Pourtant, il ne les a pas menacées. Il n'a fait aucun commentaire de nature sexuelle. Il était simplement en désaccord avec ce qu'elles ont écrit sur Twitter.
Elles ont tenté de le faire bannir de Twitter. Elle lui ont fait perdre son job. Elles ont comploté et songé à le faire accuser de pédophilie (l'ultime talon d'Achille de tous les hommes, comme chacun sait) et ça n'a pas marché. Alors elles ont décidé de le poursuivre pour harcèlement.
Pour les féministes, la liberté d'expression est un concept qui ne s'applique apparemment pas aux hommes.
Cliquez ici pour plus de détails:
These are astonishing repercussions given that it’s not alleged he ever threatened either woman (or any other, according to the testimony of the Toronto Police officer, Detective Jeff Bangild, who was in charge) or that he ever sexually harassed them. Indeed, Elliott’s chief sin appears to have been that he dared to disagree with the two young feminists and political activists.
(...) As serious as the ramifications of a conviction could be for Elliott, so could they be dire for free speech online, Murphy suggested in his final arguments.
He said the idea that all it takes to end up charged with criminal harassment is vigorous participation in online debate with those who will not brook dissent “will have a chilling effect on people’s ability to communicate, and not just on Twitter”.
In fact, Murphy said that contrary to what Guthrie and Reilly testified to at trial, they weren’t afraid of his client — as suggested by both their spirited demeanour in the witness box and their deliberate online campaign to call Elliott out as a troll. Rather, Murphy said, they hated Elliott and were determined to silence him— not just by “blocking” his Tweets to them, but by demanding he cease even referring to them even in making comment about heated political issues.
(...) The criminal harassment charge is rooted in the alleged victim’s perception of the offending conduct. The statute says if that conduct caused the alleged victims “reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety”, that’s good enough.
Yet Guthrie and Reilly didn’t behave as though they were remotely frightened or intimidated: They convened a meeting of friends to discuss how Elliott should be publicly shamed; they bombarded their followers with furious tweets and retweets about him (including a grotesque suggestion from someone pretending she was a 13-year-old that he was a pedophile); they could and did dish it out.
“They were not vulnerable,” Murphy said once. “They are very accomplished, politically savvy women. If they can’t handle being mentioned in the tail end of a political discussion (on Twitter), then they’re in the wrong business.”
And, he said, of the meeting both women attended in August of 2012, to discuss how Elliott would be called out, “That was a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence … they were conspiring to go out and publicly shame Mr. Elliott.”
Avec cette initiative des libéraux au Québec, je pense qu'on peut véritablement affirmer que la liberté d'expression est sérieusement menacée dans ce pays...