Post: #26

Edit: The Toronto Police confrontation video is here. C.Chang Cop totally snapped out when asked if the white woman can walk nude on the street to harass Black people:




I've received documents relating to a court case from the video man, a testimony includes from C. Chang testimony because the Toronto Police is being sued over this incident.

Post: #27

Feminasty faggots in Toronto persist that their nudity in front of little children is not sexual, but they openly declare that they anticipate "sexual assault" on those nude women at Pride:

Quote:7. The Dyke March is a grassroots event that takes place during Pride Toronto’s annual festival. The event is intended to celebrate and create a safe space for individuals who identify as women, gender-queer, and trans across the full spectrum of LGBTQ+ communities. Last year marked the Dyke March’s 20th anniversary in Toronto.

8. The Dyke March is not considered a parade, but rather it is a political demonstration intended to thwart marginalization by increasing the visibility and activism of its participants.

9. As a result, and as an expression of protest and solidarity, it is common for both attendees and participants of the Dyke March to engage in public displays of nudity.

Training and Policies

10. Representatives for Pride Toronto’s annual festival receive specialized training on topics such as inclusivity, public safety, accessibility, and police intervention. Since public displays of nudity are common at the Dyke March, representatives at that event receive additional training on responding to incidents involving sexual assault.

Post: #28

Roosh was very wise to advise in his World Tour to document/filmier/record any incident with a woman who may be a false accuser feminazi.

Even though that video illustrated that the mangina Toronto cop C. Chang intimidated & threatened to arrest the cameraman over a false accusation of street harassment, the response from the Toronto Police was as follows:

Quote:“23. Before the Slut Walk began, Sgt. Chang was approached by a topless woman. The woman said that she had concerns about a male (who through this complaint has now identified himself as the Applicant) who was either filming her or taking photos of her. She told Sgt. Chang that she had encountered the male at a previous event, that he was potentially harassing her there, and that the male had been spoken to at that time regarding his behaviour.

24. Sgt. Chang told the woman that he would speak with the male. He also told the woman that it was a public space.
-4-
25. Sgt. Chang told the male that the woman had complained about him taking photos. Sgt.Chang advised the male that if there had been previous issues the male may want to be cautious as it could be interpreted as harassment.

26. Sgt. Chang also advised the male that it was a public space and he could do as he chooses
but because there are topless females and a sensitive issue is being addressed, he may want to be
careful with his actions.
27. $gt Chang had a brief conversation with the male. He did not ask the male for identification and he did not issue any formal caution.

Post: #29

That guy sounds like a creep as fuck and im sure he looks the same. I dont want to be around a guy like that.

Whats the issue here? Have you been filimg people like this guy?
Its not a good idea to film in a place like beaches, play ground with kids. It can be Legal but that doesnt make you Normal.

Im sure he did something obvious to instigate the reaction like filming right by them instead of staying at distance.

This guy is like those guys with walking around rifles on their neck. Is it legal? I guess...
I bet those guys will freak out if they see a guy with a gun near their house but they do stupid shit like that.

So you dont mind if someone pull out the phone and start recording you just because its Legal?

Im just talking with common sense

Post: #30

This reminds me of the catcalling outrage of a few years ago. Women will complain about men approaching them, until it quits happening. Then they'll lament the lost attention.

Post: #31

(06-12-2017 11:13 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  This reminds me of the catcalling outrage of a few years ago. Women will complain about men approaching them, until it quits happening. Then they'll lament the lost attention.

I guess women brought it on themselves. I'm in Scotland and virtually no men approach in bars. Even women who are there unquestionably by themselves or in group of two and looking fervently around, however reasonably looking they are (unless some enterprising men, shitfaced drunk makes an awkward move). Almost everything happens either online or in clubs, once significant amount of alcoholic beverage has been consumed by both parties. But even there I see many guys going home alone.

It if weren't for online apps, I guess one day men would start to be regularly approached by women. I'd give them the taste of their own medicine

Post: #32

(06-10-2017 10:02 PM)Sebastian Wrote:  Nothing to worry about if you are a normal person.

I remember a guy talking about getting kicked out of a mall by approaching girls. He was blaming the mall cop but im sure he either looks or acts creepy as fuck. No guys will admit they are creepy and blame girls (just like no girls will admit they are sluts)

----------------------------------------------

That guy sounds like a creep as fuck and im sure he looks the same. I dont want to be around a guy like that.

Whats the issue here? Have you been filimg people like this guy?
Its not a good idea to film in a place like beaches, play ground with kids. It can be Legal but that doesnt make you Normal.

