TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Update on the Honey Badger Brigade's legal case

EvilPundit

July 15, 2015
64 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/07/14/legal-draft-calgary-expo-expulsion-honey-badger-brigade-july-14th-2015/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Update on the Honey Badger Brigade's legal case
Author

EvilPundit

Upvotes 64
Comments 41
Date July 15, 2015 2:38 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3ddvzc/update_on_the_honey_badger_brigades_legal_case/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/update-on-the-honey-badger-brigades-legal-case.975361
https://theredarchive.com/post/975361
Top posts by EvilPundit

Men working with women for true equality

1312 upvotes
February 27, 2015
/r/MensRights

"Sick of being treated like the enemy, guys are dropping out of society"

1203 upvotes
June 30, 2013
/r/MensRights

[NSFW] Banner image of the feminist protest group, "Femen". No, they don't hate men at all.

820 upvotes
November 19, 2012
/r/MensRights

CNN: Should false rape accusers be sued?

730 upvotes
December 18, 2013
/r/MensRights

Baffled by teen boys, experts keep trying to turn them into girls. Surprise — it’s not working.

710 upvotes
August 26, 2013
/r/MensRights

“A drunk woman can’t make correct decisions, but apparently, drunk men turn into Einstein when they get drunk.”

589 upvotes
November 29, 2013
/r/MensRights

A woman who exploited lonely and vulnerable men by promising to introduce them to their "perfect match" has been ordered to pay back more than $342,000 in compensation.

525 upvotes
November 13, 2012
/r/MensRights

Backlash: College men challenge 'guilty until proven innocent' standard for sex assault cases

522 upvotes
August 11, 2014
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Blutarg 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Go get 'em!

[–]SilencingNarrative 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That was a glorious read. Thanks for posting it.

[–]tiqr 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

As an Alberta Lawyer, I can say that this case has little to no chance of success. They may be able to recoup the booth cost and some promotional materials/travel/accommodation expenses, but that amount looks like it would be closer to $2-3K.

Their case hinges on the following paragraph:

To the extent that the Defendant relies on its agreement with the Plaintiff as a justification for its conduct, it is submitted that this Honourable Court should give no force or effect to such reliance as it has resulted in arbitrary censorship, discrimination and denial of freedom of expression.

This just won't fly. The convention gets to rely on it's agreement because it's a private venue. It is not subject to the Charter of Rights and freedoms, so "freedom of expression" has no relevance or bearing. The convention is free to sell booths to whomever it chooses, and can deny service to whomever it chooses. What it can't do is arbitrarily kick booths out after collecting their fees without a good reason.

These women are correct that asking questions during a seminar is not grounds for having them be removed. But as I read from previous posts, the convention is alleging that they misrepresented their groups identity when applying. One of their members is a comic artist, and they entered under her name. And while they represented they were coming under the banner of her comic, they had promotional materials for the "Honey Badgers".

I can pretty much guarantee that the convention's contract contains language which permits them to expel people who misrepresent identity of the organization purchasing a booth. And if that's the case, they won't recover anything.

[–]blueoak9 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I don't see where you have shown the Honey Badgers misrepresented themselves.

[–]tiqr 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I never made that claim. I said that I had heard that this was the position the convention was taking, and that if proven would pretty much kill the litigation outright.

In any event, the whole purpose of litigation is to draw out these kinds of details. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. If I'm right, then I'm right.

[–]Lurker_IV 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

$20 says there were plenty of booths that had their own materials and some 'cross promotional' materials from their friends, colleges, other events, etc..

I have never been to a convention where I didn't see this happen.

[–]tiqr 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Sadly, that doesn't matter. Clauses like I am describing typically allow for discretion to be used. It's like Rent Agreements that say "NO PETS". Most of the time this rule gets ignored or waived, but if the Landlord wants you out, they'll use it as an excuse.

[–]Lurker_IV 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Selective enforcement of a rule is proof of discrimination. If there is a rule that you never enforce and then pick out one person to enforce it on that is clear evidence of discrimination. This can be used for wrongful employment termination and I imagine it can be used in cases like this one as well.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This is kind of the problem with Libertarianism. The government has a lot of limits on how it can screw you. Corporations? Not so much.

It's much the same with trying to sue colleges in the USA over kicking out falsely accused men.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Problem with libertarianism?

It's not that big of a problem, until government begins regulating corporations to force the corporations to do their bidding -- resulting once again in no limits in how the government can screw you.

