Saturday, 14 January 2017

Update: Rumors of the Badgers' Defeat Have Been Wildly Exaggerated

First, the good news:

The Motion for Summary Dismissal brought by Calgary Expo and The Mary Sue was dismissed by a judge on Friday morning (January 13). This was the case for all four causes of action: injurious falsehood and incitement to breach of contract against The Mary Sue, and injurious falsehood and breach of contract against Calgary Expo.

This case will be going forward, under all four causes of action.

The bad news:

It took a essentially full day in court to hear arguments for and against a Summary Judgment to dismiss the case, which left insufficient time in the schedule to actually hold the trial.

The judge, after having read the Statement of claim, and reviewed the various affidavits (2 submitted by defence to support their Motion, 1 submitted by Alison in response), and having glanced over the Exhibits provided by all parties, understood this would be a complex case to hear in full. As such, he deemed it appropriate to set aside three full days for the trial itself (the trial that SHOULD have happened on the trial dates January 12 and 13). The first opening for a three-day trial is November 28, 29 and 30.

We certainly could have started the trial on the 13th, if we'd chosen to. If we had, we'd be stuck with this judge, and the next two consecutive days he had free were in December. It would have been worth it, for sure, if we were able to have the witnesses we'd flown in from Illinois, Ohio, California and the UK testify that day. However, because Alison is the plaintiff and has the right to be in the courtroom during all testimony, it's highly problematic to have her listen to her witnesses give evidence prior to giving her own.

Alison must be the first to take the stand if we want her testimony to be seen as untainted. Direct and cross examination (then redirect and response) of Alison may take a full day, perhaps longer. And possibly splitting up her testimony between January 13th and December 12th wasn't going to do us any good. At best it's a neutral, at worst, it will weaken the impact of her evidence. However things fell out, the trial wasn't going to be finished on January 13th.

So we opted to adjourn proceedings until November 28th, at which point the case will be heard by a different judge, on three consecutive days.

A new date of August 1 (if I recall correctly) has been set as a final deadline for exchange of documents (such as submitting affidavits, entering evidentiary exhibits, etc). We expect counsel for Calgary Expo and The Mary Sue will attempt to dig through every word any of us has published online to potentially use as evidence that we are, indeed, space lepers who deserved to be expelled from the Expo.

They also attempted to prejudice the court by requesting a publication ban on the contact information of the defendants and their witnesses by citing a risk of harassment of said individuals by HBB and fellow space lepers #GamerGate and AVoiceforMen.

Our legal dynamo, Harry Kopyto, objected to any such ban, arguing that people's names, addresses and phone numbers are a matter of public record and publication bans should be ordered with extreme caution. The judge agreed with Harry, telling defence counsel that they had not demonstrated any such risk exists. To my mind, this is significant, since the Mary Sue had alleged harassment by Alison at the panel discussion in their article and their affidavit, the affidavit filed in support of Calgary Expo repeated that allegation, and #GamerGate was described in both defence affidavits as being "notorious for harassing". Essentially, the judge said, "well, you keep telling me about all this harassment, but you haven't actually demonstrated it, yo. If and when you can show me some evidence of harassment of your clients and their agents, come talk to me and I'll change my mind."

For our part at HBB, we're not interested in disseminating anyone's contact information, nor in having it dug up and disseminated by someone else, nor in contacting any of the parties involved, nor in having any of our supporters do so.

As we did at Calgary Expo, we will continue to embrace an ethic of civility and non-aggression, and we hope to lead by our example. We did not harass anyone, and we will not engage in any behavior that could be regarded as harassment. We do not condone harassment, and will continue to promote calm and reasoned debate, polite disagreement, respecting the rights of others, and following the rules of a civilized society.

We are the people who politely state our case and allow others to approach us and engage in a discourse, not the ones who barge into other people's events, screaming profanities while they're trying to give a speech or pulling fire alarms to shut it down. This is who we are, and who we will continue to be.

I'm certain HBB will be giving more detailed updates on everything that happened the last few days, once we've all had a chance to collect our thoughts.

