Saturday, January 21, 2012

The creepy eliminationism of Suzanne Fortin.

NOTE: You might want to check back on a regular basis for updates since this story is just getting more entertaining. Updates will be added at the bottom.

While I still have no intention of returning to blogging on any sort of regular basis, a recent blog post of Ottawa's most prominent fetus fetishist Suzanne Fortin can't go unspanked, not only for its jaw-dropping intellectual lunacy and murderous overtones, but its hypocrisy and downright dishonesty. And while most of the commenters there seem to be giving Suzanne the drubbing she deserves, I think they're missing a couple points that deserve a little more evisceration. And so, to work.

OH, DEAR: As commenter Fern predicted, Suzanne Fortin is such a dishonest hack, she redirected the link to her post to fetal porn -- you know, the horrific, bloody images that one suspects she masturbates to on a regular basis. So here's a screenshot of the text in question:

If you want to visit, copy and paste into your browser.

First, let's reproduce the passage in question that's causing so much consternation:

Pro-life Nation's first project is the launching of a groundbreaking web site This site is a searchable database that endeavors to list every surgical abortion clinic, every "abortion pill-only" clinic, and every abortionist in the United States. The website boasts that it contains the largest collection of documents ever compiled on the abortion cartel-and is growing daily.

Documents include photos, medical license applications, malpractice suits, disciplinary records, news articles, videos, criminal histories, and more.

Now while Suzanne didn't personally write that passage, I think we can safely conclude she agrees with it whole-heartedly; otherwise, why the unconditional promotion? In any event, I think it's perfectly fair to suggest that we can thrash Suzanne soundly based on those words. And where to start?

To save time, let's all just agree that the suggestion she's making is utterly, totally and completely batshit fucking deranged. Given the historic (and, some would say, ironic) violence of the "pro-life" movement, it takes an astonishing level of intellectual damage to suggest that one could openly document all sorts of personal information about abortion providers without seeing the potential disaster therein. If you have no idea what I'm talking about here, then you're simply too stupid to be taking part in this discussion. But that's not why I'm here. Oh, no, there's more.

First, note carefully how desperately Suzanne tries to move the goalposts when she's called on her obvious genocidal obsession. Suzanne is adamant that she wants to document only those abortion providers that are criminals or who have "shady" behaviours, writing at one point in the comments section:

There are no "wanted" posters. It's a database of information for women who might want to abort. You know, because we tell them about shady abortionists when you won't.

Suzanne makes the same claim several more times -- that she's only interested in smoking out the "bad" abortionists -- the shady ones, the criminals, the drug addicts and so on. That is, of course, a total lie since one can clearly read in the original passage (emphasis tail-waggingly added):

This site is a searchable database that endeavors to list every surgical abortion clinic, every "abortion pill-only" clinic, and every abortionist in the United States.

So Suzanne's frantic attempt to deflect falls MASSIVELY flat, and that's her first lie. But that's not why I'm here. No, I have a personal dog in this fight.

Suzanne's other pathetic rationalization is that simply listing publicly everything one can learn about abortion providers in no way endangers them, no sirree, they just want to, um, "shame" them, yeah, that's the ticket. And if they're lawbreakers, sure, that's a bonus, but Suzanne insists that a MASSIVE public database of abortion docs and everything one can glean about them (including their photos) doesn't represent any sort of risk to them. In Suzanne's own words, "This is not violent." This is an interesting defense since it contradicts completely how Suzanne felt just a couple years ago.

At the risk of over-summarizing, long-time readers might recall my public spat with one "NAMBLA Dick", during which -- after NAMBLA Dick had created a web site whose sole purpose it was to push unsuspecting readers to the home page of NAMBLA, an organization that promoted pedophilia -- I suggested that one response would be to figure out where Dick's children went to school in order to warn the teachers and administrators there that one of their parents had a truly creepy obsession with men having sex with children.

No, it wasn't one of my finer moments, but here's the curious thing -- by simply making that suggestion, I was hysterically accused of putting Dick's kids in terrible and mortal danger. Really? In what way? I'd suggested that, based on nothing more than Dick's public home address, it would be geographically trivial to deduce where the neighbourhood school was, nothing more. And in the end, that idea simply faded away and nothing was ever done with it. To this day, I have no idea which school that was and I have no interest in ever finding out.

And yet ... and yet ... from one of Suzanne's own posts from a couple years back (no link since she'd just redirect it to more gratuitous fetal pornography), we have this gem:

The lowest tactic was when Cynic revealed information about Richard Evans' kids and where they went to school, exposing them to possible danger.

Well, isn't that special?

Let's first notice that Suzanne is once again lying outrageously (something she claims as a Christian never to do). There was no "revealing" of school information at any time, either by me or anyone else. It's a lie.

