An anti-feminist pick up artist, reviled across the political spectrum, has cancelled a series of meetings around the world scheduled for this Saturday claiming he “can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend”.
He had received openly violent threats from feminists worldwide, and British Members of Parliament have even lobbied for new legislation outlawing all “anti-woman” “hate speech” to criminalise his planned visit.
Daryush Valizadeh, commonly know a Roosh V, runs a website called The Return of Kings, which has a cult-like following and announced worldwide “tribal meetings” last week, nine of them in the UK.
The meetings caused instant outrage around the globe. Feminists argued that he would “incite rape”, and began a veracious campaign far exceeding anything seen in reaction to the the very real rapes in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.
The planned events made front-page news in Newcastle, Manchester, and Scotland. Nearly 80,000 people signed an online petition calling for him to be banned from the country, and protesters began mobilising in case he should he make it to these shores.
Demonstration organisers in Glasgow promised that men attending the events would “have the pish ripped right out of them”, with Mr. Valizadeh claiming to have received more threats from the Scottish city than “everywhere else combined.”
Pro-rape 'men's network' cancels its meetups because of threats. And now they know what it feels like to be unsafe in public space.
— Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) February 4, 2016
Roosh V’s views on sex and gender relations are archaic by all accounts. He writes about intercourse in a brutish manner, straddling grey areas in such a way that it is not always clear how literally he should be taken. His writing is risky and unsavory, but as yet far from illegal.
The mainstream press have labeled him “pro rape” because of a widely criticised article he wrote last year, calling for the legalisation of rape on private property as a way of “defeat[ing] rape culture”. He has insisted the post was satirical.
What Mr. Valizadeh has never done, however, is make open threats and flagrant incitements to violence or attempt to silence his opponents.
Opportunist left leaning British MPs wasted no time in hijacking the public outrage, employing his case to agitate for new, sweeping, Orwellian “hate speech” laws.
On Monday, a Scottish national party MP tabled a motion in Westminster “condemning” the events, labelling them “clear acts of incitement that must not be tolerated by the law” and calling for all “violent speech” to be illegal.
MPs gathered in the House of Commons to urge the Home Secretary to ban Mr. Valizadeh from the country. Conservative Home Office minister Karen Bradley echoed those who push to have Donald Trump banned, claiming he would not be “conducive to the public good”.
Labour’s Chi Onwurah even stooped to making small penis jokes in the chamber, suggesting that Mr. Valizade was “so insecure in his own masculinity” that he felt the need to “augment the size of his… following”.
The National, a newspaper allied to the Scottish National Party (SNP), ran the front-page headline, “Criminalise Hate Speech Against Women”. They argued that there is “gap in the criminal law” and “incitement of hatred against women” should be a specific crime, like racism, such that anti feminists like as Mr. Valizadeh can be arrested for their views.
A comment piece in the same edition argued that, “Roosh V’s doctrine is also a gateway into other forms of right-wing politics. Once you dehumanise one group – women – and accept strictly biological explanations of human behaviour, you’re basically on the road to the hard-right”, they claimed, citing the fact Mr. Valizadeh is a Donald Trump supporter.
Such an argument makes it plain how the totalitarian left plans to use the widespread revulsion towards this man, felt by those on the left and right. If they can silence and/or ban him, they will have a precedent and perhaps new legislation to crush others on they disagree with.
Whatever one’s views on Roosh V, it should be clear that his freedom is worth defending. Furthermore, those of us willing to afford him that freedom are the only ones who can effectively challenge and ridicule him and his ugly views, as should be the way in a free society.