Cozy Bedfellows: Prostitution Abolitionists and Anti-Abortionists

Feminists who want to abolish prostitution act offended when they get compared to the Christian Right, and may go to great lengths to dispute the parallels. For example, abolitionist Meghan Murphy laments (briefly) that prostitution abolitionists have been paired with the Christian Right in her article: “Why does the left want prostitution to be ‘a job like any other’?” and tries to address the issue here from the perspective of reproductive rights: “Why Reproductive Rights and Prostitution Are Not the Same Thing.” However, she fails to recognize the common ideologies that led her movement to shack up with fundamentalist Christians in the first place. 

The link between religious conservatism and the movement to abolish sex work is rooted in antipathy to free sexual expression and autonomy, especially for women who dare to have sex in ways that offend moral sensibilities (sex for pleasure in the case of the Christian Right, and sex for money in the case of abolitionists). The belief that women need to be protected not only from others but from themselves gives abolitionist feminists the self-appointed right to speak for sex workers and to “rescue” them, in the same way that anti-abortionists have appointed themselves to rescue women from the “dangers” of abortion by criminalizing it and promoting abstinence until marriage.

I wrote a blog in 2007 that linked the prostitution and abortion debates as follows.

What is the difference between these two arguments?

1)    Prostitution is always violence against women. It's physically dangerous, it victimizes them, robs them of their sexuality, and inflicts lasting psychological harm. Women never truly choose prostitution; they are forced into it by men, poverty, desperation, etc. We must give women better options by abolishing prostitution and helping them out of it.

2)   Abortion is always violence against women. It's physically dangerous, it victimizes them, robs them of their motherhood role, and inflicts lasting psychological harm. Women never truly choose abortion; they are forced into it by men, poverty, desperation, etc. We must give women better options by banning abortion and helping them keep their babies.

Both the abolitionist movement and the anti-choice movement cast women as victims, often unwitting victims who think they’ve independently chosen to do sex work or have an abortion, but are actually seriously deluded or naïve—they don’t realize they’re under the coercive sway of patriarchy, capitalism, men, or the “culture of death.” Or maybe they’re just too poverty-stricken or drug-addicted to do anything but be a passive victim because they have “no choice.”

Abolitionists reinforce the victimhood of sex workers by calling them “prostituted women” while anti-abortionists do the same with “post-abortive women.” Those who truly choose abortion or sex work are thought to be rare exceptions to the rule of victimhood—women who insist on having an abortion are seen as unnatural and immoral by anti-abortionists, while abolitionists consider such sex workers to be privileged and elitist—or worse, as former sex worker Kerry Porth attests: “I have never experienced more judgement than what I hear from the prohibitionists. The fact that I don’t identify as a victim seems to transform me into some kind of demon in their eyes. I am hurt by and tired of hearing individuals like myself described as ‘prostituted women’ or ‘bought and sold’. I engaged in thousands of individual sex work transactions and not once did ownership of my body change hands.” (Personal communication)

Abolitionists only listen to the relatively small number of former survival sex workers who misinterpret the violence and abuse they suffered as caused by prostitution itself rather than its stigma and criminalization. These women now preach about the dangers of prostitution and advocate abolition to prevent other women from entering the trade. But how is that different from the women of “Silent No More” who had a bad experience with abortion and now preach about the dangers of abortion and advocate criminalizing it to prevent other women from having one? Like anti-abortionists, prostitution abolitionists purport to speak for all women regardless of differing experiences, but that wipes away the diversity of women’s opinions and experiences and reduces them to mere puppets of an ideology.

Many abolitionists downplay harm reduction as a temporary bandaid solution until prostitution can be abolished, and some don’t even believe in it at all because they feel it somehow validates prostitution. But how is that different than discredited conservative beliefs that giving addicts clean needles encourages drug abuse and criminality, that teaching kids about contraception leads to promiscuity and disease, and that legalizing abortion spawns a “culture of death” and an epidemic of abortion? (It doesn’t, just like legalizing sex work doesn’t increase it). The practical effect of giving short shrift to harm reduction is to leave survival sex workers vulnerable to abuse and violence without the benefit of proven measures to enhance safe working conditions. Women must not be left to work in an unsafe environment until we defeat patriarchy in some future utopia. 

