On February 14, 2017, a Saskatchewan man was found guilty of uttering threats against Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. On Facebook, he wrote that “Imma buot to go shoot this mother (expletive) dead” and then added “And if the Canadian liberal voters won’t stand up for all fn Canadians and demand better conduct by the Trudeau government I’ll cut off the head if the snake myself and go down in the history books as the man who saves Canada.” Later, he said that “Am I going to kill JT? Nope. Physically harm the guy? Nope. I do think however he should be shot dead…. and I would personally thank the person who did kill him.”
In his decision, the judge wrote that he was “satisfied that he intended the threatening words he used in both of his posts, regarding causing death to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, to intimidate and to be taken seriously.”
What does this have to do with anything? Well, radical feminists everywhere receive messages of the same general vein as the ones listed above. There are blogs dedicated to showing this violence.
The Canadian Criminal Code says:
That’s right, transactivists: your harassment of “TERFs” is a crime. You are uttering threats of death or bodily harm when you send messages like this:
I could post far more but I don’t want to clog up this post with threats when I could analyze them instead.
Transactivists are sending us threats to shut us up. They are doing this because the believe “the only terf is a dead terf” and to intimidate us into silence so we stop calling them on their bullshit.
Let’s take a brief look at Canadian case law. The case of R v. O’Brien found that it is not necessary “that the recipient of the threats uttered by the accused feel intimidated by them or be shown to have taken them seriously. All that needs to be proven is that they were intended by the accused to have that effect.” (emphasis in original) Another case, R v. Horncastle, added that “It is not necessary to constitute the offence of assault that the accused actually apply force or even intend to do so… Mens rea lies in the intention to threaten not in the intention to carry out that threat.” R v. Clemente set out that “to determine if a reasonable person would consider that the words were uttered as a threat the court must regard them objectively; and review them in light of the circumstances in which they were uttered, the manner in which they were spoken, and the person to whom they were addressed.” In R v. McCraw, this letter was recognized as a threat: “Let me tell you, your [sic] a beautiful woman, I am disapointed [sic] you wernt [sic] in the calendar, you are the most beautiful cheerleader on the squad. (explicit sexual fantasies) I am going to fuck you even if I have to rape you. Even if it takes me till the day I die.” The Supreme Court, in this case (R v. McCraw) found that psychological harm was included in the charge of uttering threats to cause death or severe bodily harm. They later added that “the threat need not be carried out; the offence is completed when the threat is made. It is designed to facilitate the achievement of the goal sought by the issuer of the threat. A threat is a tool of intimidation which is designed to instill a sense of fear in its recipient.”
If you’re looking for the tl;dr, you can find it here:
- it does not matter whether the person uttering the threat actually intended to carry it out or not
- threatening to rape somebody falls under uttering a threat of death or severe bodily harm
- intention to threaten or intimidate is enough
- the circumstances surrounding the threat are important in considering whether a “reasonable person” (the standard used in Canada to determine a lot of things) would consider it to be a threat
- a conditional threat is still a threat
- a threat made to general members of a group is still a threat and is still prosecutable
- a threat made to let off steam may not be a threat
What does this mean?
It means that it doesn’t matter how seriously a radical feminist takes a threat; it is still a threat regardless of whether she is intimidated or thinks the person sending the threat needs to grow up and get a life.
It means that trans women telling lesbian women that they are going to fuck them would qualify as uttering threats of severe bodily harm. The Supreme Court acknowledged rape as severe bodily harm. As lesbian women are not attracted to males (ie trans women) any sexual intercourse would be rape as they would not be consenting to it.
It means that a general threat to “kill all TERFs” qualifies because “TERFs” aka radical feminists are a group (an ideological group, but still a group).
It means that the context is important. A liberal feminist/transactivist sends radical feminists threats of death as a means of intimidation. They are trying to silence us, to get us to stop advocating for women, to submit to them and their inane ideas. If this is combined with doxxing, the argument of intimidation is that much easier to make.
It means that it is still a threat even if it states something like “if you do x I will *threat*”, which catches two of the examples I posted above.
While a threat made to let off steam may not be a threat, liberal feminist/transactivist threats are not made to let off steam. There are mostly made over the internet, where you have time to think about what you are going to say. The fact that they all utter threats on anon means they aren’t letting off steam – they are making a choice to make themselves unidentifiable to minimize or eliminate any consequences against them.
Liberal feminists, your death threats are not working. Radical feminists refused to be intimidated by you. You are committing crimes by threatening us. Since you are determined to work within the system to do things for (trans) women, you should recognize that you are violating it and stop.
Canadian Criminal Code http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/
R v. Clemente  2 S.C.R. 758
R v. Horncastle (1972), 4 N.B.R. (2d) 821
R. v. McCraw  3 SCR 72
R v. O’Brien  1 S.C.R. 7
R v. Remy (1993) 82 CCC (3d) 176
Grayson, Saskatchewan man found guilty of uttering threats against Justin Trudeau – http://globalnews.ca/news/3249055/grayson-sask-man-guilty-of-uttering-threats-against-justin-trudeau/