Infamous pickup artist and misogynist writer Roosh V hasn’t been having a good time in Canada.
In Montreal, he gave a speech to 34 men about how to get women to sleep with them (ie: how to manipulate women into sleeping with them) and later at a bar, he was confronted by a group of men and women who threwbeer at him. Now, Toronto mayor John Tory recently spoke out about Roosh V, saying he’s not welcome in the city.
I find myself cheering on the people who confronted Roosh even though I don’t normally advocate violence. After all, this is the guy who proposed the following solution to rape: make it legal on private property so that women will protect themselves the same way they protect their smartphone or wallet. Supposedly, if a man tries to rape a woman on private property, she will fight back as hard as she can and make a scene.
There are so many issues with this that I don’t even know where to start and that’s not really the point of this editorial, so I’ll be brief: I like to think I have a little more value than a $500 electronic device. Having recently read the (excellent but brutal) Jon Krakauer book Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a Small Town, I now understand that there are a multitude of complexities with rape that make it unlike any other crime in terms of victims’ reactions and the justice system’s response to the crime that go beyond “If rape is legal women will automatically fight off their attackers.” And lastly, I hope this doesn’t actually need to be laid out and explained, but making rape legal will not eliminate it and Roosh is an idiot. Around 90 per cent of rapes don’t get reported and of the ones that do, only a miniscule number go to trial. Rape already is, unfortunately, on the whole an easy crime to get away with. Making it easier isn’t going to stop it. But
I’m not here to argue that Roosh is stupid (to me, it’s not an argument; it’s just fun to talk about). That should be evident to any normal person.
The issue that has been brought up again and again is: Does Roosh have the right to free speech, no matter the content, or does his rhetoric count as hate speech?
Section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada “prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group.” So does Roosh’s work at his website fall under this statement? I am deeply and viscerally against visiting Roosh’s website, but here are some excerpts found through news articles:
“The next time a girl tells you she was drugged, demand evidence. If she can’t provide it, call her out for being a liar. Small steps towards a better world.”
“Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men will cause them to be weaker and more feminine.”
“A woman’s value is mainly determined by her fertility and beauty. A man’s value is mainly determined by his resources, intellect, and character.”
These aren’t exactly on the level of death and rape threats against women, but who’s reading Roosh’s site? Men who hate women. What are they going to take away from this writing? That women are inferior and have started a war against men. And what do some men who believe stuff like this do?
They make videos about their hatred of women where they literally say they want to punish women and sexually active men by getting a gun, and indiscriminately shooting a bunch of people, like Elliot Rodger. It’s true that Rodger obviously had problems that staying away from men’s rights activists wouldn’t have magically solved, but his feelings and beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Even putting aside the hate speech/not hate speech debate, people are allowed to stop him from speaking in their cities. And I for one applaud that.