A striking hallmark of abolitionist ideology that is absent from the Christian Right is a general disparagement and even loathing for men. Abolitionists like Murphy see prostitution as a product of patriarchy and inequality, “male power and privilege,” and the insatiable “male demand for women’s bodies” that creates a market where women are “bought and sold.” Male clients of sex workers are painted as evil and violent predators, as if they are a different species than the men we all know and appreciate in our personal lives. They are not, of course. In the words of former sex worker Kerry Porth: “When people ask me what my clients were like, I usually tell them to think about their Dad.” Many men report that they respect and value sex workers and frequently develop emotional attachments to them. The vast majority of male clients are not violent, and most sex is of the “vanilla” sort. Also, the idea that men don’t “need” to buy sex is patently false. A significant number of male buyers are elderly, disabled, unattractive, lonely, socially awkward, etc., and just want a chance to enjoy female companionship. If only women in the same situations had equal opportunities to buy sex from men! But abolitionists are intent on depriving large numbers of people from any chance to enjoy sexual intimacy and human contact. We all need intimacy and sex, and if we are unable to get it from a normal relationship for whatever reason, we should be free to purchase it.

At every opportunity, abolitionists promote the “Nordic Model,” which criminalizes the purchase of sex (to target men), while decriminalizing the sale of sex (to rescue women). This is despite the fact that abolitionists see transactional sex as wrong, and bad for women. How is this different from anti-choicers who believe abortion is murder (and bad for women), but don’t want to criminalize women – only the “abortionists”? The underlying reason is that both abolitionists and anti-abortionists see women as not responsible for their choices and situations, as if they are children that need direction and protection from the state – a deeply paternalizing and insulting stance. Further, the wish to criminalize “abortionists” is no different than the wish to criminalize “pimps.” In reality, the latter are often the people that make a sex worker’s job possible, easier, and safer. Just as women need doctors, nurses, and counselors to help them obtain a safe abortion, sex workers need employers, drivers, and assistants in order to work safely.

In Murphy's article from last August (in response to a sex worker ally who made some comparisons between the abortion and sex work issues: “Why Reproductive Rights and Prostitution Are Not the Same Thing”), she says: “Reproductive rights provide women with control over their lives and bodies. Women should get to choose whether or not they have to give birth. Whether or not they want to raise children. They get to make those decisions. Not men. Abolitionists don't desire to criminalize women. They desire a world where women don't need to sell their bodies to men. They want to end violence against women and they want to end rape. As the author points out, 'Women die when abortion is not accessible.' They also die at the hands of pimps and johns. The criminalization of abortions hurts women, prostitution hurts women.”

Desiring a world where women don’t need to “sell their bodies to men” is no different than desiring a world where women don’t need to “kill their babies.” It’s paternalistic and removes women’s agency. Further, it’s not that “The criminalization of abortions hurts women, prostitution hurts women.” It’s that the criminalization of abortion hurts women in the same way that the criminalization of sex work hurts women. Because it’s not sex work itself that is inherently harmful, it’s criminalization. Sex work may be considered immoral, but that’s still no reason to criminalize it, just like it’s no reason to criminalize abortion. Women die when abortion is illegal, and they also die when sex work is illegal.

In the same article, Murphy says: “Arguing for women's right to access abortions and, therefore, hopefully, die less, is not in any way the same as arguing that women should not be subjected to violence at the hands of men and arguing that women don't exist as things which can be bought and sold and as things that exist to provide pleasure for men.” Actually, arguing for women’s right to access abortion so they can die less, is no different than arguing that women have the right to work legally and safely in sex work so that they can die less. Claiming that the sex industry treats women as things that can be bought and sold to provide pleasure to men, is no different than claiming that the “abortion industry” is out to make a profit by exploiting and coercing women into abortions, or committing genocide against non-white babies.

Murphy says: “How can the continuing criminalization by sexist, right wing men of access to abortion for women … be compared to attempts by feminist women to impede sexist men’s entitlement to the bodies of women whose lives are also on the line?” But many women’s groups are explicitly anti-choice (REAL Women, Concerned Women of America, Feminists for Life, etc.), and the rank and file of the anti-choice movement is filled with women. Anti-choice women and radical feminist abolitionists are the same in that they are both self-appointed policers of female sexuality on behalf of the patriarchy. They’re both trying to rescue women or keep them in line in order to preserve their sexuality and purity for love and marriage, or to keep it safe from all that “male demand” that sullies and devalues women.

Prostitution abolitionists and anti-abortionists share the same delusion that prostitution and abortion can be abolished through the use of criminal laws, even though this goes against all evidence and common sense. Both sex work and abortion have been around for thousands of years, and countless women have resorted to both for thousands of years, regardless of the laws or risks to their lives. Today, sex work is a multi-billion (or trillion?) dollar industry with millions of workers in every part of the globe regardless of legality, while 43 million abortions occur in the world every year - half of them in countries where it's illegal. Not only is it impossible to abolish such universal human behaviours, it is dangerous and unjust to criminalize them in any way because it always hurts women the most, especially the most marginalized. 

