That is what I thought this morning as I am fighting to get through an essay, an exam (all due Monday) and as I needed a small break to gather my thoughts as I am returning a book to the library, a book I had bought three months ago. So, I need to collect my thoughts for a moment.
Of course, leave it to me to find one of the most offensive events ever at this point. The article is about Julien Blanc, a dating coach. The article comes from Somayya Ismailjee and can be found at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/05/julien-blanc-the-female-attraction-expert-glorifies-sexual-violence-the-less-seminars-he-holds-the-better. This is not an article for the faint of heart. When you read the following two facts:
- He is visiting Australia this week to host a series of pick up artistry seminars.
- ““Just go through Tokyo, grab girls and yell ‘Pikachu’ and put her head on your dick”, Blanc instructs his audience before showing footage of himself doing just that“
Now consider Australian Criminal law:
61I Sexual assault;
Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and who knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.
In addition we take:
section 61HA Consent in relation to sexual assault offences we see subsection (4) Negation of consent, where at (c) if the person consents to the sexual intercourse because of threats of force or terror (whether the threats are against, or the terror is instilled in, that person or any other person).
Which finalises the fact that this person (I refuse to call him a man), is making seminars that are not just offensive, they are directly criminal. Can anyone explain to me how refugees are rounded up and this man gets allowed into our country?
I put it to you the reader, that anyone giving consideration to the course, anyone facilitating to his course. I will go further; there is a premise in Criminal law too:
When reading section 80G Incitement to commit sexual offence, of the Crimes Act 1900 of NSW, we see at (2) For the person to be guilty, the person must intend that the offence incited be committed. That is pretty much proven with the public speaking, if it is not, then man could be regarded as guilty by default for fraud (this situation must be a first in Australian criminal law), it just does not end there, it gets even better when we see subsection 3, where it states ‘A person may be found guilty even if committing the offence incited is impossible’.
That is just the legal avenue. I am all for keeping people safe and unlike Somayya Ismailjee, my military past finds the following solution quite acceptable: “Dear parent, it is with sadness that I must inform you that your daughter is now in direct danger because of Mr J. Blanc, he is residing in Hotel X, in room Y as he is teaching people at seminar Z on how to sexually assault your little girl.” At this point I am only informing them on the dangers their child faces, I am not instigating anything at all.
My evidence on this is?
Well is that not what event driven marketing is all about? He is marketing what he calls ‘picking-up girls’, just like Somayya Ismailjee I do not agree, what he does is nothing less of criminal, yet, I feel that my intellect is a lot higher than this Julian Blanc and as such am considering the following: If we accept the growth of Event-driven marketing (EDM), which is regarded to be a discipline, where commercial and communication activities are based upon the measurement of relevant and identifiable changes in a customer’s individual needs. Yet I state that commercial need is not a given and it is all about communication, which means that I am not marketing ‘measureable results‘, I am merely postulating on the existence of defensively driven parentage. As this is less about the ‘statistics’ of it all and more about a different approach to directly inform the public on the dangers that their children face. Call it alternative use of data skills. If we regard the ‘event’ to be a detectable change in an Individual’s circumstances, which is relevant and significant, either in fact or within their perception. Can we state that I am incited anything at all? If I remove his business because of the circumstance that he is lecturing criminal activity, am I not just ‘invoking’ the need for law? If I live by the impulse that the protection of unaware women is a must, how many parents should be informed to create a critical mass where they all hopefully alert authorities towards the danger of their children?
If we accept that the people have a right to know and that communication gives visibility, how come that this information “Julien Blanc and members of RSD are simultaneously holding seminars on November 6th in Melbourne, Seattle, and Austin. We are petitioning the Courtyard Seattle Downton/ Pioneer Square and Hilton Garden Inn Austin Downtown”
How come that this information is not all over the news?
When we seek Channel 7 we get: “We did not find results for: julian blanc“, yet the freaky spider prank is all over the place. I have nothing against a prank, but should the news (and especially Sunrise) not warn against these dangers? More important here, I am not having a go at Sunrise specifically, the information was also missing from Channel 9 and Channel 10, yet Sunrise had a decent professional site (more than just a marketing page) where I could seek for news.
The push on change.org is not just a worry; the worry is why the authorities and the news are not all over Julien Blanc. Yes, the event in Melbourne has been cancelled, yet that news is 15 hours old, how long was this event pencilled down? When we see the quote “Blanc has several more seminars planned in Australia this month and again in December, for which the venues are yet to be made public“, how is this not dealt with on several legal and public platforms?
Consider the news a few days ago where a CDC guard was yanked from his job for taking a photo with his mobile of the presidential car, the crowning day in his career as he got to walk with the president and as the presidential party was leaving he took a quick pic. I reckon we would all have done that! Yet, here where we see the US company Real Social Dynamics, in what would be regarded as inciting criminal activities in pretty much every common law nation, I see it as disturbing where the US is not acting at all when one of ‘their’ corporations is causing this. It is my view that the moment this came out, the Consul General Hugo Llorens should have yanked all papers and handed it all over to the FBI (as well as shipping Julian Blanc back to the US). Let’s not forget that these events are still taking place in the US and as such, it is an assumption part on my side, but as this is all criminal in Australia, the UK and Canada, it is extremely likely that it is criminal in the US as well, so how could these events continue in Seattle and Austin?
I would think that as the US is in need of better relationship with many nations, how could they allow a person like Julian Blanc and a company like Real Social Dynamics to continue to sully the American name is equally puzzling.
Whether this is just an isolated event that did not get the eyes of those who should have seen it, or a silenced event that was allowed to continue for this long as press and authorities seemed to have ignored it all, I cannot say, sometimes things pass unnoticed, there is no denying this, but now that it gets the visibility is has, especially as court requests have been made questions by several parties should be asked and actions by officials should be taken.
Silence is not golden; in this case it is getting innocent people killed, or worse!
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 