Julie Culshaw responds:
Given the fact that Ms Taylor never heard anything that Jojo Ruba had to say, I wonder how she can make any of her statements? The one I find most unfounded is her claim that Jojo compared women who have abortions to Nazis who killed Jews. Never in any of his talks did Jojo ever make that comparison. If Ms Taylor had listened to his talk, she would realise that the comparison is made between abortion and the holocaust on the basis of the following points:
1. the numbers of deaths involved; in both cases, we are talking millions
2. the victims of both abortion and the holocaust are/were not considered human
3. the bodies of aborted babies and those of the Jews are/were used for experimentation
4. they are/were killed in centres set up for the killing (in abortion - clinics and hospitals; in the holocaust - in concentration camps and gas chambers)
5. their bodies are/were disposed of as waste and not given burial as other "human beings" get
As Mr. Ruba said, if the unborn are not persons, then the comparison simply does not hold; but if they are persons, then the analogy is frighteningly accurate. And he then went on to prove that the unborn are indeed human beings/persons and, as such, deserve human rights.
Feminists need an excuse to shut this down. So they call it "hate speech".
Even if Jojo Ruba had compared women who've had abortions to Nazis, how exactly is that "hate speech"? Hate speech is the condemnation and vilification of whole groups of people. If I criticize cigarette producers as greedy killers for manufacturing a lethal and addictive product, is that hate speech? Is that speech that must be censored because it could lead to people involved in that industry being stigmatized?
If deadbeat dads are condemned as irresponsible and cold-hearted, is that hate speech against men?
Should we stop criticizing behaviour for fear that it might end up as "hate speech?"
Of course these things aren't hate speech. But we all know that there are certain groups in society whose politically correct behaviour must never be subject to criticism, otherwise that's "hate speech".
The unfortunate thing is that it trivializes real hate speech-- speech that intentionally vilifies a whole group of people for the purpose of marginalizing them.
But labelling such expression as "hate speech" has been so successful in stigmatizing it, that the left wants to use it against their ideological opponents in order to silence them.
That's what this is about: taking a successful tactic, and re-framing the whole debate so that it can stick.
With a post-modernist mind-frame, that can work. Because for academic feminists reality is defined by words-- not independent of them.
Women especially should stand up to feminist tyrants who would silence those who disagree with their stance. It's time that feminists and their elitist enablers understand that they do not represent women, they do not speak for women, and their speech should not be taken as authoritative as to how to broach issues relating to women.
Feminists have no right to authoritatively decide what is or is not hate speech against women.
