Marc Lepine wanted to rehabilitate men

(en français)

Copyright: Peter Zohrab 2002 (translated by him from his original, unedited French version -- updated 19 November 2004)

A feminist, Micheline Carrier, has written a reply to my article (in French translation): http://www.lapresrupture.qc.ca/GerardLevesque_juillet25.htm (And here it is in English) at the page: http://netfemmes.cdeacf.ca/les_actualites/lire.php?article=1209 where she quotes my conclusions, while avoiding any mention of the details that lead to those conclusions. She concentrates on her duty to arouse feelings of shock at the thought that anyone would have even considered rehabilitating Marc Lepine. She also shows signs of practising the same sort of oppression that led to Marc Lepine's desperate act -- censorship.

One finds in feminists a desire to control information -- which they can can contemplate doing, because the media are also full of feminists (See: boycecnt.html). Micheline Carrier wrote, in connection with my article on Marc Lepine:

<<Je me suis demandée un moment s'il convenait de rapporter de tels propos au risque de leur donner une publicité indue.>> (My translation: "I wondered for a moment if it was appropriate to report writing of this sort, at the risk of giving it undue publicity.")

Similarly, we were once able to find this sentence by Francine Pelletier at the page: http://www.howdyneighbor.com/one-in-ten/FEMINISTmassacre.html#letter (since deleted from the Web), which published the letter that Marc Lepine left behind:

<<I don't believe it is dangerous to have a window inside (this man's) head.>> (Who came up with the notion that a man's ideas might be dangerous ? What's happened to freedom of speech ?)

Moreover, that page informs us that the Police haven't officially released that letter. Not only are the media feminist, but the Police are also feminist, and wanted to protect us from the truth !

This matriarchal attitude present in our Western feminist establishment shows up also when she writes:

<<Tiens, tiens, le lobby des pères montre le bout du nez.>> (My translation: "Well, well ! The Fathers' Lobby is showing the tip of its nose !")

Obviously, the rights, wishes and demands of men and fathers should -- according to Micheline Carrier -- remain buried under the day-to-day censorship of the feminist media !

Micheline Carrier thinks that I suffer from "blind hatred" and that my article is "nearly delirious". But she doesn't say a single word about the six articles of the manifesto contained in Marc's letter, about the injustice under which men are forced to live in feminist societies, about the suffering of fathers and children in societies where divorce is described as a great victory for women, about the loss to Quebec society of young lives which will be deprived of their fathers and thereby wounded to the heart, without counting the children who have been aborted without their fathers' permission -- or their own permission, of course -- and the deaths and serious wounds suffered by so many men who, in several wars, survived only to be oppressed by the feminist state.

The only "blind hatred" is the hatred that feminists like Micheline Carrier feel towards men, since she only mentions crimes committed by men. They refuse to contemplate the academic statistics such as those you can find at page http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm , which clearly show that women's violence against men exceeds men's violence towards women.

Micheline Carrier writes:

<<Et le «lobby des pères» minimise la violence en milieu familial et, écartant les données fiables, prétend que la violence des femmes à l'égard des hommes équivaut et dépasse même celle des hommes envers les femmes.>> (My translation: "And the "fathers' lobby" makes light of family violence and, brushing aside reliable data, claims that women's violence against men equals or even surpasses that of men against women.")

That is a heap of lies which, all by itself, after being repeated several times by the feminist media, the feminist Police, feminist governments, and by feminist universities, would perhaps provide justification for a full-scale revolution -- not for a little extremist protest by a Marc Lepine all by himself !

1. We don't "make light of" violence -- we only say that women, too, are violent. It's feminists like Micheline Carrier, who, blinded by hatred, make light of women's violence.
2. We don't brush aside reliable data. I'd very much like to see a definition of "reliable data" which could exclude the data at the page http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm !! Needless to say, Micheline Carrier herself doesn't cite any reliable data. All that she was able to cite in the way of statistics in her article was:

   <<Des hommes «en tant qu'hommes», comme le dit Martin Dufresne, ont commis 679 meurtres sur des femmes et des enfants depuis décembre 1989. >> (My translation: "Men 'in their capacity as men', as Martin Dufresne puts it, have committed 679 murders of women and children since 1989.")

She doesn't cite any figures about murders by women of men and children -- nor about abortions.

Murders should not be confused with family violence. As is shown at the page: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm women's violence towards men is equal to and even exceeds that of men towards women. However, feminist propaganda and the self-styled "justice" system practically restricts itself to arresting men when there's a family conflict. In practice, the Police exist only for women. Deprived of a police force to come to their aid against a violent woman, and of courts which are likely to take an interest in fathers' emotions in divorce cases, men are forced to flee or to fight. One of these choices could result in suicide, and the other in murder. The blind hatred of the feminists towards men results in a government policy of blind hatred towards men, with results which the feminists make use of subsequently to reinforce the policy of hatred towards men -- by confusing voilence with the murders which are the result of this government policy of blind ideological hatred, which has a lesbian psychological origin, towards men.

Marc Lepine wanted to rehabilitate men. He wanted the media to free themselves -- however slightly -- from their preoccupation with "equality for women", in order to concentrate somewhat on "equality for men". He failed. What do we have to do in order to succeed ?

Peter Zohrab
Acting President
New Zealand Equality Education Foundation

Last Update: 4 December 2008

Top