Men’s Rights Activists love to “warn” women that they may soon face a day of reckoning if they don’t shape up and start acting the way MRAs think they should. Don’t make men angry, they say; you wouldn’t like us when we’re angry!
Still, most MRAs making these “predictions” at least make a token effort to pretend to be horrified at the notion of men rising up to wreak vengeance upon uppity women. This isn’t what we want, they assure women; it’s just what will happen if you continue to “provoke” men with your bad behavior.
Other MRAs find it impossible to contain their glee; like doomsday preppers with well-stocked bunkers and enough ammo to kill every living thing within a 500 mile radius, they can’t wait for the end of the world.
Peter Andrew Nolan is one of these other MRAs. And he’s started to celebrate a little bit early.
In a series of recent blog posts and Tweets, Nolan has heralded a number of murders of women at the hands of their exes in his native Australia as portents of a new age of antifeminist retribution. (Click on screenshots below to see archived versions of these Tweets.)
I’m sure actress Denise Richards was delighted to find the above in her Twitter notifications, sent as a reply to a Tweet of hers wishing her father a happy Father’s Day.
Several feminists who ended up in a discussion with him on Twitter were treated to the following.
As Nolan sees it, the murder of women in Australia and Ireland is now perfectly legal, as he has officially declared war upon both countries.
Nolan thinks politicians and police officers are also legitimate targets in his “war.”
And he assures us this “war” will continue until he is properly compensated for whatever terrible injustices he thinks have been done to him.
Now, Nolan’s “legal” claims are of course ludicrous, and he is obviously in no position to “release” any murderers of women in either Ireland or Australia.
But as bizarre as his arguments are, Nolan is no troll; as longtime readers of this blog know all too well, he’s deadly serious about all of this.
The man who used to call himself Peter-Andrew: Nolan©, but who now prefers to call himself Joschua-Brandon: Boehm©, is a follower of the exceedingly strange and dangerous Sovereign Citizen movement. He thinks the odd punctuation he’s added to his various names actually means something important, and he does indeed believe that he is at war with Ireland and Australia, that murdering women is legal in both countries, and that he has the right to enforce these claims of his as best he can.
Happily, he is not actually in either of these countries — last I heard, he’s in Germany, and as I understand it, he is barred from entering Ireland and possibly Australia as well. At least according to the laws that the rest of the world follows.
This isn’t the first time Nolan has justified or indeed celebrated violence against women. His declarations of “war” are not new. He’s offered some (barely) qualified praise for far-right mass murderer Anders Breivik, and at one point he warned any women thinking of commenting on his laughable Facebook ripoff MAN-BOOK that he just might just kill them for it.
But these recent Tweets are pretty brazen, even by his standards. He is clearly a threat to women, as well as to politicians and government employees regardless of gender.
H/T — @TheFirstPaige
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: Please avoid describing Nolan as “crazy,” or attempting to diagnose his mental health. Mental illness doesn’t cause hate. And please refrain from violent language, even when it is clearly metaphorical.
@ James Failey: Copy-paster troll is copy-paster BORING. Out-of-context quotes are out of context (and out of line, to boot).
andiexist,
You were wording just find. Don’t worry about it!
I mean, I understand the impulse to see words like Nolan’s and think “lock him up forever” but when you stop to think about the implications of it, it’s far less appealing. We’ve been down that road before and nothing good ever came from it. It definitely makes me uncomfortable to see the “institutionalize the bad people” mentality too. Even when it’s from somebody on the same side as me.
Men are killing women? This isn’t news. This isn’t something that never happened before. It’s not the reaction. *Feminism is the reaction.* Men killing women for their sins against manhood is NOT A NEW THING.
@WWTH
Oh, good. I remember the days when anger caused angrish to come out of my mouth all too well. 😛
§ 4: Women have very little idea of how much men hate them (Germaine Greer, major feminist voice of the mid-20th century)
It always baffles me that MRAs include this quote in their copypasted list of Terrible Things Feminists Have Said. They hate women, so what are they objecting to? That a feminist called them out on it?
It seems in especially bad taste to post it in response to a post about an anti-feminist man urging other men to murder women and ranting that it should be legal, but I’m sure some MRA will be along to explain why he didn’t mean it in a hateful way.
I don’t know about all the other quotes, but #2 is not real and the Marilyn French quotes are from a character in a novel. And no, there was no time, not even the Seventies, when feminists thought the SCUM Manifesto was anything more than amusing snark. Which, for the record, I still think it is.
James Feisley
HELLO MAN HERE WITH A MUCH MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT! FORGET A ALIVE MAN (WHOS NOTHING BUT A MISOGNIST C**K) WHO WANTS WOMEN DEAD AND IS ADOVACATING IT ON THE INTERNET CHECK THESE QUOTES FROM WOMEN WHO ARE EITHER DEAD, OUT OF CONTEXT OR BOTH! I REPEAT MEN ARE MORE IMPORATANT PAY ATTENTION TO US! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!!
http://youtu.be/LjShd3mDWeo
Dworkin and MacKinnon arguably have some problematic views, but they never said “all heterosexual sex is rape.”