It's much the same with trying to sue colleges in the USA over kicking out falsely accused men.

The government in the US forced colleges to adopt policies that screw over men. You see this as a problem of too little government? Seriously dude?

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes; because the universities are corporations they can screw you over.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but if the universities are public, the government can still screw you over. It used to be that the private universities were independent of government, so if any university did something shitty, you could go somewhere else.

No more, as you can see.

Yours is not a criticism of too little government, it's a criticism of too much government.

[–]AloysiusC -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The government has a lot of limits on how it can screw you. Corporations? Not so much.

Sure. The Stasi were nothing compared to Walmart. Lol.

[–]tiqr 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Selective enforcement of rules is discrimination for employers, yes. But this isn't that kind of relationship. The Fair Trading Act says nothing about selective enforcement. It would only require that the convention follow the rules of the contract.

[–]blueoak9 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"I never made that claim. "

Then I must have misunderstood the plain meaning of this:

I can pretty much guarantee that the convention's contract contains language which permits them to expel people who misrepresent identity of the organization purchasing a booth. And if that's the case, they won't recover anything.

[–]tiqr 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right - my language was sloppy. My intent was to say "If they misrepresented" AND "if the contract contains terms like I imagine" then there's no hope of success.

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It seems like the convention didn't follow it's own rules in several respects. Also doesn't the Canadian (or provincial) government help sponsor this convention?

[–]tiqr 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have no idea whether the government sponsored it - but it's certainly possible. If they did, a 'sponsorship' is technically an exchange of money for publicity by association. The Charter doesn't apply to people funded by the government - it applies to government agencies (which we can all I agree Comic Con is not)

[–]Pornography_saves_li 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

They have convention materials printed with both names used, as a mid registration switch happened. The convention was well aware of the change in representation, which can be proven, as well as alisons attempts to maintain credibility. So this angle of defense will quickly fold if attempted. Ergo, not a major aspect of the planned case.

[–]tiqr -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You must have inside information about this case that I do not. Either way, all my instincts are telling me that this litigation will go nowhere.

Best case scenario is it's found that they should not have been kicked out, and they get a refund plus some expenses. The claims for lost income from the convention are hugely out of proportion and will not be taken seriously. Also, if the defense could show they would have attended even without a booth, then all the travel and accommodation costs will also be denied.

[–]Pornography_saves_li 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess the organizers shouldnt have called the cops on the HB (who were in a local park trying to meet people who went to the con to meet the HBs) then, since its made proving attendance was not an option pretty easily.

Much as you try and defend them, the con organizers fuked up, royally, on a multitude of levels. Including crowing about their actions before they realized those actions were illegal. On the internet. Which never forgets.

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Right in the feature image to this post you can see "Honey Badger Brigade" printed on the placard to the booth.

[–]tiqr -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I already conceded that possibility above. That doesn't change the fact that your damages claims are out to lunch, and they may have had full contractual authority to do what they did (obviously I haven't seen it, but you and your lawyer have).

Also, why didn't you guys actually file your claim? You seem to have finished your draft - so what's the hold up?

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As you can see from the feature image, the booth was registered under "Honey Badger Brigade."

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You didn't read the placard on the feature image that says "honey badger brigade?"

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

  • 35 comic books per convention at 20$/book for 10 years, assuming no increase in popularity.

It should be painfully obvious that if it cost over $12,000. to attend the convention, (as the pleading claims), and their anticipated comic sales at each convention were only $700., it's impossible to show a loss of income from not being able to attend future conferences. In addition, this is anticipated sales of $7,000., not $14,000.

The damage claim here needs some very serious work. "To Be Provided" doesn't really cut it.

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

There are two potential comic book conventions that I'm now excluded from.

The 12,000$ is a separate issue from my potential income as a comics artist and relates exclusively to the HB presence at the convention.

[–]Karissa36 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't make much sense. You would have costs for attending 20 conventions over the next 10 years. Now maybe you wouldn't need to bring the entire team of Honey Badgers with you, but it is doubtful the cost would be substantially less than $700. per conference.

There is also the problem of privity of contract. I don't recall which name you signed the contract for a display booth under, yourself or the Honey Badgers, but that is the only entity the convention has a duty to. You can't get damages for both.

[–]RedditorJemi -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

If you're some kind of lawyer, than I'd wonder why you'd bother giving legal advice to someone who is not your client and to whom you are obviously not sympathetic. It looks suspicious. If you are not a lawyer, than I submit that you are full of it.