Ah, but that's not the best part of the above, and I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Apparently, Suzanne believed that just by publishing a school location, I was exposing someone to "possible danger." That's fascinating since she seems to have reversed herself entirely since then, claiming now that posting everything one can determine about someone couldn't possibly end badly. Hypocrisy, thy name is Suzanne. But there's one more point that can be made.

Frankly, I think this whole thing is overblown. I doubt Suzanne is actually going to do anything like this since, even though she's clearly mentally disturbed, she probably still has the awareness to realize what sort of shitstorm she'd be walking into, legally.

Note how Suzanne writes:

We should do this in Canada...

As in, she thinks it's a terrific idea but one gets the impression she's more than happy to let someone else do the work. And that's a good idea, Suzanne, because here's the thing.

People get a bit touchy when you publicly accuse them of being "shady" or "criminals," and you've made it clear that's what you have in mind. But if you want to make those kinds of accusations, you better make sure you can back them up, because that sort of accusation is -- what's the word I'm after? oh, right -- "libelous." And you'll have to trust me on this -- publicly accusing someone of criminal behaviour on the Intertoobz has the potential for ending very badly.

So I'm guessing that while Suzanne would really, really like a public database of Canadian abortion docs, she's actually not going to do anything about it herself. Because I doubt there's enough money on the planet to cover the legal fees she'd need to pay if she tried.

In the end, though, one can just be amused by Suzanne's jaw-dropping hypocrisy and double standards, where publishing openly public information about someone represents "possible danger." Except when it doesn't.

P.S. I feel horrifically sorry for Suzanne's children. They're going to need a lifetime of therapy to cope with the psychological damage. Or they'll just go to work for Sun TV. No one will even notice.

AFTERSNARK 1: Suzanne has incredible difficulty keeping her story straight. After insisting she wants only to document the "bad" abortionists, she writes the following in her own comments section:

And suddenly, we're back to what Suzanne really wants -- a database of all abortion providers. It's actually sad that Suzanne can't keep track of her own dishonesty.

AFTERSNARK 2: Gosh, how did I miss this bit of hypocrisy from Suzanne:

Wow. So "There is no such thing as a right to privacy," except there was a couple years ago when simply talking about where someone went to school was "exposing them to possible danger." Suzanne really needs to decide if she's going to take the red pill or the blue pill. She'll still be a total crackpot, but at least she'll be a consistent one.

AFTERSNARK 3: Well, let's score one for Suzanne as she gets something right which has no value whatsoever. Here's a recent altercation over at Suzie Fetus':

And did I publish the names of Dick's kids, Courtney and Tyler? Why, yes ... yes, I did, because it was publicly available information on Dick's political web site when Dick was running for Calgary city council in Ward 4. I did not reveal anything; I simply reproduced what Dick had already put up on his web page for all to see, and Dick himself was nice enough to admit this in my comments section back in March of 2008, and I quote:

Well, isn't that special? Even Dick admits that I did nothing wrong, and yet Suzanne continues to tearfully clutch her pearls over something that represents no invasion of privacy whatever, even as she lectures everyone that we have no such right to privacy.

Suzanne should really figure out which argument she wants to defend, given how she bounces around all over the map. And she's still a lying sack of crap. If she thinks the name of a school was ever published by me or anyone else at my blog, she should provide a link. Or she should shut the fuck up and take down that accusation because that claim is still defamation and I'm rapidly running out of patience with liars.

P.S. Make sure you appreciate what sort of vile and reprehensible hypocrite and liar Suzanne Fortin is. On the one hand, she sees absolutely nothing even slightly unethical about publishing "photos, medical license applications, malpractice suits, disciplinary records, news articles, videos, criminal histories, and more" for abortion doctors, knowing full well the perpetual violence against such people because she claims there is no such thing as a right to privacy.

And yet, she gets her placenta in a knot over my printing two names that were openly and unabashedly published by the aforementioned Dick, who even admitted in public on my web site that he had "no problem" with that. So, Suzie, who's being the disgusting hypocrite here? I'm just asking.

AFTERSNARK 4: And it just gets better:

Oh, my ... Suzie Fetusfest appears to put a great deal of stock in manning up and admitting when one's made a mistake. One wonders when she's going to walk that road herself with this blatant lie about me:

As anyone who followed that ugliness knows by now, I did not "reveal" anything, and no school name was ever published, for the simple reason that I have no idea which school they attended, and I never did. In short, Suzanne Fortin is lying.

And I'm going to guess that Suzanne is going to correct the record never, since Suzanne is an astonishingly sanctimonious scold when it comes to others, but she lies freely when it suits her purposes. She really is a spectacularly dishonest hypocrite.

AFTERSNARK 5: Yeah, she went there:

No comments: