WE SHOULD LET ‘ROOSH V’ INTO THE COUNTRY SO WE CAN CONFRONT HIM IN PERSON

By James Branson

FYI: This is one writer’s opinion. Heaps Gay is a space that allows for diversity of thought–something we believe passionately in. 

Ugh.

Another day, another ‘neo-masculinist’ (as they call themselves) douchebag wants to come to Australia and teach guys who can’t muster up the courage to speak to women the dark secrets of pick-up artistry.

Predictably, an online petition to have Daryush Valizedah prevented from entering the country has been picking up plenty of steam, with over 27,000 people signing up.

Granted, Daryush (or ‘Roosh V’, the year seven-level nickname he’s decided to go by) is a particularly nasty piece of work: When announcing his trip, the 36-year old tweeted “To all attractive Australian girls aged 18–22. I’m coming to your country and am free to meet for drinks.”

He’s also banned women, transgender men and homosexual men from attending any meetings.

So, you know, all you transgender women are totally welcome.

Ok. So he’s a repulsive piece of work. There’s no doubt about it.

But I don’t think we should ban him from entering the country, because it denies us the right to look him in the face and spit in it. Or, if you’re a good shot with a glass of beer, if denies you the opportunity to throw it in his face, like this Canadian woman:

Better yet, if you’re not the spitting or beer-throwing type, it denies you the right to let him and his acolytes know what you think in person.

More importantly, it lets this man and his followers bitch and moan about their freedom of speech being impeded by ‘radical feminists’ (or however they like to characterise perfectly reasonable opposition to their neanderthal ideas). It adds fuel to their fire, it encourages those who might be partial to Men’s Rights idiocy to feel victimised, and it allows them to hide from the kind of face-to-face debate they really need.

Because you win arguments not by preventing your opponent from speaking; you win them by having a better argument. And there’s no doubt that those of us opposed to Valizedah’s ideas have a winning argument.

In short, Valizedah should be let into the country so we can tell him what a dick he is – and why.

Yes, there is a legal case for having him barred from entering Australia based on hate-speech laws. In a February 2015 blog post, he proposed legalising rape on private property as a means of preventing rape.

“If rape becomes legal under my proposal,” he wrote, “a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of… If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.”

If that sounds fucking ridiculous to you, well, congratulations: you’re a reasonable and intelligent person! 

Valizedah has claimed the post was satirical, which is debatable. At best, it’s bad satire, at worst, it’s a serious advocacy of legal rape.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but there’s no doubt Valizedah’s views are exhibit A in the rape culture debate.

However, that doesn’t mean he should be prevented from coming to Australia. Personally, I’d really like the opportunity to bring a large group of friends to one of his meetings and give them a piece of my mind.

I’m a pretty persuasive guy when I want to be, so maybe it would convince a few of his followers they’re wrong.

Wouldn’t that be nice.