Im sure he did something obvious to instigate the reaction like filming right by them instead of staying at distance.

This guy is like those guys with walking around rifles on their neck. Is it legal? I guess...
I bet those guys will freak out if they see a guy with a gun near their house but they do stupid shit like that.

So you dont mind if someone pull out the phone and start recording you just because its Legal?

Im just talking with common sense

Those two cameraman have every right to film in public, even in a commie feminist country like Canada.

I do not know about gun laws in Canada, but in the USA, owning a gun is a legal right which feminists and manginas want to take away from Americans.

What is concern is that your continuous use of the word 'creepy' to describe men, alongside shaming language typically used by feminists and manginas, including your anti-First and anti-Second amendment tone & the non-use of punctuation and proper sentence prose, even though your profile is from an English speaking country US.

In other forums, the admins would call you out as a "tuna" or at least someone who is not following the rules of the forum.

I've yet to meet an RVF member who is anti-gun and anti-free speech that they use the word "creepy" to describe a man like if it was a woman describing a man. Only women would resort to using the word 'creepy' in a context where men are complaining that street harassment laws are being used to demonize men.

Plus, you didn't even read the court transcripts which illustrate that the Toronto Police was not being honest in their report. Filming the police is certainly not 'creepy' as you describe, but a First Amendment right to film the police.

Only a copsucker would retort against that right to film the police.

Post: #33

Another point I would like to make is that the other camera man who was threatened by a woman with a false complaint of ‘harassment’ to the Toronto Police also has every right to film in that park.

It is not ‘creepy’ or illegal to film in a park in Canada, in contrast to shaming language used by feminists and copsuckers that it is somewhat ‘creepy to film in a beach or park with children’ to conflate that with creepiness and sexual deviance, when in fact, the feminazis who shame men using such language are the ones who want to pose naked in front of little children, yet falsely accuse men of crimes to police.

It is however, illegal to confront a photographer and accost them to the point of harassment, but knowing that the Toronto Police takes the side of the feminist when she cries in pain attacking a man, it is important to film and record everything as evidence.

That is exactly what inspired one of the photographers to sue the Toronto Police & City of Toronto Toronto Police Service Board for police misconduct.

From what I’m reading, watching and discovering, the Toronto Police & City of Toronto lawyers are actually not being honest in their testimony, which discredits their credibility (at least to the public).

Those videos I embedded in previous posts highlight what happens when “Street Harassment” laws are enforced in a feminist zone, coming to a foreign 2nd world or 3rd world city near you.

Again, it is not ‘creepy’ for filming in public, even at events such as Pride and Slutwalk where it is considered a public spectacle....Don't let any feminist or mangina shame you on that one.

Post: #34

@El Gostro:
I barely saw your response in the Page 1 of this thread, so this comment is in response to cultural imperialism.

Liberals in Canada and USA don’t view their feminist crusade as any form of aggression against foreign societies. They believe that the rest of the world is like their comfy, social champagne liberal lives in an office tower or upper class lifestyle of the 1st world.

Imagine how many more innocent men will be falsely accused of ‘harassment’ & in addition to being shamed as ‘creeps’ for documenting evidence to prove their innocence, they are not going to be protected under 1st world legal rights for human.

Instead those falsely accused men will be thrown in jail under remand to be beaten, raped and possibly murdered by convicts with a bone to pick on, especially when it comes to Brazilian favela prisons.

I’ve notified many men on here before, that whenever one reads about a feminist policy in a 3rd world shithole where crime is serious, there is a feminist from either Canada, USA, UK, or recently Sweden who is bestowed with a lucrative government career to spread feminist policy in foreign countries without considering the legal system and human rights treatment of prisoners in those countries.

Unlike the USA where an accused has due process rights (for now), a falsely accused man of ‘street harassment’ will be automatically thrown into prison, and God Forbid, if that man lives in India where feminist (whose extended families live luxury in Canada/USA) are actually calling for the DEATH PENALTY for cases of “street harassment”.

Even a ‘Conservative’ Canadian government was bullying several African countries because those countries like Uganda didn’t want to legalize homosexuality & lesbianism (the video of Dah Poo Poo was from Uganda).

Now, the feminists want to turn every country into a feminist hellhole where it is considered lesser of “creepy” (or even considered a “human right” and if you disagree with trannies molesting little children it is considered “misogyny”, “homophobia”) to molest a 5-year-old boy as a tranny or homosexual, than it is to legally exercise a First Amendment right on the street to film a documentary in public, or to even ask for street directions to a woman feminist.

