Feminist Lynchings

Culture Wars, Essay, Philip Carl Salzman

It has become an almost daily experience in Canada and the United States for a man to be accused of sexual misconduct by a woman, often anonymous, and for an almost immediate pile-on of haters among friends (soon to be ex-friends), colleagues, acquaintances, and perfect strangers, including officials of the man’s place of employment, in person, by letter, by poster, on social media, adding every accusation the mind can imagine, including the vilest. A man accused of having a sexual relationship with a forbidden partner, a colleague or subordinate, is quickly denounced as a harasser, a violent attacker, and a rapist. Feminists have done a brilliant job in their war against men: a glance or polite invitation by a man is now defined as “sexual assault” and equated with violent rape. Unsubstantiated accusations are treated as proven guilt. Due process is dismissed as male supremacy. Every accusation results in automatic mob hysteria, from even the most allegedly reputable and responsible sources.

Feminists champion women by attacking men as both a category and as individuals. Destroying the reputation of men and masculinity appears to feminists to be a direct line to their goal of female supremacy. Criteria of truth and justice are deemed by feminists as outmoded tools of male oppression. Feminists continue to cry victimhood while taking control in many spheres of life, notably in universities and schools, where they are able to indoctrinate future generations. Young women are taught that they live in a “rape culture”, that they should fear all men, who without exception are violent oppressors of women. Thus female fear becomes feminist hate.

Following are four cases of feminist lynching, in which men are tried and condemned in the court of public opinion and by university officials without benefit of the presumption of innocence, without evidence and substantiation being presented to support the accusations, and without the right of defending themselves:

Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim

Ahmed Fekry Ibrahim is a McGill University Assistant Professor of Islamic Studies who specializes in Islamic Law. Ibrahim had a consensual relationship with a McGill student for about a year in 2014-15. A year later, a campaign was initiated to keep him from being renewed; in effect, to fire him. In the fall of 2017, according to CBC News, an anonymous group on campus called Zero Tolerance McGill posted “stickers … in McGill bathrooms alleging that Ibrahim was a sexual predator. Similar allegations were also made in McGill’s student newspaper.” Ibrahim’s lawyer, Julius Grey, said that “people are being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion with little to no evidence and without a hearing.”

Ibrahim’s tenure application at McGill was denied, and he will have to leave McGill. Ibrahim says the allegations destroyed his reputation, his right to privacy, and “have made him a pariah in his academic field, ruining his job prospects at McGill and other universities in North America.”

Ibrahim has brought a lawsuit for $600,000 against student Sarah Abdelshamy and Assistant Professor Pasha Khan for the “vendetta” against him. According to the lawsuit, “Khan repeatedly warned female students to stay away from Ibrahim to avoid being subjected to sexually inappropriate behaviour.” Abdelshamy, with whom Ibrahim allegedly had a dispute over the Quebec City mosque killings and islamophobia, “wrote an article in the student newspaper about the incident and started a petition to get Ibrahim fired.” Abdelshamy’s lawyer defended her right to denounce conduct she deems inappropriate.

The Students’ Society of McGill “strongly condemned the lawsuit, throwing its support behind Abdelshamy and Khan. ‘It is blatant intimidation in response to the ability of student to speak out and protect each other from sexual violence when our institution has failed us repeatedly,’ the statement reads.” The fact that the only “evidence” was third party tittle-tattle, and that even the accusations against Ibrahim never mentioned sexual violence, did not inhibit the Student Society from ranting about sexual violence. As the lawsuit says, “‘He is now considered a sexual abuser, a harasser, a rapist and a shady individual, “despite the fact that the relationship was consensual between two adults.

Patrick Brown

Patrick Brown was elected leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. He was not universally popular in the caucus; failed candidates for the leadership and members politically to his right were disappointed with the results of the vote. If opportunities arose to attack, undermine, and replace him, there were a number of enthusiastic Party members ready to take them.

There were allegations of serious irregularities in a nomination battle that could perhaps be attributed to Brown. But the coup de grâce was sexual misconduct allegations. Exactly why these were brought to light at this particular time is unclear, as is whether they were solicited by some party. The allegation were anonymous; neither of the two accusers revealed their identities.

The first accuser wrote that “‘I was the age 17-18 I know I was for sure underage’ when she ended up at Brown’s house ‘for some drinks’ after a night out. He asked if she would like a tour of his house. When they got to the bedroom, he requested oral sex. After briefly indulging his request, she decided that she did not want to continue, and stopped. They then left the bedroom. This accuser withdrew her claim that she was in high school and underage: “the woman had realized she had erred in her recollection of the date.” According to CBC, “An acquaintance of Brown who was allegedly present on the night of the incident in question also contradicted parts of the accuser’s retelling of the allegations. A second accuser, a former staffer of Brown’s, claimed that he forced himself on her during a party at his house in 2013. But an ex-girlfriend of Brown came forward to contradict that allegation. There was never a hearing about the allegations, no evidence was ever presented, and no opportunity to defend himself and present contrary evidence was available to Brown.

Shortly after the news reports of these unsubstantiated allegations, members of Brown’s staff and also members of the caucus advised him to resign, and when he refused and denied the accusations, the senior members of his staff quit. Shortly after, Brown resigned, and later was removed from the PC caucus, and now sits in the legislature as an independent.

Brown has launched a lawsuit in the amount of $8,000,000 against CTV and certain of its reporters and producers. The statement of claim reads, The widespread and sensationalized broadcast and publication of the defamatory words delivered an almost immediate death blow to Mr. Brown’s reputation and political career. Within hours, Mr. Brown was forced to resign as Leader of the ON PC Party, his rising political aspirations shattered.

Steven Galloway

A distinguished, award-winning Canadian novelist, a long-term professor at the University of British Columbia, Steven Galloway was accused in 2015 of sexual assault by an anonymous graduate student. She accused him of groping, choking, and raping her in 2012. That accusation was modified to three sexual assaults in 2011, in a different location. According to Galloway, the accusation mirrored one that she had made about a man who was interviewing for a job—how likely is it someone hoping for a job offer to assault a person interviewing them?—which was fully supported by Steven Galloway, who helped to insure that the man did not get the job.

As it turned out, the accuser, whose identity has been withheld from the public, but who was older than Galloway and had served as a professor, had an extra-marital affair with Galloway for two years, 2011-2012. Both were married.

According to the National Post, “In the fall of 2015, Galloway was suspended as chair of the Creative Writing Program at the University of British Columbia for unspecified “serious allegations.” By the summer of 2016, he had been fired over what the university called an “irreparable breach of trust.”

Galloway is shocked at the “hatred and gleeful malice” directed at himself, his family, and anyone who has defended his right to a fair consideration and justice. His friends and colleagues at UBC turned against him, as did many in the Canadian literary community. A University of Alberta professor included her hatred of Galloway in her official university biography, and hosted “a live-tweeted ‘academic’ conference in which [he] was called a rapist and compared to Robert Pickton.”

A friend of the complainant, who was a graduate of the UBC writing program, and a novelist, decided to help her friend by finding others with similar complaints. UBC allowed her to use university letterhead stationery to solicit complaints. Seven complaints were forthcoming, all from friends of the complainant, none of which alleged any sexual assault. Galloway says, that many good people he knew, when “faced with untruths, … responded with malice.” Furthermore, people he never had met claimed that he treated them badly, and students who had never taken a course with him claimed that he did not help them.

Even more remarkable, distinguished feminists and authors who supported Galloway’s demand for due process and justice were viciously attacked—Margaret Atwood was repeatedly called “a rape apologist,” and was called a “‘shitty white woman’ by a professor in the SFU publishing program in her university-sanctioned podcast on feminism.” According to Galloway, “writers, predominantly women, have been blacklisted from conferences, lost publishing and teaching opportunities, and been professionally ostracized for the crime of not instantly condemning me.” He goes on to say that “It is not an offence to survivors of assault, to women, to feminism, for me to be innocent of the claims made about me.”

UBC asked retired BC Supreme Court Judge, Justice Mary Ellen Boyd, to investigate the allegations. After a five month investigation, she determined that she was “‘unable to find’” that any of the allegations happened, even on the basis of “the balance of probabilities,” the lowest standard of proof used in any judgement.  She also found that none of the ancillary complaints indicated any form of misconduct. The Justice concluded that the novelist who solicited additional complaints was “‘a biased witness, who has perceived every minor incident here through her own biased lens. I am unable to place much, if any, weight on her evidence.” According to the National Post,  Justice Boyd awarded Galloway $167,000, ruling that UBC has violated his privacy rights and damaged his reputation.

Did UBC man up and admit that they were wrong to fire Galloway? On the contrary, as Galloway says, “the university has gone to … great lengths to hide the fact that one of their professors was cleared of sexual assault charges. In the current climate, exoneration is a PR nightmare.”

Marcus Knight

As egregiously nasty as the previous cases discussed are, the situation of Marcus Knight is stunning in its void of empathy. Knight is a student at Saddleback College, part of the California Community College system. Knight functions under serious disabilities; he has autism, cerebral palsy, and a shunt to relieve fluid pressure on his brain. According to his mother, he has limited abilities to express himself, and can find it difficult to negotiate social situations.

But Knight does want to be “normal” and to make friends. At the beginning of classes in fall 2017, he was in the Student Services Office, and asked a female student working there if he could “fist bump” her. She agreed, but then later filed a complaint under Title IX of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids sexual harassment and sexual violence. A month later she reported the incident as sexual harassment and, in a college meeting with the Vice President of Student Services and Title IX Coordinator, at which police were present, she changed her story and claimed that Marcus hugged her, sat very close to her, grabbed her with one hand, and with the other tried to get her hands onto his upper thighs. Knight and his mother suggested that this behavior was impossible even for an agile person, as the female student was sitting behind a counter at the time of the fist bump. Although Knight was never given an opportunity to formally defend himself, college staff required him to sign an informal resolution of sexual harassment and forbade him to have contact with the female student. Throughout this process, Knight was not offered disability accommodation to assist him. Knight was further required to have a “personal student assistant” with him in classes, which his single parent mother was required to pay for.

A second occasion occurred at midterm. Marcus asked a female student who was in the college’s musical theatre program with him if he could take a selfie with her. According to Knight’s mother, Knight’s assistant approved him asking the question, and the female student said yes. On the first of December, a charge letter arrived from the college indicating that the female student reported this incident as sexual harassment. She said that Knight “forcefully placed [his] hand on her shoulder while taking a selfie with her.” The Title IX Coordinator accused Knight of taking 300 unauthorized pictures of the female student. The pictures were in fact of both the student and Knight, and the number were a result of the “burst” function of the camera, which was unintentionally turned on. In March the college announced that Knight was responsible for sexual harassment and was suspended. A hearing was set for June at which Knight was going to be supported by eighteen character witnesses, but the college called off the meeting and removed the suspension, but leaving on his record the sexual misconduct judgement, and continuing to require an assistant accompany him at all times.

It appears that whenever a female complains about sexual harassment, however dubious, unsubstantiated, and indecent the accusation is, everyone assumes that what she says is honest, true, and correct. College officials do not believe in a presumption of innocence of the accused or due process, and impose penalties, no matter how unjustified and inhumane. And it appears that “social justice” for the disabled, so loudly proclaimed by self-righteous social justice warriors, does not apply to disabled males. Because, of course, to feminists, all males are oppressors and abusers, even those in wheelchairs, and females are always their suffering victims.

Conclusion

Do not imagine that the feminist war is against only bad men. The feminist war is against all men. The object is to degrade and demote men, and replace them with females. Any and all means will be used: claims of victimhood, pleas for justice, dishonest representation, and false allegations and accusations. Some feminists have claimed to favour gender equality, but that is an attempted obfuscation of the real goal, female supremacy.

Wait, you say, if that is true, why have so many men identified with feminism and sided with feminist tactics? Perhaps there are many motives, such as the man in the apocryphal story who fed his dog, his children, and his wife to the crocodile, in hopes that the crocodile would be too full to eat him. Or, to take an historical example, as Martin Niemöller put it,

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Some men have joined the bandwagon of feminist and social justice ideology, accepting the equation of male=oppressor and female=victim, and honestly believe that anything that a woman says should be believed. These men are deluded, and they will no doubt be very surprised when their time as a blood sacrifice comes.

Many women have thought of themselves as feminists because they wanted to be treated fairly, to have equal opportunities with men, and to be judged on the basis of their talents and achievements. And their efforts, which I endorse, have resulted in greater gender equality in Western society. But women who have thought of themselves as feminists, even such feminist icons as Margaret Atwood, need to consider the presence today of unprincipled partisanship and virulent gender hate in contemporary feminism, and decide whether they are ready to support the rejection of fairness, truth, and justice.

View the entire PDF with footnotes: EF42FeministLynchings