The other day I suggested that perhaps it was unfair to the Men’s Rights movement to allow them to handle their own public relations, given how terrible they are at it. Today I wonder if the same principle might also apply to MRAs trying to handle their own lawyering.
A case in point: the lawsuit that antifeminist lawyer, “Ladies Night” hater and hip-hop dance enthusiat Roy Den Hollander has just brought against Australian journalist Tory Shepherd, who wrote about the involvement of Den Hollander and others with links to “men’s rights extremists” in a proposed set of “male studies” courses at the University of South Australia.
It’s still not clear to me if these courses had ever been formally approved – the university says they weren’t – but Den Hollander thinks that Shepherd and another Australian reporter got them cancelled by writing about them. And so he figures that they should compensate him for losing him his teaching gig.
You may vaguely remember all of this. A Voice for Men, heavily involved in the courses, famously denounced Shepherd as a “whore” shortly after AVFM’s Paul Elam indignantly called her a liar for suggesting that A Voice for Men regularly calls women whores. (Which of course it does; Elam himself used the word “whore” 28 times in a single post about Skepchick’s Rebecca Watson.)
Anyhoo, so Den Hollander, acting as his own lawyer, has served Shepherd with the lawsuit. And it’s a doozy of a document, at least going by the excerpts Shepherd posted in a column Wednesday.
Somehow we doubt that this lawsuit is going to enhance Den Hollander’s reputation as a fair-minded analyst of gender relations.
Here are some of the best bits, as presented by Shepherd in her column as “some lessons from Mr Den Hollander, who will not be paid to give lessons at UniSA.”
Lesson 1: How to censor a journalist by accusing them of censorship.
“Two modern-day, book-burning, Bacchae reporters from down-under authored and published false and misleading information concerning Plaintiff (Den Hollander) with the intent and result of harming his economic interests and interfering with a prospective economic advantage by causing the University of SA to incinerate the section of a proposed male studies course that Plaintiff would have taught,” he writes. But wait.
Lesson 2: How to personally attack a journalist by accusing them of personal attacks.
“The two reporters, Tory Shepherd, AKA “Tory the Torch” for The Advertiser and Amy McNeilage, AKA “Amy McNeuter” for The Sydney Morning Herald, used their power as reporters to do what weak-minded ideologues have done throughout history — employ personal attacks to prevent the spread of knowledge and ideas that they disagreed with.”
Lesson 3: How to prove you are not an extremist by sounding like an extremist.
“If these two feminist book-burners had not jumped on their broomsticks and scared the bejesus out of the administrators of the University of SA, students there would have had an opportunity to acquire information and consider views not available anywhere else in higher education.”
Yeah, I’m sure that sort of thing is going to go over great in court.
Elsewhere in his lawsuit, Den Hollander denounces “yellow, female-dog-in-heat reporting,” takes a swipe at “girlie-guys,” and offers this intriguing take on Australian military history:
Thank goodness for Australians that Tory was not around for Australia’s battle against the Japanese. Her anti-gun advocacy for men might have even resulted in her and Amy ending up as Japanese “comfort girls.”
The case does at least promise to be highly entertaining, so I guess we have to give Den Hollander credit for that.
Does he really think his arguments will ever get him anywhere with anyone who does not already believe in the total depravity of feminists?
No, but he doesn’t need to. He’s survived for years by filing goofy nuisance suits–mostly suing the bars where he unsuccessfully hits on younger women for hosting Ladies’ Nights, but also sometimes suing colleges for having women’s studies departments–and publicizing the hell out of himself as the MRA lawyer. This guy’s been around for ages. He’s one of those cockroach people who could survive a direct nuclear strike and go right on creeping.
On the plus side, he’s an endless font of hilarity: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-nightclub-entry-human-article-1.1415304
@strivingally
Thanks! I made that comment because I do think David should put the link in the post if it’s not there. So it’s not because I’m too lazy to google the article. 🙂
Should we draw a Venn diagram for JB showing circles for “men” and “LGBT people” so that she understands why it doesn’t make any sense to say “yeah, she’s anti-gay, but it’s okay because she cares about men”?
Is that ever in the wrong thread! I don’t even know how I did that! Oh dear.