Post: #35

There are Rights and There are Common senses. I guess you don't necessarily follow the latter?
That creepy guy at the corner of the bar has right to stare at the women all day he wants. But people can sense (including Men) this guy is out of the line. There is no way I will let him talk to me because they will think I am like him.
I don't support guys like that just because he is another man. He is making rest of the men look bad.

I met a girl from instagram for photos. I met her at a public place (coffee shop) so we get to know each other first. After talking a bit, she said 'you are not creepy! hehe' and talked about there are many creepy photo guys out there. Im sure they didn't do anything illegal to her. It is just the way they behave aka vibe.

I remember this clip on youtube. This teenage (15?) ballet girl was doing a photoshoot in NYC. (she was wearing a leotard and stretching her leg vertically)
There were some spectators plus a man filming her close enough to get them uncomfortable. Mom started yelling he was too close filming her crotch and stuff. He was, of course, saying he was in public place B.S. Another spectator intervened to stop the guy by pushing his phone/camera. What do you think? mom was crazy? the guy who intervened was part of a feminist?
(Oh yeah if I see a pretty girl in any ages, I can just follow them around and film them when I am in public right?)

I don't know why you are so sensitive about the word 'creepy'
has someone called you out like that? even though you think you didn't cross the law?
(like the guy who got kicked out of the mall approaching bunch of women. he didn't do anything illegal either)

We've all been there (creepy stage) and I am sure normal guys go through that time to time (when you see a girl you really like, you just can't think of a good word to say so you say something stupid or act weird)

The thing is you can creep a girl out just by saying 'Hi' (because you just look creepy or how you said it), if you just want to blame them by saying you didn't do anything wrong and she is just crazy, then go ahead.
This is a Game forum. We are here to learn.

Just obeying the law, doesn't get you laid. It's more about having common senses and 'Vibing' with them. (minus Creepy Vibe)

(06-12-2017 01:40 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  Another point I would like to make is that the other camera man who was threatened by a woman with a false complaint of ‘harassment’ to the Toronto Police also has every right to film in that park.

It is not ‘creepy’ or illegal to film in a park in Canada, in contrast to shaming language used by feminists and copsuckers that it is somewhat ‘creepy to film in a beach or park with children’ to conflate that with creepiness and sexual deviance, when in fact, the feminazis who shame men using such language are the ones who want to pose naked in front of little children, yet falsely accuse men of crimes to police.

It is however, illegal to confront a photographer and accost them to the point of harassment, but knowing that the Toronto Police takes the side of the feminist when she cries in pain attacking a man, it is important to film and record everything as evidence.

That is exactly what inspired one of the photographers to sue the Toronto Police & City of Toronto Toronto Police Service Board for police misconduct.

From what I’m reading, watching and discovering, the Toronto Police & City of Toronto lawyers are actually not being honest in their testimony, which discredits their credibility (at least to the public).

Those videos I embedded in previous posts highlight what happens when “Street Harassment” laws are enforced in a feminist zone, coming to a foreign 2nd world or 3rd world city near you.

Again, it is not ‘creepy’ for filming in public, even at events such as Pride and Slutwalk where it is considered a public spectacle....Don't let any feminist or mangina shame you on that one.

Post: #36

Name one method men can use to meet women that women (and white knights) don't routinely ridicule.

Just the cost of doing business.

Post: #37

Quote:There are Rights and There are Common senses. I guess you don't necessarily follow the latter?

Why the personal attack to prove your arguments which appears to be suspiciously pro-feminist?

Quote:That creepy guy at the corner of the bar has right to stare at the women all day he wants. But people can sense (including Men) this guy is out of the line. There is no way I will let him talk to me because they will think I am like him.
I don't support guys like that just because he is another man. He is making rest of the men look bad.

What does a man in a club have to do with the First Amendment right to film in public and not be falsely accused of sexual harassment from nude women at Toronto Slutwalk in order to chase away Lauren Southern and her camera crew, or to get them baited for a crime over a false accusation?

If the man is there sitting by himself not annoying anyone, he shouldn't be negatively judged as a ‘creep’ or deserve any form of harassment by armed thugs in blue.

It is a component of "Rape Hysteria" where every feminazi man-hating woman views every man as a 'creep', 'rapist', 'child molester', unless proven otherwise.

Quote:I met a girl from instagram for photos. I met her at a public place (coffee shop) so we get to know each other first. After talking a bit, she said 'you are not creepy! hehe' and talked about there are many creepy photo guys out there. Im sure they didn't do anything illegal to her. It is just the way they behave aka vibe.

First of all, a coffee shop is not a public space, but a private business.
Again, what does a coffee shop and meeting a woman have to do with a photographer or Lauren Southern’s associates being falsely accused of ‘street harassment’ by low-life feminist nude women at a Toronto Slutwalk rally?

Otherwise, while ‘creeping out’ a woman is subjective and is considered a social taboo, it shouldn’t be illegal that a militarized trigger-happy police state is there to impede on the civil rights of men for saying “hello” to a woman. It illustrates that the woman lacks social skills that she has to summon armed men to go after men she doesn’t like.

Quote:I remember this clip on youtube. This teenage (15?) ballet girl was doing a photoshoot in NYC. (she was wearing a leotard and stretching her leg vertically)
There were some spectators plus a man filming her close enough to get them uncomfortable. Mom started yelling he was too close filming her crotch and stuff. He was, of course, saying he was in public place B.S. Another spectator intervened to stop the guy by pushing his phone/camera. What do you think? mom was crazy? the guy who intervened was part of a feminist?
(Oh yeah if I see a pretty girl in any ages, I can just follow them around and film them when I am in public right?)

OK, you bring an example of that teen-chick who was doing a yoga pose at NYC Times Square & the man filmed her….Well, as long as he didn’t shove his camera into her private parts (no expectation of privacy), he couldn’t be charged by the NYPD for any crime, including and not restricted to voyeurism and recording an indecent image of a ‘child’ which is a class felony in several states.

Even though you are trying to conflate all men as potential creeps or child predators, there is a court case in the State of Connecticut where an elderly man in his 60s was found not guilty for filming the upskirt of a 13-year-old female, because there was no intent of the man engaging in any sexual offense, other than the social taboo of invasion of privacy.

The USA protects to the death the First Amendment, so while it isn’t a license to threaten someone, libel someone or film child pornography using the First Amendment, the First Amendment should prevent innocent men from being falsely accused of crimes by nude women who are claiming that they are victims of street harassment by photographers when those nude feminists want to pose naked in front of little children.

BUT, you are comparing Apples to Oranges, while indirectly conflating that every man who films a feminist event is somewhat a child predator. Not cool.

Quote:I don't know why you are so sensitive about the word 'creepy'
has someone called you out like that? even though you think you didn't cross the law?
(like the guy who got kicked out of the mall approaching bunch of women. he didn't do anything illegal either)

It is common knowledge that in manosphere forums, the typical Red Flag words used by feminists and manginas are terminology like ‘creep’, or conflating a man to child predator (or the Canadian establishment libeling Roosh as a “wapist” for his World Tour) when complaining about feminist laws. Your style of writing doesn’t fit well with the forum in any case. It suspect.

Quote:We've all been there (creepy stage) and I am sure normal guys go through that time to time (when you see a girl you really like, you just can't think of a good word to say so you say something stupid or act weird)

Again, this doesn’t really assist with my argument that the street harassment laws are abused by feminazis to strengthen a police state, which 99% of sane Americans are against (a police state).

Quote:The thing is you can creep a girl out just by saying 'Hi' (because you just look creepy or how you said it), if you just want to blame them by saying you didn't do anything wrong and she is just crazy, then go ahead.
This is a Game forum. We are here to learn.

What does that have to do with men being falsely accused of street harassment for doing journalist work in a public spectacle event like Pride Toronto or Slutwalk Toronto???

If the woman lacks social skills to know how to avoid such men, then she shouldn’t be in a social setting like a bar or club, and our tax dollars shouldn’t be funding a police state to impede our freedoms.

Quote:Just obeying the law, doesn't get you laid. It's more about having common senses and 'Vibing' with them. (minus Creepy Vibe)

You’re contradicting yourself….Your argument is that every man is a potential creep, raping, child predator waiting to film the pu$$y of an underage girl posing in a leotard at a touristy destination unless proven otherwise by a woman, yet you advocate that men break the law in order to get laid.

Summary:

My argument is that street harassment laws are unconstitutional & open for abuse by man-hating feminazis who will complain false accusations to a trigger happy police state.

It is a feminist way of Rape Hysteria to label all men as 'creeps' or conflating the First Amendment right to film in public as a pretext to child molestation; typical shaming language featured by countless #s of feminists and manginas who want to shame men and attack men for the feminist cause.

Post: #38

@Delta:

Another member exclaimed that in the 90s, a man who is accused of ‘harassing’ a woman was only escorted out of the club, that’s it. End of story.

However, nowadays, with the feminist rape hysteria, they are in succession criminalizing social interactions with women as “street harassing” that it results in litigation and armed police harassing the man.

Furthermore, street harassment laws are open to abuse by man-hating feminazis who want to falsely accuse, for example, one of Lauren Southern’s cameramen during Slutwalk in Toronto.

On the other side of things, I posted before that a male student at Ryerson University visited a female doctor on campus, and because she “felt” that he needed to be hospitalized, he was taken by force escorted by Toronto Police to be evaluated & he was later released the same day, no reason for him to be in the hospital. He filmed the incident and uploaded it on YouTube.

When the Ryerson doctor was informed that she was becoming infamous on YouTube, she later, a week after that incident, falsely complained to York Regional Police in her hometown how the Ryerson University student “uttered threats” to her in the office while he was being taken away.

Mangina cops went all the way from out of town York Region to downtown West end Toronto to arrest that Ryerson University student over making the doctor feel threatened because he was asserting his rights in the office at Ryerson.

Fast forward about 1.5 years of a lengthy court trial, the Ryerson University student was found not guilty of uttering threats and harassing the Ryerson doctor, and the Judge at the Superior Court of Ontario was alarmed in the way York Regional Police violated his rights and attempted to pervert the course of justice, all because York Regional Police white knight cops were hungry for pu$$y or some shit.

York Regional Police are the type to take 1 hour or more, to respond to a call of armed robbery, but they were loyal to a false “threats of harassment” complaint from an overpaid female doctor at a feminazi university.

In addition, Ontario Provincial Police (in America you call them State troopers) actually used an explosive device to destroy the cottage of that Ryerson student in Norland, Ontario because the police in Toronto wanted to talk to the Ryerson student while he was on bail, citing that his bail was immediately revoked without reason.

For what reason? A female doctor at Ryerson University falsely accusing the Ryerson student of harassing and threatening her because he uploaded on YouTube the video that he recorded while he was being detained in her office.

My fear is not that these feminazis and their white knights will constantly shame men as ‘creeps’, ‘pro-nape advocates’, child predators and etc, but they are supported by the trigger happy police state to enforce such labels on their targets to cause men to be victims of either street violence of white knights or violence from police.

Post: #39

This long 'debate' started because I called the guy in video 'creepy'

I Personally find him creepy and as a Personal choice, I would stay 30 ft away from a guy like that.

If that is what you do and you have a friend like that, that is your personal choice. Not my business.

(06-12-2017 07:06 PM)RBerkley Wrote:  Summary:

My argument is that street harassment laws are unconstitutional & open for abuse by man-hating feminazis who will complain false accusations to a trigger happy police state.

Oh yeah big news. you can get arrested by talking to women right?
Nope I don't worry about it because I behave with common senses.

They talk about how many civilians police kills each year. It is A LOT.
But I don't worry about it because I don't commit small crimes, respect the law, dress accordingly, act accordingly in public and don't hang out with ghetto guys. Police officers has been nice to me after I get pulled over and they see my face.
I Personally had no problem with them.

Bottom line, I don't think that law will affect me. But it sounds like this law will affect you and you seem very worried. I wish I could help but I have no time for joining anti-Feminazi (heard first time here) movement.

Post: #40

^ Incorrect...You were using terminology which appears to be shaming language used by feminists and white knights....Calling Lauren Southern's cameraman a 'creep' isn't the full reason, but the word 'creep' is utilized by feminists to describe men.

By referring to "ghetto" men, are you implying that the Black-ionization of men's dress choice deserve that man to be killed by police?

Whoa there, that is very hypocritical because you appear to want to defend a woman to not be filmed in public, citing it as a protection against "creepy" street harassers or a potential child predator filming scantily clad teens posing almost nude at the busiest intersection near Times Square, yet you blame men for being killed by police because they dressed "ghetto", (code word for "Black man attire" in my hood).

I ain't got time entertaining pro-police white supremacy ideologies of racism against Black men or men who dress "ghetto".

Post: #41

Quote:Bottom line, I don't think that law will affect me. But it sounds like this law will affect you and you seem very worried. I wish I could help but I have no time for joining anti-Feminazi (heard first time here) movement.

To make the record clear, I did not ask you to join any "anti-feminazi" movement, so quit putting words in my mouth. End of discussion. I do not entertain your pro-police, pro-feminist viewpoints which you view that men who dress "ghetto" deserve to be harassed or killed by police under the feminist street harassment law. I didn't sign up for the Daily Stormer or Stormfront.