Incel: if you hadn’t heard of this alarming group before the horrendous Toronto attack, you will surely have heard about it by now.
When a van was driven onto a busy Toronto pavement last Tuesday, 10 people were killed and 15 injured. The suspect, Alek Minassian, 25, was heard pleading, “kill me” in a video obtained by CBC News.
Police swiftly ruled out terrorism.
Yet, while most of us breathed a sigh of relief, the Left was busy concocting an alarming new conspiracy.
The Left seek to broaden the definition of ‘terrorism’, in a similar way to their success in increasing the interpretation of ‘consent’. They wish to plant a seed of doubt in each and every one of our minds as to whether we’re wise on what ‘terrorism’ really is. Then, of course, when unsettled, we shall turn to these enlightened sages for further advice.
“Why have the authorities been so fast to reject the idea of terrorism?” asks The Guardian.
Shortly before the chaos ensued, the suspect posted on Facebook. He posted a cryptic message applauding Elliot Rodger, who killed six in California in 2014. Rodger had pledged allegiance to the ‘Incel Rebellion’.
Short for ‘involuntarily celibate’, Incel began as a lonely hearts collective and has morphed into something much more worthy of condemnation. Various words are being hurled around in an attempt to define Incel. It is, we read, a “movement”, “manosphere”, “hatred”, “ideology”, “violent fantasy”, “bleak worldview” and “violent misogyny” which uses language of “strong triumphing over the weak”.
Essentially, this is a group of people who loathe anyone who enjoys sexual intercourse, believing they have been denied this.
These are men and women. It is important to identify Incel as separate to MRAs; men’s rights activists, many of whom are in fact fighting for equality rather than being motivated by pure hatred of women.
The Left must not be allowed to cunningly dodge into this discussion and zip out armed with another string to the bow of what we all define as ‘terrorism’.
We have, over recent years, seen the definition of sexual ‘consent’ being pushed and extended by the Left into confusing undefined territory. We are risking very serious social ramifications if we allow a similar thing happen with ‘terrorism’.
Remember when feminists previously attempted to connect terrorism and domestic violence?
And last July when the suggestion was made men are more of a threat than terrorists?
This conversation could soon be walking a very similar, precarious track.
“From the way chat-room moderators respond to threats of violence against women, to the reluctance among authorities to name this a terrorist threat, I am filled with this unsettling sense that because Incels mainly want to kill, maim or assault women, they are simply not taken as seriously as if they wanted to kill pretty much anyone else. Doesn’t everyone want to kill women, sometimes, is the implication? Or at least give them a fright,” The Guardian scribe continues.
Isn’t it frightful when some seek to instil fear?
Modern terrorism may, sadly, include vans ploughing through pedestrians on pavements. However, at this time, the facts do not show that this driver had a master plan aimed at women.
Victims ranged from their 20s to their 80s.
We do not know what drove Minassian to such abominable violence – and it is acutely dangerous to pretend otherwise.
At a time when many are suffering from “terrorism fatigue”, the absolute last thing society needs is an agenda driven push from the Left shoving a narrative of fear, man-hating, and division.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.