The role of the criminal law is to prevent and punish crimes like rape, sexual abuse, violence, and coercion. Although those crimes certainly do occur in the context of sex work, abortion, and sexuality, they are not intrinsic to them. Sex does not victimize women. Women do not need to be protected from their own sexuality, or from male sexuality. They are perfectly able to make their own choices, to pursue sex or abstain, to sell sexual services or just have sex for fun, to be promiscuous or monogamous, to be lesbian or heterosexual or anything inbetween, to have children or be childfree, to go through pregnancy or have an abortion. Prostitution abolitionists and anti-abortionists do not get to decide any of that for them, and the criminal law should stay completely out of it.

The Trouble With Abolitionist Feminist Ideology

While some feminists call for the abolition of sex work, other feminists favour its decriminalization. As a feminist who is strongly “pro-decrim” based on the evidence, feminist principles, and listening to sex workers, I’m disturbed by what I see as the wrongheaded ideology of abolitionist feminists, such as that exemplified by feminist and prostitution abolitionist Meghan Murphy.

Murphy writes for the F Word as well as the progressive website Rabble.ca. To pick one particular example, an article of hers posted on Rabble in October prompted a number of comments from offended sex workers and their allies. (A progressive dialogue: Building a progressive feminist movement in neo-liberal times) The commenters saw this abolitionist stance as paternalistic and profoundly anti-feminist, one that doesn’t listen to most sex workers and doesn’t respect their agency, and instead presumes to know what’s good for them and speaks for them. As commenter brownstargirl said: “This writing reminds me deeply of white feminist writing about how those oppressed women of color and Indigenous women really feel.”

Former sex worker and current activist Kerry Porth said: “I too have been ‘plagued with anger and frustration’ with individuals such as Ms. Murphy who, despite the fact that she has never engaged in sex work, feels that she has the right to speak on behalf of those who have. Indeed, my transition out of sex work was made all the more difficult and painful because although I have always considered myself to be a feminist, I soon discovered that within Vancouver, the division within feminism around sex work is one of the most intense and brutal that I have ever seen in any movement. Because I do not identify as a victim of sex work or exploitation, I have been repeatedly told that I am suffering from false consciousness or that my participation in sex work somehow directly contributes to harm against all women.” (Personal communication)

The harm to women comes not from sex workers—as if they are to blame for their own murders—but from the whole anti-sex work mentality. Commenter fc said: “This kind of [anti-sex work] discourse not only backs up policy packages that harm sex workers by further criminalizing people but it also nourishes stigma which very much feeds violence.”

Obviously, we all care about marginalized communities. The negative effects of colonialism, racism, and gender oppression are precisely why most sex workers want their work decriminalized, because they recognize the criminal laws as an institutionalized part of those oppressions. As commenter brownstargirl said: “The racist, capitalist, whorephobic, colonialist, sexist, ableist society we live in… creates the criminalization that makes working conditions dangerous for sex workers.”

Murphy paints a false caricature of the pro-decrim movement as “neo-liberal feminism” – characterized by a disconnection from progressive feminism, advocacy of individualism, an abandonment of marginalized women and the commitment to fight race and class oppression, and a capitulation to patriarchy, oppression, and capitalism. But pro-decrim feminists and countless sex worker groups fight for justice and labour rights for themselves around the world. As commenter fc stated: “To try and paint sex workers who are organizing as ‘neo-liberal’ and ‘individualistic’ to discredit their work is just a tactic to silence.”

Sex worker Susan Davis expressed her frustration with the feminist divide on sex work by observing: “The most difficult part is that we all agree on addressing the driving factors like poverty, addictions, mental health, livable wages and welfare rates, but for some reason can’t make that the common ground we all fight for.” (Personal communication)  Likewise, former sex worker Kerry Porth said: “Sex worker activists are just as outraged about the violence and abuse we suffer as the prohibitionists, we just differ in how to address that harm. …pro-decrim and prohibitionist activists agree far more than we disagree on how to reduce violence against women, such as an increase in welfare rates, universal daycare, increased access to detox and drug treatment, better housing and so much more. Why can we not work together towards these goals?” (Personal communication)

The main reason is probably the stubborn abolitionist belief that sex work is inherently violent, despite a strong body of evidence to the contrary. Last year, Judge Himel of the Ontario Superior Court struck down three sections of Canada’s prostitution law because they increased the danger to sex workers. Evidence presented in court showed that indoor sex work is significantly safer than street work, and that it’s possible for sex workers to take various measures to increase their safety. However, the law explicitly prohibited many of those measures, including negotiating a transaction prior to jumping in a car, using drivers or guards, working in pairs or groups, and working at a brothel. The fact that sex workers can work much more safely by having greater control over their environment and the transaction, falsifies the abolitionist ideology that sex work is inherently violent or exploitive. That doesn’t mean there won’t always be some risk attached to it—but many other jobs carry risk too. The solution is to improve working conditions and implement labour rights and safety measures, not criminalize the profession itself.

