I meant this part:

…what followed was weeks of relentless harassment flooding my inboxes, demanding that I be fired, claiming that “people like me should not exist.”

Some said they knew where I lived.

I forwarded every message to my managers, every time requesting four things: for advice and support on how to deal with the harassment, for CTV to issue a cease-and-desist letter to HRC, clarification on whether there were any rules against showing a keffiyeh or Palestinian flag on TV, and whether leadership stood behind my coverage.

Each time, I was met with silence or indifference.

If someone threatens my co-workers, I take it seriously.

However, the next morning I woke up to an onslaught of emails and DMs from HRC members who took issue with a visual detail: one of the people I interviewed was wearing a keffiyeh and holding a Palestinian flag. HRC labeled this man an “anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian protester,” and what followed was weeks of relentless harassment flooding my inboxes, demanding that I be fired, claiming that “people like me should not exist.”

Some said they knew where I lived.

I forwarded every message to my managers, every time requesting four things: for advice and support on how to deal with the harassment, for CTV to issue a cease-and-desist letter to HRC, clarification on whether there were any rules against showing a keffiyeh or Palestinian flag on TV, and whether leadership stood behind my coverage.

Each time, I was met with silence or indifference.

Then, several months after the broadcast, my story had quietly disappeared from CTV’s website. The video report and copy had been unpublished without explanation or consultation and replaced with a short copy rewritten by a young, white male colleague. My name had been removed from the byline along with the quote from the protester. In doing so, CTV News breached its own Corrections Policy, which clearly states: “We do not, except in very narrow circumstances, unpublish articles or videos.” This policy is echoed throughout most journalism outlets. Online journalism is a part of historical records and archives. While incorrect information should be corrected and clarified, keeping stories online reflects a commitment to transparency, accuracy, and fairness.

How depressing. How is this legal?

Yeah to be clear, I’m saying they’re just claiming that. Like I said, no proof, just ‘seriously we claim this, trust us.’

It’s ridiculous.

It’s terrifying how the government can just declare something to be a terrorist organization with no proof at all. Just ‘they raise, uh, money. For… uh… terrorism?’

I remember loving everything about this game except the name and the controls; truly baffling decisions there, haha.

UNIFIL said Israeli soldiers had also fired at a UN position in Ras Naqoura, “hitting the entrance to the bunker where peacekeepers were sheltering, and damaging vehicles and a communications system.”

“An IDF drone was observed flying inside the UN position up to the bunker entrance,” UNIFIL said. The previous day, Israeli forces had “fired at and disabled the position’s perimeter-monitoring cameras,” it added. They also deliberately fired at and damaged another position, it said.

So they knew it was the UN that they were attacking? What the fuck.

Personally, I would imagine that the real issue with THIS ARTICLE is the picture they chose to forefront it. Why would they choose that one

A woman was raped over decades by 51 men and your issue is the article has a picture you don’t like as the opening image?

Well the idea with protests like this is to shine so bright a light on it that we force governments to act. If we do that enough, we can make this happen less and less to everyone.

And so, what’s the course of action? To give all men some sterilization treatment?

Who the hell said that?

The case has put into the spotlight a growing problem with rape in France. The number of sexual assault victims in France increased by 33% in 2021 and nearly doubled from 2017, according to a government report. Women made up 89% of rape victims, while 96% of sexual violence perpetrators were men.

But out of almost 35,000 rapes recorded that year, just over 10% were prosecuted, and fewer than 5% resulted in a conviction. And the vast majority of rape or attempted rape victims − nine out of ten − never even file a complaint, the report found.

The plan is to make it so the system actually helps the victims. That’s the idea. These protests bring light to the issue.

And, I promise you, the real numbers are probably scarily equal, just like with domestic abuse. Because men are definitely taught to never come forward with those.

Cool guess, stats say you’re wrong.

But even if the true ratio was 1:50, what’s the solution?

See above.

Seriously this is fucking embarrassing, you’re creating constant strawman arguments without any basis of anything reported.

Sorry you’re getting this reaction. I am a man who was abused by women and all the support groups lead to me taking to a room full of women about it. Do men come forward less often? Yes. It would have to be like 1 in 100 men coming forward for it to be equal. I’ve had one other male friend who has been assaulted, but over half of the women I’ve been friends with have.

If it helps anyone with that being anecdotal, you have to look at the statistics of who is doing it: people in power. Just that alone means more men simply have the opportunity. Add to that that men are told sex is power, and that men who have sex often are virile, whereas women who do are slut shamed. It’s getting better, but still far off.

Anyway I’ll take the downvotes, but every statistic we have shown is that men are the primary antagonist in the vast majority of sexual assault against both men and women.

I’m curious what Con voters will tell themselves after we lose this. And then whatever they take after that. What do they think, internally? Is it enough for them that people they’ve never met suffer, or do they require it to be specific people?

Good luck everyone, I am starting to feel a very real fear.

Too bad the voters won’t hold her to account for it.

I mean, yeah, basically.

And one country being invaded by what was previously thought to be the 2nd best military in the world.

I think it’s likely that we’re just so used to being catered to, that as soon as we aren’t, we start to throw tantrums and demand to be the centre of attention again. Like these numbers aren’t just bad, they’re terminal: Boomers are less conservative than men 35 and under.

We’re fucked if we stay on this path. Why would the Cons care to actually do what they promised to if half of all men will vote for them no-matter what they do?

We didn’t say they were stupid, we said wilfully ignorant, which they are quite literally being. Women aren’t doing the same thing, so it’s clear there are ways around it that men aren’t using.

But we’re not in the correct-information-only age. There’s a lot of noise to filter out, and most people aren’t trained well enough to do that (i.e. critical thinking).

I think my point is it’s not ‘most people’ being untrained, because apparently women are not falling for the same thing. So we clearly already have the tools, just men (by and large) aren’t using them.

Anyone who doesn’t see the warning signs is either historically or wilfully ignorant.

Which is why it’s so embarrassing – we live in the information age and these people are still falling for tricks from hundreds of years ago, despite being told specifically this would happen.

But if you had any intention of voting Trudeau, wouldn’t your protest vote go to the NDP?

It’s a MASSIVE right-wing stretch from ‘Trudeau Sucks’ to ‘So let’s elect Pierre Poilievre.’