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe I just object to a group collecting thousands of dollars in donations for a lawsuit that has very little chance of success. They have already collected more in donations than they are ever going to get in court. It looks like a scam.

Edit: The link says that they have already collected over $30,000. in donations for legal fees. For a lawsuit which on a really good day might be worth $3,000. Disgusting.

[–]RedditorJemi -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Again, I would question your credentials.

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Go ahead. When the lawsuit, (if it is even filed), is resolved then we'll see who is right.

[–]RedditorJemi -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't care to argue about this with you. I'm not a lawyer, but you sound like you're full of shit.

[–]Karissa36 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's what you don't seem to understand. I don't give a shit what your opinion is. We'll see what happens with the lawsuit which as of now hasn't even been filed.

[–]RedditorJemi -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I understand that perfectly well, and I hope that you understand that I don't give a shit what your opinion is, and furthermore, I never offered any kind of legal opinion. You offered your legal opinion unsolicited, which would be suspicious even if you were a lawyer, which you evidently are not.

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stick it to them.

[–]Karissa36 -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There was nothing said or done by her that would in any way create a negative or unsafe environment or show disrespect to those with whom they contended.

As I recall this was one of the stipulations required of attendees at the conference. As I also recall, on the evening of the 17th Alison published a Honey Badger podcast on YouTube which was quite negative about this panel discussion, selectively used recorded quotes that were not fairly indicative of the entire panel discussion, and generally accused the panel members of "damseling".

The fact is that a conference attendee can create a negative environment and/or be disrespectful to other conference attendees outside of the physical building of the conference. Panel members were no doubt dismayed to find themselves secretly recorded and criticized so publicly to what they perceived to be a hostile audience.

The plaintiffs better be prepared to address this defense. The complete absence of any reference to Alison's evening podcast in this draft pleading strongly suggests that they are not prepared to do so.

As for free speech, as /u/tiqr properly explains, this was a private venue. In addition, the defendant has no duty at all to list all of their defenses or reasons for evicting attendees. Clearly the convention center decided to say as little as possible when this public controversy erupted. They are entitled to do so.

Finally, the requested damages claimed are absolutely ridiculous.

[–]typhonblue 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As I recall this was one of the stipulations required of attendees at the conference. As I also recall, on the evening of the 17th Alison published a Honey Badger podcast on YouTube which was quite negative about this panel discussion, selectively used recorded quotes that were not fairly indicative of the entire panel discussion, and generally accused the panel members of "damseling".

We didn't use "recorded quotes" during the podcast. And yes, I did point out that they damseled which I found disappointing which is something I stated that I opposed at the actual panel.

Panel members were no doubt dismayed to find themselves secretly recorded and criticized so publicly to what they perceived to be a hostile audience.

We uploaded the recording after the allegations of "harrassment" were made.

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We didn't use "recorded quotes" during the podcast.

I can't find the podcast on YouTube anymore. I seem to recall you used quotes. Perhaps you just stated what was said. Regardless your podcast was quite negative about the panel discussion, I don't think it was fairly indicative of the entire panel discussion which on the whole was quite balanced, and you directly accused the panel of "damseling".

We uploaded the recording after the allegations of "harrassment" were made.

But before they kicked you out of the convention. This is a very important point. An association with GamerGate is one thing. Directly attacking panel members publicly to a large and perceived as hostile (to them) audience is a much different thing. It doesn't take a leap of faith to see how this would create a negative or unsafe environment or show disrespect to panel member attendees.

Like it or not, that podcast is going to be front and center in this lawsuit, along with the social media and other complaints that it no doubt contributed to.

[–]typhonblue -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Perhaps you just stated what was said. Regardless your podcast was quite negative about the panel discussion

I thought the internalized misogyny on display was disappointing, yes.

But before they kicked you out of the convention.

No. That would be after the allegations of harassment were made.

Directly attacking panel members publicly to a large and perceived as hostile (to them) audience is a much different thing.

So remarking on someone's internalized misogyny (aka. their desire to remove their own agency and conform to gender norms via a display of weakness) is a "direct attack" according to you?

[–]Karissa36 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You made the podcast before you were kicked out of the convention.

How did the comments go on that podcast? Did they all talk positively about the panel members? That will give you an excellent idea on whether you created a negative environment by making that podcast.

It doesn't really matter what your reasons were. If the convention decided that you were creating a negative environment, they were entitled to eject you. It is completely irrelevant whether you accused panel members of being misogynists or of being ugly and having bad haircuts.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter