Post 44 -- Canadian hate speech laws and Roosh V

Let's start with a rhetorical question: if we consider censorship to be in opposition to free speech, how can we have 'hate speech' laws?

Well, one Sara Parker-Toulson thinks there is no contradiction. She has started a petition calling on Canadian Border Services to deny entry into Canada for the Pick Up Artist (PUA) Roosh V (PUAs are not the same as Mens Rights Activists, by the way). In the petition, Parker-Toulson employs magnificent clairvoyance to determine that Roosh V "is coming to Canada specifically for the purpose of violating section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code".

Roosh V is currently on a world tour and provides a preview list of his speaking topics on his promotion page. At issue is Roosh V's claim that rape should be made legal on private property, a topic I will address later. Parker-Toulson and signatories agree that Roosh V's view on women, specifically those of the legality of rape, constitute hate speech in Canada and would be grounds for denial of entry into Canada or punishment by law in Canada. Roosh V has yet to say these inflammatory statements in Canada, but that hasn't stopped the censors from taking peremptory action.

Section 318 and 319 of Canadian Criminal Code deal with genocide and hate speech as directed at "an identifiable group". 319(1) deals with public incitement of hatred and 319(2) looks at wilful promotion of hatred. It would appear our intrepid moral defenders stopped reading at this point--or worse, didn't bother to read it at all--as 319(3) lays out the defenses for speech which may otherwise be deemed "hateful" (emphasis my own):

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Consider the bold text: Roosh V is not standing on a soap box in the corner of Yonge and Queen, proclaiming that women need to be raped immediately. His lectures are admittance by purchase only, which can be up for debate on whether or not that lecture space is public or private; if the event is considered a private event for those who have purchased admission, then Roosh V is legally allowed to say what he will on the topic. If the event is considered public with interested and impartial parties desiring to hear what he is saying, and Roosh V believes his advise and philosophies are true, then he may simply claim defense under 319(3[c]).

CBC Montreal invited on student activist Fannie Gadouas and constitutional lawyer Mathieu Bouchard to discuss the petition and grounds for preventing Roosh V into Canada. Ms. Gadouas is as expected: aloof, dogmatic, and stereotypical of the student activist population, relying on the core word set of "oppressive" and "triggering", with a teenager's does of "umm", "ahh", and "like". Her true character shows when she shifts from talking on behalf of all women, homosexuals, and non-cisgendered persons to men (emphasis my own):

"I would even go as far as saying that it's not only oppressive to women but it's oppressive to anyone who doesn't identify as cisgendered or heterosexual. It's even reductive to cisgendered men who are straight--it reduces them to almost caveman-like behaviours."

Why isn't it 'oppressive' to cisgendered, heterosexual men? Is that a subset of the population that is immune to oppression? Probably not, but in Ms. Gadouas's dogmatic adherence to the social justice philosophy, straight (white) men are never victims of anything. Our student activist stays true to the narrative that Roosh V's views of women are "extremely problematic" as they rely on "rigid gender binaries" which are "confining and limiting". Thankfully, Mr. Bouchard is invited in to clarify the important elements of this conversation.

"Hate speech is something that has been defined by the courts as a particularly special way of vilifying someone--you need a group, a specific group of people, it has to be targeted at them and then it has to cause--objectively speaking--a risk to that specific group of people. We can all agree [Roosh V's views are] offensive, but simple offense is not enough. You have to go beyond that. You have to objectively put the group whose targeted at risk of some form of more hate speech or violence."

Mr. Bouchard goes on to add, in regards to Roosh V's offensive comments made about women as an identifiable group and constituting hate speech:

"There certainly is an argument to be made. But arguing for a change in the law, because that is basically what he is putting forward, and arguing that woman should be raped under the current circumstances. Again, and I feel horrible saying this and trying to draw fine lines, because this is obviously offensive, but the courts have said that even the worst forms of speech is still speech and there is freedom of speech in this society. So you have to have something that says not only 'I want to change the law', but he has to say 'I want this to happen tomorrow morning'."

Pivotal in the previous quote is the focus on the difference between arguing for a change in a law and advocating a criminal act. In other words, Mr. Bouchard is delineating between Roosh V's statement of wanting rape legalized on private property and Roosh V actively calling for women to be raped. Now, there is good reason for the distinction, and context is crucial to understanding how one can come to this conclusion, given the nature of the topic.

In a post on his personal blog titled How to Stop Rape, Roosh V purposes that society "make rape legal if done on private property". He comes to this heinous conclusion after considering the social justice approach to rape--views likely held by Ms. Gadouas and Mrs. Parker-Toulson. Specifically, he focuses in on the view of women being unable to give consent to sex if they consumed any alcohol as compared to men, and how women can be held accountable for their other actions while drunk, such as operating a motor vehicle. Moreover, Roosh V recognizes the majority of rapes are perpetrated by individuals known to the victim, a view shared by The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN). As such, Roosh V suggests that by making rape legal on private property, it would send a message to women to be more aware of their actions, because, "without daddy government to protect her, a girl would absolutely not enter a private room with a man she doesn't know or trust unless she is absolutely sure she is ready to sleep with him."

