At some stage in the life of a lot of males there comes a time when he wants to be attractive to girls and envies those who are able to attract them easily. I remember in my case when I was in university a friend of mine named Richard could literally go into any bar on a busy evening and pick up a girl. They clung to him like lint on a black suit.
To those watching, this was a talent we all marvelled. At that time in our lives, nothing beyond physical attraction meant very much. This is simply a right of passage that a lot of boys pass through on route to manhood. But even then the key was willing, open and honest consent.
What Julian Blanc is offering doesn’t fit in that category. His approach is mostly juvenile and directed at carnal interests. He operates from the view that men like him are intellectual superiors whose primitive needs must be fulfilled by women whose role in life is to subordinate themselves to the likes of Blanc and his followers. Offensive as this already may be, what is important is that he doesn’t stop there.
Blanc’s views are repugnant and vile, his motivations are barbaric, but in our democracy nobody should be denied entry to Canada simply based on their views.
He goes on to preach the morally repugnant view that, in at least some instances, it is necessary to dupe women into sexual relationships. Then he goes even further suggesting that it is appropriate to use force on the supposition that some women like being forced into submission.
The key to these sexist views is that deception and even the use of force is justified in pursuit of intimacy with a female – that the end of such intimacy justifies the means, although we are uncertain just how far Blanc would take that. In short, Blanc doesn’t see women as human beings worthy of respect.
It is not surprising that some people are calling on the Canadian government to prevent Blanc from coming to Canada to present his seminars. Arguing that this man advocates trickery, sexual assault and harassment, these activists argue Blanc has no business coming here. The question is on what legal basis could such a person be prevented from entering Canada?
In Canada, Section 36(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the most salient provision I could find on point states:
A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for … committing an act outside Canada that is an offense in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offense under an Act of Parliament.
This section enables border officials to block would-be visitors from coming to Canada even in those circumstances where the individual has not yet been convicted of a crime if there is evidence that, weighed on a balance of probabilities, would lead the border official to conclude that the individual would be convicted of the crime abroad and in Canada. But simply put, there is no such evidence in Blanc’s case.
Blanc’s views are repugnant and vile, his motivations are barbaric, but in our democracy nobody should be denied entry to Canada simply based on their views. The government is not and should not be the moral arbiter of people’s views. We are faced with a situation no less despicable than allowing a Nazi to come to Canada to speak at a meeting. In either case the basic principle of free speech, no matter how odious, is at stake.
To paraphrase a famous quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Let us greet Blanc with the derision and condemnation he deserves. In our desire to condemn his views let us beware that we not condemn our democracy or imperil our free institutions in the process.
Andy Semotiuk is a Canadian and US immigration lawyer with immigration law firm Pace Immigration. You can learn more about Andy at My Work Visa.
