my own safety and not wanting to be confined in a small room with this person.”
This latest false allegation comes only days after a video of Yaniv actually assaulting reporter Keean Bexte went viral on Twitter.
Yaniv rose to prominence after filing 16 human rights complains with the provincial human rights tribunal wherein she accused numerous salons and salon workers of transphobia for their reluctance and eventual refusal to wax Yaniv’s male genitalia.
All salons that Yaniv accused of transphobia had specifically told Yaniv that they only provided their service to female genitalia. At the time of the waxing conundrum, Yaniv was still using her given male name on social media, which could have caused all the more confusion for the estheticians
Navigating dating and being transgender is something that most people tend to find difficulty with. The media has imprinted in our minds the caricature of the very “obvious” trans person who you probably recognize quickly at a dinner date may not have been born the gender they’re presenting as, but what happens when trans people have reached the point of “passability”? Is it their responsibility to disclose their trans status to their date? If so, when is the right and wrong time? How serious is it? Let’s break it down.
I’m transgender myself, but I’ve also been a public figure online throughout my entire transition. Because of that, I thankfully have never gone into a date or relationship with it as a secret—how could I? One Google search spills all my beans! However, I’ve witnessed a huge amount of trans people within the community completely mishandle love, sex, and their trans status. Make no mistake—it is absolutely deceptive to lie or omit your biological sex to your romantic partner.
As far as sex goes, you absolutely must disclose that you are transgender before being intimate with someone. Get it out of the way! It is your partner’s right to know that sort of history before proceeding with anything physical. Far too many trans people, particularly trans women, have experienced beatings or even murder for the age-old cliché of “tricking” a man and having sex with him. You should be prioritizing not only honesty for your partner’s sex but for your own safety. Anything can happen in the heat of the moment, and the harsh reality is that not everyone wants to have sex with a trans person. Even someone of the folks that do want to have sex with a trans person may still be struggling with their attraction and lash out. It’s not about victim shaming, either- it’s about avoiding this danger altogether.
Of course, there’s nuance as well. A simple, wholesome dinner date isn’t the same as sex. Many trans people struggle with the right moment to disclose their history. Should it be on the first date? The second? The third? Here’s my opinion—honesty is always the best policy.
It’s in the best interest of you and your date to tell them before you even sit down and meet. This has become increasingly easy with the rise of online dating. Put it in your bio or send it as a text from the safety of your own home! You should want to weed out the people who wouldn’t be interested in dating a trans person in the first place. Any type of relationship, whether it’s romantic or even a friendship, is built upon honesty. If you go into a situation with someone with secrets at the very beginning, you’re dooming the relationship.
Maybe you’ll get lucky and get away with not disclosing your history at the beginning, but maybe you’re setting yourself up for a dangerous situation that could have been avoided had you just told your truth. Remember that!
Students can now get paid to snitch on their peers at the University of Sheffield. The students will earn £9.34/hour to be “race equality champions,” and their training for the work will include teaching them how to “lead healthy conversations” on racism, microaggressions, and how to deal with those peers who commit infractions. Hours range from two to nine hours per week, like any part-time work-study job. But Sheffield University’s foray into “snitch culture” sounds alarm bells.
Following a report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that cautioned about the “common occurrence” of racism for some students on campus, the University decided to combat the problem by weaponizing other students. Twenty, lucky kids will get this job, and it’s probable that plenty more would have done it for free, as have their authoritarian forebears.
This new job, such as it is, is rightfully being hailed as completely authoritarian and crazy. Anyone who has studied 20th-century history knows that the worst dictators and totalitarians of that era counted on citizens to report on one another, under threat of punishment if they did not.
Citizens in the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Spain, and other nations with brutal, paranoid leaders impressed upon their citizens how important it was that they rat out their friends, family, and co-workers.
Now that trend has some to the ultimate allied nation, the U.K. The students who take these jobs will undoubtedly think they are doing the right thing in carrying out their duties. But in trying to overcome racism, they are dividing them further.
Part of the job description is for students to call out their peers for microaggressions.
If a fellow student says to another “Stop making everything a race issue,” that’s considered a microaggression and is a reason for reporting under this new plan. If a student says “Why are you searching for things to be offended about?” That’s considered “not okay,” and that peer must be punished. The question “Where are you really from?” is apparently out of bounds, and other geographical infractions like “I don’t want to hear about your holiday to South Africa. It’s nowhere near where I’m from” is a reason to call out a kid for being racist.
Students complained about the microaggression of “Being compared to black celebrities that I look nothing like,” which would be pretty annoying for the kid who got that wrong, but is it a reason to be reported?
The University of Sheffield claims that they are just “opening up a conversation” by paying students “to help their peers understand racism and its impact.” In 2018, the University suffered some racially motivated incidents, with racial slurs found written on a whiteboard, and slurs yelled at games.
Of course, there’s no place for racism on campuses, but the way to root it out is through education and conversation, not monetized McCarthyism. Call-out culture, snitch culture, and the reframing of the conversation around how to control our thoughts does not alleviate racism; it buries it where it can fester.
Fighting racism is a positive project, but it’s not done through dividing us, through pitting peers against each other, but through a culture of egalitarianism and equality. Knowing that we are different is not as important as recognizing all the ways in which we are the same.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is going ahead with legal proceedings against the University of British Columbia after the Canadian university refused to reinstate Andy Ngo’s speaking engagement on antifa violence.
The JCCF issued a press release that stated: “The Free Speech Club and UBC entered into a contract on November 25, 2019 to hold the event, and the club paid the required booking deposit. The UBC Executive unilaterally cancelled the event in December 2019, stating in an email shortly before Christmas that this was necessary due to concerns ‘about the safety and security of our campus community.’ No specific concerns were stated. If UBC had safety concerns, it did not communicate any specific concerns to The Free Speech Club, or make efforts to address such concerns.”
The JCCF previously sent UBC a letter demanding that the event be reinstated. Lawyer Marty Moore stated that “UBC’s decision effectively punishes a victim of violence by banning him from speaking at UBC, in what appears to be an attempt to appease the violent group antifa.”
Ngo, who is the Editor-at-large for The Post Millennial, said, “The appropriate response to violent extremists who threaten access to information in the academy is not to give in to their demands by cancelling the event. As is demonstrated over-and-over elsewhere, appeasing Antifa ideologues only emboldens them to make more demands. Their goal is to silence opposition through intimidation and violence.”