Offensive to say the least, but it is far from advocating or encouraging men to rape. Rather, while misguided and entirely incorrect, Roosh V is attempting to address the problem of acquaintance rape by means of personal accountability. He puts this act on par with locking one's car or house doors to deter robbers from having easy access to your private property rather than telling criminals to not commit crimes. Roosh V gets it all wrong, however, as protecting one's body is a far different scenario to that of protecting property. He is in some interesting company, in a sense, with feminist Camille Paglia, who believes free women are able to maintain their own agency and freedom, and, in a sense, can manage sacrificing personal security. Here is Paglia speaking on this point and how women's freedom of sexuality is liberating.

Roosh V has said offensive and incorrect things, but he does not command people to inflict violence or harm onto women. As such, his musings about the legality of rape and how to address the problem of rape do not constitute, in any matter, the encouragement of rape. His views may be misogynistic, but they are not hate speech. Thus, he does not fall under 319(1) or 319(2), as this particular topic centered on a discussion of laws and strategies for combating a social problem, even if they are as misguided and laughable as they are.

Why hate speech laws, then? What is the purpose of having enshrined in our culture freedom of speech only to have a law which can limit it? Mr. Bouchard stated that Canadian courts accept the most vile of speech is still speech and is protected, which means someone like Roosh V can speak openly in Canada. To a more philosophical end, what good does having hate speech laws do? In an excellent speech by Christopher Hitchens on Canada's hate speech laws (CCC 319), Hitchens argues that censoring speech harms us more than it helps us. Summarizing the works of Mill, Paine, and Milton, Hitchens says:

"It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to hear. Every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. Your own right to be heard and exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view."

This is not light conjecture on the matter of freedom of speech. Rather, it is core to the most basic rights as human beings. When purposing hate speech laws, we must be willing to abdicate our responsibility in determining what we find offensive or hateful to ourselves; to choose someone else who can tell us what we find offense in speech, picture, or writing. I do not know of anyone who could do that for me and I am certain the likes of Ms. Gadouas and Mrs. Parker-Toulson do not have a nominee either. If they do then we must become extremely suspicious of their motives, just as we should all be suspect of the motives of those who are determined to be offended.

Hate speech laws are tools of the vapid, fearful, and condescending. These arrogant few who believe they know more and better than anyone else. Their censorial instinct says we basically already know what we need to and have known as such for a long time; challenging the known consensus of the majority is inherently harmful to these weepy folk. I have argued before and I am again arguing now of the need to allow for people to be heard, even if what they are saying is obviously offensive. It is on these same grounds we can allow religious fanatics to use their public platform to spew forth hatred of homosexuals, women, lower castes, or the amorphous "other". Upon hearing this offensive drivel we--for ourselves!--can determine their beliefs to be retrograde. Silencing such opinions mutes the depth of the larger discussion, like removing the sweet flesh from fruit and gnawing on bitter pit and rind.

Roosh V is a PUA, not an MRA. He doesn't care about the men's rights movement and has mocked it several times on podcasts and blogs. The simplistic world view of women and sexual relationships Roosh V has are not to my tastes, but it is because of his freedom to speak--and my freedom to listen--that I can be aware of him and his views, giving me the opportunity to determine for myself his value to me, which is low. By denying entry into Canada, the perpetually offended harm themselves in two ways: first, they have already given Roosh V a shot of publicity. As a PUA, some men who are finding it difficult to meet women may patronize Roosh V for his insight; second, they deny other Canadians the chance to judge Roosh V's character and denounce him. It would be an unfortunate trend to begin if Canadian Border Services denies entry into Canada a man who might say something on Canadian soil that someone might deem hateful. After all, Roosh V has not made any comments on Canadian soil since his world tour started.

Interestingly, the sorts of people who claim Roosh V is a misogynist and advocates harm and violence against women are the very people who view women as weak, scared, dependent, and fragile; that women are unable to decide for themselves safe situations and are always at the whim of the men around them; women cannot choose how many drinks to consume; and that women are too vulnerable to hear speech which may be offensive. The irony here is as comedic as it is tragic. Yet, these are the same people who believe they possess the moral authority to tell others what is appropriate to say and what is not.

I refuse to be told by others what is offensive to me. I challenge the notion of hateful speech being grounds for prosecution--it is subjectively interpreted and arbitrarily applied. The people most deserving of prosecution under such a law, those of hateful and violent religions, are the ones most likely to seek its protection. The dogmatic and intellectually stunted cluster around such laws as a means of myopically defending their view of the world and not to provide society a service. If, in the event Roosh V does come to Canada and his speaking location known, the greatest disturbance to the peace will be perpetrated by the self-appointed righteous censors. We have seen it before. And again. These social justice warriors will stop at nothing to create a society where offense trumps rights, feelings beat reason, and the revival of the totalitarian mindset takes root all in the name of the 'greater good'.

Denounce these cowards and fight for your ability to be exposed to other points of view will maintaining for yourself your own agency to determine what is and is not offensive, harmful, or hateful to you.