@duckbunny
I think you mean Meads v. Meads? Sovereign Citizens are endlessly amusing.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
R. v. Duncan, which cites Meads, is much more fun to read. The same sort of sarcastic dismissal is what I hope for in the den Hollander case.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj160/2013oncj160.html
Argenti –
Nope! I don’t even live on the same side of the country as you do if I remember correctly. 😛
Can I be a “modern-day, book-burning, Bacchae [person] from down-under on [a] broomstick”? Actually, without the book burning. That sounds really fun, and it apparently fulfills my misandry quota, which has been sorely lacking for the past week.
I’d sign up too but I’m from the wrong continent.
Zolnier, yeah, those fuckwits are here, all right. You heard of Peter Andrew Nolan, the pillock who thinks sticking a copyright symbol in his name means people have to pay him to type it? He’s as toxic as a cane toad, that one. We’ve a few MRA loser groups floating around the country, alas, though I think they achieve even less than Pauly and co.
If only those rags would say that about Hockey. /snark
So, this fucker thinks he “needs to pull a Carrie Nation” at clubs holding Ladies’ Nights? In other words, attack the places with an axe. Riiiiight, it’s so much about men’s rights. Not at all about hating women, not at all about rage that 66-year-old-creep isn’t interesting to the very young women he’s hitting on (his words: “they look better”). Not at all about wishing rape on women, noooooo.
How is this dude making money from lawyering? I assume he’s doing something like conveyancing because I can’t see him winning any court cases. I also can’t see him as being competent as a law clerk/researcher either.
Where did he get his law qualifications from?
Same place as Pauly got his Ph.D in psychiatry doctory stuff, prolly.
That PhD is going to smell strongly of fecal matter. *shudder*
Marseachusetts State University? Alarseka State University?
LOL proobablyl!
He got it from FTSU of course!
Same place “Dr.” John Grey got his!
So he actually wrote about feminists riding broomsticks and a rape threat in a legal document. This is the document he filed with his lawsuit…and he expects to win, somehow?
No, he expects to get media coverage — particularly if a judge laughs himself to death in court.
I am under the impression that to be a practicing lawyer, in whatever role, should be a member of whatever is the American equivalent of the (English-based) Law Society. In New Zealand, it appears that practicing lawyers must be a member of our Law Society. There are professional and private requirements that one must meet:
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-lawyers/joining-the-legal-profession/admission
In particular, note the requirements about character. There have been lawyers struck off in NZ for not maintaining the character requirement.
Is there an equivalent requirement in the US? I’m struggling to see how Roy Den Hollander would meet it. He could also stand accused of bringing his profession into disrepute – and professional bodies *hate* that as well.
TL;DR: how is this joker still a lawyer?
Pallygirl,
I think the US all you have do is pass the Bar exam for the state you want to practice in. I could be wrong though. Attorneys can be disbarred for violating ethics or committing a crime but not for being a douche bag.
I’m not a lawyer so take my post with a grain of salt. That’s just my understanding.
Pallygirl: The US has three voluntary associations, with the most prominent being the American Bar Association.
But, they’re all voluntary, and lawyers can practice even if the ABA decides they’re awful.
Dunno about Australia…
I didn’t realise that caveat emptor would apply so strongly to hiring a lawyer in the US.
Huh. I thought you had to pass the Bar exam to practice. It’s probably hard to a get a job if you don’t though. There are something like twice as many lawyers as there are jobs in law.
You have to take the bar exam for your state. You don’t have to join the ABA to take the Bar exam.
It’s wonky.
Alice — east coast here, and much as I would enjoy meeting you…just (tmi) not accidentally over dinner with the guy we share (see why it would be weird if you were that Alice?)
Back on topic, IANAL, but I worked for one, and yes, you can file things with the court if a lawyer is being a douche. Granted all the ones in saw were violating professional ethics, but hey, he files way more nonsensical things than filing a motion for sanctions against him.
…and it looks like not attempting to determine the truth of the claims in documents filed with the courts is indeed grounds for said motion. So “feminist book burners”? Prolly not libel, cuz our libel laws suck, but grounds for a motion for sanctions? Idk, but more valid than his claims.