Murphy and other abolitionists refuse to admit the role that our criminal law plays in increasing the risk of violence against sex workers. One abolitionist rebuttal of the Himel decision dismisses pro-decrim arguments by presenting ideology as evidence—sex work is inherently violent and male clients are predators; therefore decrim won’t help sex workers—end of argument. But commenter CGToronto pointed out that “The vast majority of all criminal legal attacks on sex workers—ranging from arrest to police rapes to murder—are against street-based workers. The vast majority of those who stand to benefit from decriminalization of sex work are those women.” She called on abolitionists to “[join] sex workers in calling for accountability from the Canadian government for creating, enforcing and defending laws that have been demonstrated to contribute to violence against sex workers.” Instead, as commenter fc stated: “Anti-sex work ‘feminism’ could also be called carceral feminism as its champions basically push for the use of law enforcement to ‘enforce’ social justice. This is harming sex workers and all of our communities.”

Abolitionists like to tout the Nordic or “Swedish model” of legislation, which criminalizes male clients, but not female sex workers. But criminalization is criminalization—sex workers cannot work reasonably or safely when their clients are criminalized. Evaluations of the Swedish law have not provided any credible evidence that the law works to reduce prostitution or make it safer. Instead, sex work has moved to different hidden venues where women continue to be vulnerable to violence because they can’t rely on the police to help them. (Many strong critiques of the Nordic model have been published, including this one from FIRST.)

In response to Murphy’s article (A progressive dialogue), sex worker Tuulia Law (member of SPOC and Students for Sex Workers Rights) notes: “It's very well and good to say end poverty to end the sex industry, but I have yet to see any specific plans to that end by prohibitionist feminists, who I would wager aren't opting out of capitalism personally by living off the grid. They are probably still shopping at the dollar store or buying things made in Third World countries, traveling, driving cars and eating imported food like other people who unthinkingly support the neo-liberal global order on a daily basis.” (Personal communication). Law’s remark is a bit facetious, but the point missed by abolitionists is that we all need to survive in the capitalist society around us by earning money.

In terms of actually addressing poverty and other social ills affecting the most marginalized sex workers, including drug addiction, mental health, and homelessness, it’s pro-decrim groups and sex worker activists—not abolitionists—who are at the forefront. Kerry Porth is the Executive Director of Vancouver’s PACE Society (Providing Alternatives Counselling & Education), an organization founded by active and former sex workers to deliver services to sex workers. Over 80% of PACE members are indigenous, and most sex worker-led organizations are similarly diverse, with memberships that are largely pro-decrim and reflect a range of backgrounds and experiences. Many offer exiting programs as well as resources and services for active workers to improve their working conditions. In the comments to Murphy’s article, brownstargirl said: “There are literally hundreds of diverse initiatives led by many kinds of sex workers speaking for themselves everywhere. … Murphy’s article ignores generations of genius, diverse theory and activism led by sex workers globally, from Kamataka Sexworkers Union in India to Different Avenues in DC and Women with a Vision in New Orleans, to Maggies and the Native Youth Sexual Health Network right here in Toronto.”

Abolitionists gloss over the diversity of sex work, focusing almost exclusively on the 10-20% of sex workers who work on the street and who are disproportionately aboriginal. But most workers work indoors, including in their own homes or as escorts for an agency, or in brothels and massage parlours. Abolitionists also pretend that prostitution is an issue of male demand for women’s bodies, but significant minorities of sex workers are male or transgendered. These workers are completely ignored and abandoned by abolitionists because they don’t fit into their “women are victims of the patriarchy” dogma. But a U.S. Department of Justice study in 2008 found that 45% of underage sex workers in New York City were boys. That same study found that 90% of underage sex workers in NYC did not have “pimps” and worked independently. Actually, most sex workers work independently, although they may rely on others to help them.

Murphy treats with disdain the idea that sex work can be freely chosen and empowering for women. But most sex workers do choose to enter the trade, including sex worker Tuulia Law: “I chose sex work out of several job options. Many people choose sex work under various conditions. Survival sex workers are a minority in the industry, whose experiences can in no way be said to represent the entire industry.” (Personal communication). From former sex worker Kerry Porth: “Despite the moral outrage some feminists feel about our choices, some women do actually choose to engage in sex work.” Porth recognizes that “some women will be forced by circumstances to engage in sex work,” but that their work should “enjoy the same protections as all other individuals forced by circumstances to do jobs they find distasteful.” I would add that although choices are limited for survival sex workers, even highly constrained choices are still choices, and the people who make them still have agency and deserve dignity and human rights, even if they don’t feel empowered by their work. However, sex work can be empowering for the simple reason that it allows sex workers to pay the bills and support their families, and sometimes much more. The main reason people become sex workers in the first place is to earn money, and abolitionist ideology poses a threat to their livelihoods.

Murphy speaks of women “selling their bodies to men with power,” even though the power dynamic is generally the other way around. When sex workers have control over their transactions—such as the ability to negotiate fees and services up front, refuse clients, insist on condom use, and so on, they are far safer. Currently, indoor workers tend to have more transactional control than street workers, because criminalization often prevents street workers from taking safety measures and setting their own terms and conditions.

The abolitionist view of male clients is a degrading one that demonizes male sexuality and needs. It’s reminiscent of the radical feminist trope that “all men are rapists,” based on the suspicion that sex itself is violent because the penis is like a weapon and penetration is an act of dominance over a woman. But men are human beings with legitimate sexual needs and desires. They can’t help having penises, and heterosexual women, generally speaking, enjoy penetration. The biological differences between male and female sexuality are natural and meant to be enjoyed by both cisgenders, not politicized in order to cast men as predators and women as victims. That false stance does profound harm to both.

Murphy devotes a lot of space to criticizing Slutwalk, including claiming that its participants “play to a male gaze.” But I attended the Slutwalk march in Vancouver last year and was impressed by the diversity of the crowd and the large number of men who attended—not to ogle women, but to support them. Murphy misses the point anyway—the essence of Slutwalk is to sever the link between women’s desire to look sexually attractive and feel like sexual beings, and the sexist presumption that women who do so are automatically consenting to sexual activity and therefore are “dirty sluts” and whores. Women should be able to dress how they want without it being linked to any expectation or judgment by others about their sexual behaviour. In other words, stilettos and miniskirts don’t have to be a symbol of patriarchy and female victimology, they can symbolize women’s autonomy and free sexual expression instead.

Slutwalk also emphasizes that women have the right to enjoy sex, including casual sex—with consent and respect being the issues that matter, not the way they dress. Abolitionists don’t see it that way of course, because they interpret many forms of female sexual expression as a product of patriarchal oppression. Once again, this removes women’s agency and whitewashes their sexuality. As sex worker Tuulia Law notes: “[Abolitionists] are shaming people, including slutwalkers, for having sex in a way that offends their sensibilities.” (Personal communication)

Many angry exchanges have occurred in the comments sections of Meghan Murphy’s articles because of her disrespect for and dismissal of any sex worker that does not fit into her victim paradigm. Such actions are decidedly not feminist. Until the abolitionist movement is willing to listen to and respect the diverse voices of all sex workers, including the majority of both indoor and street workers who want full decriminalization of prostitution, they have no business calling themselves feminists.

The Limits of Free Speech

The popular catchphrase of free speech defenders is a quote attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Civil libertarians often defend and support the notion that the right to freely express offensive opinions is a bedrock human right that should not be abridged except under very narrow circumstances—typically for hate speech that directly incites violence against a person or group of persons. However, I support broader prosecution of hate speech—defined here as speech that disparages a person or class of persons based on an immutable characteristic (colour, race, origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age), or their occupation, family or marital status, and religion or lack of religion. Proscribing hate speech more broadly would, I believe, foster a more inclusive, tolerant, and safer society.

Many western countries already do criminalize hate speech in a more encompassing way, although enforcement is often weak and spotty. A typical example is Canada, where it is illegal to “expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt…on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination” (Canadian Human Rights Act) and to “wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group” (Criminal Code of Canada). The United States, however, stands almost alone in its veneration of free speech at almost any cost. The U.S. Supreme Court insists that the First Amendment protects hate speech unless it constitutes a “ true threat” or will incite imminent lawless action.

But societies should take action against hate speech without requiring that a few specific words by themselves must directly and immediately incite violence, or be likely to. That sets a very high bar and is difficult to prove. It also allows purveyors of hate to evade responsibility simply by not making explicit calls for violence. Further, our new digital world raises the stakes—the Internet has spawned a proliferation of hate speech along with useful information such as bomb-making instructions or the home addresses of abortion providers. This has enabled others to commit violence long after the words were first published.

Violent acts of hate are generally preceded by hate speech that is expressed publicly and repeatedly for years, including by public figures, journalists, leading activists, and even the state. Some examples include Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist acts in Norway (June 2011), the assassination of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller (May 2009) and other abortion providers in the 1990’s, the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis (1994), and the Nazi Holocaust.

Courts of law should be able to look at broader patterns of hate speech in the culture to determine whether a hateful atmosphere inspired or contributed to violence, or would likely lead to future violence. When hate speech is relatively widespread and acceptable (such as against Muslims or abortion providers), it’s not difficult to see the main precursor to violence—an escalation of negative behaviour or rhetoric against the person or group. Dr. George Tiller endured a previous assassination attempt and a decades-long campaign of persecution waged by the anti-abortion movement, which worsened over time, especially in the last year or two of the doctor’s life. Anders Behring Breivik had actively opposed multiculturalism for years and had immersed himself in Christian Right propaganda about the supposed threat of Muslim immigration to Europe, a view popularized only in recent years by a growing army of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing journalists.

As these examples illustrate, we can often pinpoint the main purveyors of hate speech that lead to violent crimes. In the Norway shootings, the killer Breivik relied heavily on writings from Peder Jensen (“Fjordman”), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, Front Page Magazine, and others. Such individuals and groups should be charged with incitement to hatred and violence. Similar culpability for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller should rest on the shoulders of the extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly.

In general, anyone spewing hate to an audience, especially on a repeated basis, could be held criminally responsible. This would include politicians, journalists, organizational leaders and speakers, celebrities, bloggers and hosts of online forums, and radical groups that target certain categories of people. We also need to hold people in accountable positions to a higher standard, such as government employees and contractors, ordained religious leaders, CEOs, and the like.

Criteria by which to assign culpability could include a speaker’s past record of prior hate speech against a particular person or group, how widely and frequently the views were disseminated, and the specific content and framing of their views. In cases where violence has already occurred, judges could determine how likely it was that the violent perpetrators had been exposed to someone’s specific hate speech, and hand down harsher sentences to the speaker accordingly.

The Harms of Hate Speech

The apparent assumption of free speech defenders is that offensive speech is essentially harmless—that is, just words with no demonstrable link to consequences. But questioning whether speech can really incite someone to bad behaviour seems irresponsibly obtuse. Obviously, words have consequences and frequently inspire actions. A primary purpose of language is to communicate with others in order to influence them. If that weren’t so, there would be no multi-billion dollar advertising industry, no campaigns for political office, no motivational speakers or books, no citizen-led petitions, no public service announcements, and no church sermons, along with a myriad of other proven examples where speech leads others to act.

The majority of hate speech is targeted towards gays, women, ethnic groups, and religious minorities. It’s no coincidence that straight white men are generally the most ardent defenders of near-absolute free speech, because it’s very easy to defend hate speech when it doesn’t hurt you personally. But hate speech is destructive to the community at large because it is divisive and promotes intolerance and discrimination. It sets the stage for violence by those who take the speaker’s message to heart, because it creates an atmosphere of perceived acceptance and impunity for their actions. Left unchecked, it can lead to war and genocide, especially when the state engages in hate speech, such as in Nazi Germany.

Hate speech also has serious effects on its targets. Enduring hatred over many years or a lifetime will take a toll on most people. It can limit their opportunities, push them into poverty, isolate them socially, lead to depression or dysfunction, increase the risk of conflict with authority or police, and endanger their physical health or safety. In 1990, the Canadian Supreme Court stated that hate speech can cause “loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger and outrage and strong pressure to renounce cultural differences that mark them as distinct.” The court agreed that “hate propaganda can operate to convince listeners…that members of certain racial or religious groups are inferior,” which can increase “acts of discrimination, including the denial of equal opportunity in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and even incidents of violence.”

In democratic societies that stand for equality and freedom—often with taxpayer-funded programs that promote those values by assisting vulnerable groups—it makes no sense to tolerate hate speech that actively works to oppose those values. Further, hate speech violates the spirit of human rights codes and laws, diminishing their purpose and effect. A society that allows hate speech is a society that tolerates prejudice at every level—politically, economically, and socially—and pays the consequences through increased discrimination and violence.

Answering Objections from Hate Speech Defenders

The most popular solution to the problem of hate speech is “more free speech.” This seems to make sense on the surface, and sometimes works well in practice. For example, there are many outspoken atheists who do a good job of publicly defending themselves and their fellow atheists from the prejudice and hatred too often expressed by religious people. But even if the targets of hatred can ably defend themselves from verbal violence, why should they have to? Why should a democratic society privilege the right to free speech over the well-being and privacy of those with less privilege?

Most vulnerable groups, however, do not have a level playing field on which to respond to hate speech against them. They are often outnumbered, out-resourced, and out-funded by the haters, simply because of their disadvantaged position in society. Sexism and racism are still thriving in the 21^st century, which means women and most minority groups have a harder time getting published and heard and taken seriously in mainstream society. Which brings us full circle—perhaps one of the reasons sexism and racism are still so prevalent in modern society is because free speech is exercised largely by the privileged at the expense of the unprivileged.

A common objection to prosecuting hate speech is that it might endanger speech that counters hate speech. For example, a critique may repeat the offending words and discuss their import, or it may subvert the hate message in a subtle or creative way that could be misunderstood by some. But context is everything when determining whether speech is actually hateful or not, so this objection seems nonsensical. Any reasonable judge should be able to discern the difference in intent or effect behind a hateful message and the speech that critiques it.

Another objection is that prosecuting hate speech removes accountability from those who actually commit the violence, turning violent perpetrators into victims of hate speech. But no-one is suggesting that hate speech causes people to act against their will or takes away their personal responsibility. Typically, hate speech creates an environment in which a person who is already sympathetic to the views of the speaker feels validated and encouraged to take action, with a reduced fear of punitive consequences and even anticipation of praise and support from the in-group that shares their views. Nothing prevents a hate-inspired murderer from being prosecuted in the same way as any other violent murderer—in fact, many countries mete out harsher penalties for hate-motivated crimes. But those who inspired the murderer should also be prosecuted separately under hate speech laws.

Many people seem to treat freedom of expression as an almost sacred, inviolable right, but this is far from the reality. In constitutional democracies, free speech is already justifiably restricted in a multitude of ways by law or policy, even in the United States. The quintessential example of prohibited speech is falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Besides hate speech itself, some other generally accepted prohibitions of speech include:

• Sedition (advocating force as a way to change the government)
• Threats
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• False or misleading advertising
• Buffer zones around abortion clinics that prevent anti-abortion protesters from harassing patients and staff
• Quiet zones near hospitals or schools
• Municipal bylaws restricting the location, size, type, content, and display of signs, posters, objects, ads, etc.
• Profanity on public airwaves
• Publication refusal, censorship, and the right to edit enforced by news websites, online forums and blogs, newspapers, magazines, radio, and other media
• Company confidentiality policies (such as employees being prohibited from sharing trade secrets or talking to the media)
• Gag orders or publication bans in contracts, court cases, and settlements

In practice, courts will look at circumstances on a case-by-case basis to see where a balance should be struck between freedom of expression and some other value or right. No single right trumps another in all circumstances, not even the right to life. For example, Canada’s constitution (Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) allows a fundamental right such as freedom of expression to be limited to protect someone else’s fundamental rights, such as the right to life or liberty—or in the case of abortion, women’s right to safely access a necessary medical service, which courts have determined outweighs the protesters’ right to protest outside clinics.

Some current legal restrictions on free speech are not on the above list because they are clearly illegitimate. One of those is insulting your country’s head of state, currently illegal in at least eight countries, mostly in western Europe. This offence is called “lese-majesty,” a holdover from the days when kings were divine. But if political leaders are immune to criticism or ridicule, they have far too much power over the people and the country cannot be a true democracy. In general, the public must be allowed to pass judgment on public figures, because the latter owe their position to public support in the first place, which should not be coerced or bought. For example, public figures in the U.S. are not protected from defamation unless it was done with malice—knowledge of falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.

Many countries also criminalize blasphemy—the criticism of religious doctrines or practices. But the desire to protect religion from criticism is simply a reflection of the insecurity of believers who doubt their own beliefs. Blasphemy laws have more in common with hate speech actually, because they often result in hateful rhetoric and violent acts against the “blasphemers.” Further, many religious people have a tendency to confuse hate speech with dissent, such as Catholics who hurl accusations of “bigotry” when someone criticizes Church policies or dogma. But hate speech is personal—it is directed against people based on their identifiable characteristics. Dissent on the other hand is speech against other opinions, beliefs, or positions. Dissent is an essential component of a free democracy, and it includes blasphemy. In other words, you should be free to attack Catholic policies that protect abusive priests, but it would be hateful to say that all Catholic priests are pedophiles.

Examples of Anti-Abortion Hate Speech That Should Be Prosecuted

The history of violence against abortion providers makes a very strong case for prosecution of those who disseminate hate speech against them. Almost all of this violence has occurred in the U.S., which makes a compelling argument for limiting First Amendment protections of hate speech.

On a Sunday morning in May 2009, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was assassinated while attending church in Wichita Kansas. The killer, Scott Roeder, had been planning the act for some time and had gleaned information about the doctor’s movements from Operation Rescue—an anti-abortion group that Roeder was actively involved in and donated money to. This radical group had moved to Wichita in 2002 for the sole purpose of driving Dr. Tiller out of business, and in the seven years leading up to his murder, Operation Rescue (OR) engaged in a relentless campaign of hate and harassment against him, including aggressive picketing, numerous articles and press releases, baseless criminal charges, frivolous lawsuits, and trumped-up grand juries convened against him. (Dr. Tiller was fully vindicated in every legal battle.)

Two years before the assassination, Roeder posted on OR’s blog, urging people to attend Dr. Tiller’s church. He himself attended the church a few times, and also participated in OR’s pickets outside Dr. Tiller’s clinic. Roeder was in regular contact with OR’s President Troy Newman, as well as Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger, who was convicted in 1988 of conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic. When Roeder was arrested, Sullenger’s phone number was found on a post-it note on the dash of his car. Sullenger later admitted having several previous conversations with Roeder, in which she gave him information on Dr. Tiller’s habits and whereabouts, including his trial dates. In the months before the murder, Roeder had attended at least one court hearing—sitting beside OR’s President Troy Newman—to hear Dr. Tiller defend himself against scurrilous charges brought by OR.

It’s clear that Roeder was not a “lone wolf.” Perhaps Roeder did not directly involve anyone else in his plans, but no-one develops their views in a vacuum. Dr. Tiller’s murder was the natural culmination of over 20 years of anti-abortion harassment and violence directed at him and his clinic, much of it by Operation Rescue. Roeder had been immersed in OR’s violent anti-abortion rhetoric for years, so his beliefs and compulsions were fed by that environment, and thrived on it. Obviously, it played an encouraging role in the violence he committed.

Another key person who helped fuel the fire was Fox TV commentator Bill O'Reilly, who has about 3 million listeners. Between 2005 and 2009, Bill O'Reilly and his guest hosts talked about Dr. Tiller on 29 episodes, including just one month before the assassination. The most common epithet repeated many times by O’Reilly was: "Tiller the Baby Killer." Other comments by O’Reilly included: "[Tiller] destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He 's guilty of "Nazi stuff." "This is the kind of stuff that happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union." He “has blood on his hands.” He’s “a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida.” He operates a “death mill” and a “business of destruction.” “I wouldn't want to be [him] if there is a Judgment Day.” Although O'Reilly didn't specifically incite someone to murder Dr. Tiller, he put him in the cross-hairs, providing enough motivation and encouragement for someone to carry out the unspoken deed.

Of course, it wasn’t just Dr. Tiller and his clinic that were the targets of ongoing harassment and inflammatory hateful rhetoric. The reign of terror directed at clinics and providers across North America has been going on for 35 years—including 9 previous murders and 20 attempted murders of doctors or clinic staff, 100’s of arsons and bombs and butyric acid attacks, and 1000’s of death threats, stalking, clinic invasions, vandalism, aggressive pickets, and hate mail. Some shootings in the early 1990’s were directly preceded by “Wanted Posters” put out by anti-abortion groups on the doctors, complete with their home and clinic addresses and often their photographs. Doctors David Gunn and John Britton were murdered by anti-abortion extremists and had been featured on wanted posters, along with George Tiller, who was shot and wounded in 1993. (The murder of a fourth doctor on a wanted poster, George Patterson, could not be conclusively linked to an anti-abortion extremist.) The posters were deemed by a federal court in 2002 to be a “true threat” under the FACE Act, federal legislation that protects clinics from violence. Noting that the posters had preceded the murders, the court said it was the “use of the ‘wanted’-type format in the context of the poster pattern—poster followed by murder—that constitutes the threats,” not the language itself. With this decision, the judges overturned a lower court ruling that had deemed the posters and a related website to be “protected speech” because they did not directly threaten violence.

Conclusion

When people and courts defend hate speech against abortion providers as “protected speech,” it must be asked: Why are abortion providers required to risk their lives so their persecutors can have free speech rights? Why should doctors constantly have to look over their shoulder in fear, go to work in bullet-proof vests, pay out of pocket for security guards and other expensive safety measures, keep their home address a secret and their curtains permanently drawn shut, and see their children ostracized and bullied at school, just so their persecutors have the right to call them “baby killers”? Why does the right to free speech allow members of this vulnerable minority to be openly defamed and targeted for decades until they’re finally assassinated? And why do the families of the slain victims have to suffer in their grief and loss, because free speech was deemed more important than the lives of their loved ones?

The idea that vulnerable persons and groups should have to tolerate hate speech against them in the name of freedom of expression—often over decades or a lifetime—is offensive. We’re talking about peoples’ lives after all—this is not just a philosophical debate. The right to free speech is a fundamental value, but it should not be allowed to outweigh the basic human rights of other people, especially their right to life.