Recently, social media and organized media sensationalized a story about a man who rallied support for contentious anti-feminist views on his website [1]. These views, apparently gaining support around the world, suggest that when sexual assault occurs on private property, it should be exempt from criminal law [2]. Moreover, the website argues that women should not have the right to vote, stating that "women have no business voting in elections for public office… this may seem like a quixotic idea. But remember - so was women's suffrage, once" [3].

This provides a timely opportunity to remind ourselves why celebrating women's suffrage is relevant 100 years later. The principles underlying women's suffrage include the recognition that a woman has a voice to be counted equally to the vote of a man, as well as that women and men deserve equal protection under the law.

The Return of Kings rhetoric provides ample opportunity for criticism within the framework of Canadian case law. The case law has evolved from society's views on personal boundaries [4]. In a broad-sweeping nutshell, the Return of Kings web site has published views that suggest heterosexual men are strong, virile, and entitled: sexual assault should be legal once a woman steps onto private property [5]. Perhaps subscribers of this theory forget that all assault is illegal on private property.

The problem with this opinion is that it views sexual activity in a vacuum and pretends that women are sexual/procreating beings rather than persons with individual voices. For clarity's sake, let's leave aside the general attack on femininity and the personal fear this would invoke if, in some obscure regression of Canada's laws, this hateful and discriminatory concept actually became a reality [6].

First and foremost, it's pretty clear that the law is not going backward with respect to autonomy of the person and equality among persons. Even when we take away the sexual nature, assault is still assault. In the words of Supreme Court of Canada Justice L'Heureux-Dube in the landmark 1998 sexual assault case from Edmonton, R v Ewanchuk [7]:

Society is committed to protecting the personal integrity, both physical and psychological, of every individual. Having control over who touches one's body, and how, lies at the core of human dignity and autonomy. The inclusion of assault and sexual assault in the [Criminal Code of Canada] expresses society's determination to protect the security of the person from any non-consensual contact or threats of force. The common law has recognized for centuries that the individual's right to physical integrity is a fundamental principle.... It follows that any intentional but unwanted touching is criminal.

Assault is defined and prohibited pursuant to section 265(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada: "a person commits an assault when … without the consent of another person, he [or she] applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly" [8]. As noted in Ewanchuk above, the threshold for applying force is low: "intentional but unwanted touching" [9]. This ensures that the person being touched has complete physical control over his or her person.

Moreover, intentional but unwanted touching can also be actionable in civil law, under the tort of battery, where a complainant can sue a transgressor for monetary damages. For example, when battery is imposed in a medical context, it becomes medical battery. When it is of a sexual nature, it becomes sexual battery. Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice McLachlin concluded in the landmark 2000 case that [10]:

There is no justification in cases of battery of a sexual nature for departing from the traditional rule that the plaintiff in a battery action must prove direct contact, at which point the onus shifts to the defendant to prove consent. To do so would be to place a burden upon plaintiffs in battery actions of a sexual nature which plaintiffs in other battery actions do not bear.

The logic behind the view that sexual assault should somehow be treated differently from non-sexual assault and non-sexual battery is flawed; it is based on the premise that sexual touching somehow does not fall within the category of unwanted touching or that somehow it is less offensive.

In the case of the Return of Kings website, the inflammatory words spread like wildfire. Whether the article in question was intended as only "a satirical thought experiment" [11] or whether it truly reflects the views of the author is irrelevant. The major problem is that people took the views seriously, which resulted in polarized reactions. By understanding the history of judicial decisions as it relates to the topics in the article, one can appreciate that an idea like this cannot become reality without a regressive, chaotic, and draconian alteration of legal principles and judicial decisions. Finally, although Canadian women's suffrage began only 100 years ago, it serves as a modern temporal benchmark to remind people that at our core, humans are equal. As society evolves to recognize equality, so too must the law.

[1] "Extreme Misogynistic Group Denounced in Edmonton" (3 February 2016), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, online: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/extreme-misogynistic-group-denounced-in-edmonton-1.3431916> ["Extreme Misogynistic"].

[2] This Ms. Suffragette post is written assuming that the views critiqued in this post are supported by some people notwithstanding the fact that the original author of the articles claimed, after the fact, that the article was "a satirical thought experiment" [infra note 11]: Roosh Valizadeh, "How to Stop Rape" (16 February 2015), online: Roosh V http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-stop-rape.

[3] Steve McMahon, "Women Should not be Allowed to Vote" (15 May 2014), online: Kings Media <http://www.returnofkings.com/34330/women-should-not-be-allowed-to-vote> ["Women Should"].

[4] R v Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 SCR 330 (25 February 1999), online: Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada <http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1684/index.do> [Ewanchuk].

[5] "Extreme Misogynistic", supra note 1; Women Should, supra note 3.

[6] Winnipeg lawyer Bob Sokalski says this might be hate-speech, which is a crime: "Lawyer: Return of Kings Doctrine Could be Illegal" (3 February 2016), online: Corus Radio <http://www.inews880.com/syn/107/115939/115939>.

[7] Ewanchuk, supra note 4, at para 28.

[8] Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c. C-46 (29 January 2016), online: Government of Canada <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-61.html#docCont>.

[9] Ewanchuk, supra note 4, at para 28.

[10] Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's of London v Scalera, [2000] 1 SCR 551 (3 May 2000), at para 43, online: Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada <https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1786/index.do>.

[11] Roosh Valizadeh, "Everything You Wanted to Know about Roosh but were Afraid to Ask" (4 February 2016) online: Kings Media <http://www.returnofkings.com/79719/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-roosh-but-were-afraid-to-ask>.