05/02/2020 2016 ONCJ 35 (CanLII) | CanLII What caused Ms. Guthrie’s fear was the volume of tweets, and her perception that he was obsessed and fixated on her and her work. The volume of tweets on which Crown counsel relies includes tweets before July 7. The context of these tweets is an important circumstance to consider in considering whether she reasonably feared Mr. Elliott because of the volume of his tweets, to her, about her and using hashtags she created or used. And as her objection to these tweets is intertwined in her mind with the fact that she blocked him, the reason that she blocked him is also one of all of the circumstances. It demands detailed review. Ms. Guthrie’s defence of American feminist Anita Sarkeesian was admirable. The face-punch game is very violent; pictures of it are in evidence. But her action on behalf of women and Ms. Sarkeesian was controversial in her own view. She knew full well the can of worms that she was about to open, as she put it, and said her heart was in her throat. She also used the word “sic” in her tweet asking whether to engage the internet public about the creator of the game. This metaphor has no meaning apart from a violent one, like freeing a dog to bite. She made her argument to the game’s creator, Mr. Spurr, with rhetorical force: “Do you punch women in the face IRL, or just on the internet?” In short, her approach was a matter open to fair debate. Mr. Elliott called it revenge. She told him that if he thought it was revenge he was not listening, and that she was through with him. Unknown to him she had investigated Mr. Elliott using the internet and learned of his alleged harassment of women. That was part of the reason for not using his work earlier, which she did not disclose to him. His tweeting after being blocked because he used the word “revenge” is not behaviour that could lead someone to reasonably fear for their safety – particularly when Ms. Guthrie was tweeting to others that he was a men’s rights (MRA) guy who disguises his feelings about women with a cloak of “care,” and that he was a “concern troll” of feminism. In any event, there was no fear or harassment until the end of July. I agree with Crown counsel that behaviour before the period charged in the information is relevant to harassment and fear. But I disagree that anything up to August 1 provided any objective reason for Ms. Guthrie to fear for her safety. The record shows a civil or mutually acceptable relationship until July 7 and then Mr. Elliott tweeting his point of view. Any circumstances that make her fear reasonable therefore must be found during the period charged. Ms. Guthrie testified that she became fearful of him when things became serious around August 12. That is the day that Ms. Guthrie tweeted the six retweets of others telling Mr. Elliott to stop harassing women, to stop being a misogynist, to stop “creeping out” women. The Sysomos search found 43 tweets from Mr. Elliott between Ms. Guthrie’s six retweets on August 12 and her unblocking him on September 9 to tell him to stop contacting her. Only one began with Ms. Guthrie’s handle, as the subject of a sentence saying that she admitted that she had a brand. During this time, on August 15, Ms. Guthrie had tweeted to a person who had enquired about “GAE” that he was a Toronto man “sexually harassing women on the internet since lord only knows when” and “that GAE calls me ungrateful for not accepting rides from a stranger speaks to how little he understands of rape culture.” On August 23 he tweeted: ”Hey, @amirightfolks and @popeshakey…offering #peace in regard to the #FascistFeminists vs. #MisogynistGreg ‘war’. Meet to discuss? Yes?”. Then he mentioned her in a tweet to someone else saying he had offered a truce. Next he sent the tweet about offering Ms. Guthrie a ride when she had a cast and saying that the “nut-job” thought he wanted sex. Then he tweeted someone with a request to ask her if she had one example of his “sexually harassing her”. Another tweet was a defence insisting that he was a gentleman. He called Ms. Guthrie a drama queen and retweeted her calling him a textbook creep that she looked in the eye. Ms. Guthrie’s fear came from the volume of his tweets, including those using only hashtags. She could not say that she saw all of them, but I accept that she saw a lot. But whether she reasonably feared for her safety requires me to inquire into her reasoning. Ms. Guthrie was operating on several premises that she made clear and I have discussed: Mr. Elliott’s views were spurious and garbage and of no value; the contents of his tweets were irrelevant; if she didn’t want to hear from him and blocked him, then he should not use her handle and risk her seeing what he had written. In these circumstances, these premises were not reasonable. If she was fearful solely because of the volume of tweets to her, mentioning her or using a hashtag that she created or followed, then the reason file:///Users/nerissa/Downloads/Columbia CSV/R v Gregory Allan Elliott.htm 38/43