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp
So many of those feminist quotes, at least the ones I recognise from Legal Studies, while pretty extreme, are outright true. Especially in the contexts of how much worse things were for women in the 20th century.
“Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”
Literally true, every son is likely grow up with anti-women views due to the influence of a patriarchal society (remember this is mid 20th century) and if you add up every man in this period who has exploited a woman or raped one, that is basically all of them as exploitation primarily includes unpaid domestic labour.
“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them”
I think this blog demonstrates how obviously true that is. This was especially true before the internet let men express their really toxic views where women could see them.
Combining 4 disparate quotes into a weird policy manifesto also makes no sense, half those quotes describe a state of affairs and make no prescriptions.
I recognize a good number of these quotes — they came from an era where feminists were being dismissed as a small group of bitter lesbians who were angry that they couldn’t get a man to make them into happy little housewives, where they were having great difficulty having anyone who mattered take them seriously, where there was a real possibility that the feminist movement might just fade away and disappear. In most cases they were cries of desperation from women who were frustrated and exhausted by an uphill climb.
@WWTH
This is why, however horrible it is for the victims, the fact that Paul Bernado can apply for parole even though he’ll never get it (and rightfully so) is a good thing. It’s a reassurance about the rest of the system.
As someone in the media put it, it’s not for him, it’s for us.
(Which is not to say that parts of how the system works in that case aren’t awful. But the basic principle is sound.)
I’ve debunked some of those quotes before. That long Marilyn French quote with the ellipses in it is especially disingenuous. The truncated quote suggests that she thinks all men are either rapists, or woman beaters, or woman killers or child molesters (if not more than one of these things). In fact, her list also includes things like paying women less than men, failing to pay child support, and disrespecting them at work or at home. And yeah, there are a lot of men who do at least one of those things.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/11/05/a-voice-for-male-students-misquotation-schmishquotation/
There has been a disturbing uptick in Australia of women being killed by abusive partners. This has happened just as the government has decided to cut funding to things like women’s shelters. That’s the real story, here. The Australian government is desperate to cut the cost of social welfare in order to keep corporate welfare nice and fat.
And it is literally killing people.
Actually, it’s stated quite clearly in the Welcome Package. Here, I’ll make it easier for you (and the half-dozen other first-time posters breaking this rule – that’s not coincidence, that’s trolls, but oh well) by copy-pasting the whole thing:
Reblogged this on Nyla Vox.
Why do people continue to treat the Internet as a fantasy land where there are no consequences for speech? If Nolan were to print out his calls for murder and paste up copies around town, would people say “he’s just blowing off steam” and “don’t feed the troll”? I suspect not. Why should Twitter be any different?
I’ll chip in with some legal stuff:
We have a similar thing to the Sovereign Movement over here. They call themselves Freemen-on-the Land. It’s the same sort of legal woo. Generally though our FMOTLs are trying to get out of speeding tickets and paying Council Tax rather than killing anyone.
The courts are used to them now and give them pretty short shrift.
As to mental health issues, I’ve done a few Mental Health Tribunal cases. That’s where someone has been detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act (“Sectioned” in the vernacular”). Such people are automatically appointed a lawyer. An independent panel had to decide whether they should be detained. The test is:
Do they have a recognisable mental illness?
Does the illness mean they pose a threat to themselves or others?
Is the condition treatable?
All three elements must be proven; otherwise they cannot be detained.
The third limb throws up some dilemmas. If a person cannot be treated they must be released; even if they pose a danger. There’s no provision in English law for detaining someone for public protection.
If someone does commit an offence their mental state can be relevant. We have the unfortunately named ‘insanity’ defence. The test for that is that two psychiatrists, at least one of whom must be registered under S.12 of the Mental Health Act, agree that the defendant did not know the nature of the act or, if they did, that the act was wrong. That determination has to be made by a jury, even if the Prosecution experts also agree.
Where a jury find that someone committed the act but come under the insanity defence then the court can impose a hospital order. That’s where they person can be detained for treatment. Once they are treated they must be released and again, if there’s no possibility of treatment then they cannot be detained. That can be hard on victims and their families but the principle of English law is that you cannot be detained unless there’s a reason to do so and/or you are actually responsible (in a conscious sense) for your actions.
To be convicted of an offence you must also have ‘capacity’. In England we assume that no one under 10 years of age has capacity or if they have an IQ of less than 70 as determined by the WAIS III test.
@Alan Robertshaw – Do you know about law pertaining to the capacity to work test ? Because I’m way beyond when they claimed I would be tested, and I know that it fails people with mental health issues. And I’m sure I’ll fail, despite being on disability benefits for twenty years. And I am scared.
I live how so many of those quotes are about dismantling the nuclear family, like that’s somehow equivalent to calling for murder.
Hi gilshalos
The capacity for work tests are more akin to those for disability living allowance. Essentially it’s a tick box exercise. There’s a series of questions for which ‘points’ are awarded. If you score 15 or above you’re treated as having limited capacity for work.
The test is more geared (IMHO) to physical disability though. “How far can you walk?” is something that can be answered in quantitative terms (assuming they believe you of course). The mental health questions are limited, subjective and almost ‘all or nothing’.
I don’t know if your familiar with the questions but they are;
13. Initiating and completing personal action (which means planning, organisation, problem solving, prioritising or switching tasks)
a) Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 sequential personal actions. 15
b) Cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 personal actions for the majority of the time. 9
c) Frequently cannot, due to impaired mental function, reliably initiate or complete at least 2 personal actions. 6
d) None of the above apply 0
14. Coping with change
a) Cannot cope with any change to the extent that day to day life cannot be managed. 15
b) Cannot cope with minor planned change (such as pre-arranged change to the routine time scheduled for a lunch break), to the extent that overall, day to day life is made significantly more difficult. 9
c) Cannot cope with minor unplanned change (such as the timing of an appointment on the day it is due to occur), to the extent that overall, day to day life is made significantly more difficult. 6
d) None of the above apply 0
15. Getting about
a) Cannot get to any specified place with which the claimant is familiar. 15
b) Is unable to get to a specified place with which the claimant is familiar, without being accompanied by another person. 9
c) Is unable to get to a specified place with which the claimant is unfamiliar without being accompanied by another person. 6
d) None of the above apply 0
16. Coping with social engagement due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder
a) Engagement in social contact is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual. 15
b) Engagement in social contact with someone unfamiliar to the claimant is always precluded due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual. 9
c) Engagement in social contact with someone unfamiliar to the claimant is precluded for the majority of the time due to difficulty relating to others or significant distress experienced by the individual. 6
d) None of the above apply 0
17. Appropriateness of behaviour with other people, due to cognitive impairment or mental disorder
a) Has, on a daily basis, uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace. 15
b) Frequently has uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace. 15
c) Occasionally has uncontrollable episodes of aggressive or disinhibited behaviour that would be unreasonable in any workplace. 9
d) None of the above apply
It can be a bit daunting dealing with the questions on your own.
If you disagree with the assessment you have certain rights of appeal. Where about do you live? If you’re in London or Nottingham the Free Representation Unit may be able to assist. You can’t approach them yourself but you could ask the local CAB to refer you.
http://www.thefru.org.uk/
Might be worth popping along to the CAB anyway. They might be able to chase up the assessors or at least point you in the direction of someone who can help.
Hope it goes well for you.
No actually, he is crazy. Like actually, medically not well. I actually know him in person. Thing is you can’t get people in his situation to take treatment no matter what they say, and he’s long estranged from his family in either Ireland or Australia. Guy didn’t show up to his own mother’s funeral.
Probably for the best. Imagine putting yourself in the shoes of his ex wife, you’d be terrified. No matter what sort of man he used to be. I almost wish he would commit a crime so he could finally just be arrested, safely away from anybody he could hurt
So you’re saying that this guy is sane and that misogyny is sane. You realize, don’t you, that you just took away our one avenue to lock up this waste of skin and oxygen *before* he murders someone, right? Thanks for that.
There are many ways to be physically ill, ranging from mild colds and minor tumors to Ebola and stage-five pancreatic cancer. The same is true of mental health. Most mental illness is survivable. Not all is, for either the sufferer or any victims they target.
First, just to introduce myself…
A friend just posted a link to this article — the first time I’ve visited “We Hunted the Mammoth” — I will be a steady reader from now on.
I’ve come across these mammoth hunter types on many occasions and have attempted to gently remove the spears from their bloody hands. Mostly a futile effort, what with the constant spewing of bull mammoth shit emanating from their mouth parts, even with my BMS repelling bumbershoot.
I don’t think Nolan will ever murder any woman, IMO, his overcompensating type is only brave when behind a computer screen (MRAs with keyboards — what a waste of technology and human potential).
However, he’s probably hoping his words will inspire another to murder women, so he can gleefully say, “I warned you that you’d better shape up, but you didn’t — you got what you deserved.”
I’m not from Germany so I don’t know about the legal situation there regarding the situation but I’m pretty sure this Nolan guy could be prosecuted here in Austria (if he had acted here) and we share a lot of our law with Germany so maybe there is a law for this in Germany, too?
We have this: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Dokumentnummer=NOR12029831 which says that it is not only punishable to tell people to commit crimes but also to endorse (some) crimes in such a way that it could “offend the general sense of justice or incite someone to commit such a crime”. It has to be in a way that makes it accessible to the public at large.
We had a case not that long ago where they tried to prosecute a guy because of something he had written on the homepage of his NGO so I’m pretty sure twitter would qualify.
@Dana
Ableism, demonisation (I’m schizophrenic and I don’t have “Victims;” I’ve been a victim, but that’s not quite the same thing) and blaming us for any of Colon’s future crimes (even though we’ve been working to send the cops after him for months)? I think that’s a new record in fuuuck yooou.
(As a side note, this is the only site where I’ve been able to admit that without being instantly banned or having everybody freak out in case I magically kill them through the Internet. Because “Schizophrenic” means “Telekinetic” now, apparently. So, y’know, you guys are awesome.)