Thank you again to everyone who supported our fundraisers, and I only wish I could reveal a verdict. But again, while this court session was a victory for us, the final verdict will have to wait until November.


  1. Good luck little badgers, keep fighting the good fight!! :D

  2. Karen, I realized something big (sexism of the WORD "objectification") I think some of these sentences could remove the very foundation holding up a MAJORITY of feminism's biggest double-standards. A huge loss for feminism's hypocrite Jenga. Could you share your thoughts?:

    “Objectification” is a double-standard nonsense word for men being “shallowly” biologically attracted to someone, and enjoying a pure focus on that for a while. As long as women have husbandos in sex novels and sex movies, stop attacking waifus in games and comics. They’re equivalent niches.

    It was always a strawman that men see women as “objects” just because they pick partners by who arouses them, which is mainly triggered by certain body types. A purely assumptive (and wrong) assertion that men can’t/don’t see women’s other traits if they’re picking SEX PARTNERS based off arousing bodies. Those things just don’t override who’s sexually arousing, (for EITHER gender) or the urge to temporarily purely focus on and enjoy that shallow attractiveness for a while. Both genders do this, and it's not "objectification" or forgetting a gender's other aspects.(Women focusing more on height and voice, and typically strongly avoiding short men which de-arouse them, for example..) It’s equal urge for shallow arousal, not objectification. That word is nothing more than a hateful and ignorant double standard applied to only one gender’s attraction. A word that assumes, without any basis or evidence, that an attracted man enjoying a partner based off that, can’t see any other qualities about women… While a woman doing the same thing apparently can. Highest level hypocrisy.

    People don’t stop seeing/appreciating other aspects of a gender when shallowly aroused by attractiveness. Those other aspects simply don’t override or have anything to do with the arousal or shallow pleasure of sex with an attractive person. For either gender. Yet somehow bitter feminists wanting to control/lower men’s preferences (which are none of their business to control, just like women’s preferences aren’t men’s to control) sexistly claim that this attractiveness preference is “objectification” that “means they aren’t seeing any of the person’s other qualities”, but only when men do it.

    A very sexist and completely baseless assumption with absolutely no concrete evidence. All while women sexually pick/focus on equally shallow arousal traits and not the person’s mind or similarity. (height, deep voice, hung, stoic) Yet feminists hypocritically realise, only for their own gender, that this focus during sex does not mean they don’t otherwise respect men… including the attractive ones they want to bang. Men are the same way with women. Entering a temporary mode (hornyness) of shallowly focusing on and enjoying a person’s shallowly arousing traits for a bit does not mean you don’t respect them or their gender. For men OR women. It does not mean you don’t appreciate scientists of that gender, or that arousing partner’s similar nerdy tastes. (Which almost any man will tell you adds to the experience and makes it more complete, because we DO still see a woman’s human side while turned on. To assume otherwise is ludicrous, and frankly, far more sexistly prejudiced than I’ve ever seen a man behave.) This calling men’s attraction “objectification” shit has got to stop. It's nothing but exploitative sexism, and self-serving double standards.

    It is entirely a feminist tool to promote a self-serving, man-exploiting double standard. Only the selfish, bitter wish to promote a self-serving double standard that forces men to accept less arousing partners than they want. An hypocritical excuse to invasively attacking/control/lower men’s standards.

    (I know I haven't organized this into a compact, concise paragraph. That's not my strong suit. I think I hit on some crucial accuracies here, though. I would welcome anyone who wanted to clean up the sentence order and trim away repetitions.)

    1. Some years back, I recall reading about how the reciprocal of Sexism was "Successism", and that was considered realistic and rational, and not wrong, because with tallness and deep voice, it indicated good genes, important for reproduction. The importance of regular (even and symmetrical and proportioned) features and youth as indications of good genes, important for reproduction was, as you state, wrong, sexist, and "streng verboten!", and any man who admits to selecting on that basis will be made to pay.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Be careful with these bastards. In my experience, what they'll try to do to you is push the trial back (like they've done) and then maneuver behind the scenes to get the judge reassigned, and put their own little judicial flunky in.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!