Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

David Butt is a Toronto-based criminal lawyer.

Controversial U.S. blogger Daryush Valizadeh, who goes by the name Roosh V, is intent on bringing his self-styled world tour to Toronto, and lots of folks are justifiably unhappy. Promoting himself as a "pickup artist" Roosh V, among other things, advocates legalizing rape on private property. So why not prosecute Roosh V under Canada's hate-speech law? It's a straightforward question with a not-so-simple answer.

Does at least some of what Roosh V says qualify as hate speech? Yes. Promoting the legalization of rape on private property is, to paraphrase the Criminal Code, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, namely women. That much is obvious.

Story continues below advertisement

Less obvious, perhaps, is that the same proposition is also hateful to men. Because the conception of men that his pro-rape ranting implicitly endorses is that rape is an inherent and legitimate part of male sexuality that is being wrongly curtailed. Reducing men as a group to such a crude caricature is so profoundly demeaning that it qualifies as hate speech.

So why not prosecute? Three considerations give us pause.

First, there is the structural disincentive. Prosecuting hate speech is a response of last resort. We place a high value on freedom of speech and do not want governments intruding lightly, particularly when the consequences may mean going to jail. So our law has wisely built in limits. Such crimes should always be thoroughly investigated, and no prosecution can proceed unless the provincial attorney-general authorizes it. These structural limitations mean that one-off hate-mongers like Roosh V, who pop up then slink away in a day or two, will be long gone before any considered decision to prosecute can be made. This is as it should be. Deliberative prudence in prosecuting hate speech is more important than nabbing every cowardly crank.

Second, there is the false martyr problem. Being prosecuted can give a hate-monger free publicity, because such prosecutions inevitably attract loads of attention. Paradoxically, therefore, prosecution can enhance the distribution of the hateful message. And because prosecutions are slow, the message resonates for months, perhaps years, when it might otherwise have vanished without a trace. Furthermore, there are many people in Canada who advocate for greater freedom of expression. This segment of the intelligentsia will invariably come out in support of the hate-monger on principle, not because they endorse his message, but because they endorse his right to deliver it. So, prosecution of hate speech runs a considerable risk of backfiring: promoting and implicitly legitimizing the very views it was meant to defy.

Third, there is often truth to the cliché that the best antidote to hate speech is more speech that denounces the hate not through the force of state intervention, but through the force of enlightened reason. Defying the hate-monger with the very tools he uses, exposing his offensive, propagandistic assumptions and deceptions, can be a powerful antidote to hate speech. Social media, wisely deployed, can enhance our collective power to burst the bubble of hate-mongers. Boycotts can catch fire with devastating speed, the hate-monger's enablers can be dissuaded from enabling, and the messages can be transformed into teachable moments on the virtues of the counterarguments.

The catch is that countering bad speech with good has traction only if people care enough to actually respond. A passive, disengaged populace is fertilizer to the hate-monger's mushrooms. Speaking out against hate is a social responsibility associated with a truly vibrant freedom of expression that is all too often overlooked. It is hard work to rise up and speak against things that are just plain wrong, and too many of us are content to leave that hard work to someone else.

There are at least three reasons why it is not a good idea to prosecute malevolent gadflies like Roosh V. But there is every reason for all of us to take on his hateful propaganda with the tools we all have at our disposal: our discerning intellects and our expressive capacities. We maintain and deserve a vibrant freedom of expression to the extent that we exercise it.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies