r an injunction against the materials in question [emphasis added]. The harm which a particular woman suffers as a result of trafficking in pornography is not easily delineated. It is not the physical assault or forced viewing outlined in the other sections of the ordinance. Nor is it (for MacKinnon/Cole proponents) a tangible physical harm in the "John hits Mary" sense: [P]ornography causes attitudes and behaviours of violence and discrimination that define the treatment and status of half the population . [P]ornography institutionalizes the sexuality of male supremacy ... Since the harm caused by pornography is a social, collective harm to women, conventional liberal notions of tortious harm are seemingly unable to capture its seriousness (no single woman appears to have been grievously harmed). Thus, to limit the cause of action in the ordinance's trafficking provision to particular, individual women might seem futile for feminists in that a traditional liberal court would be unable to make sense of the claims of harm involved. The situation may not be quite so bleak. It will be useful to examine the notion of a social harm, a harm which cannot be tied directly to one victim, in the areas of criminal and tort law. I suggest that Ontario courts already have the basis for a framework of social harm in the federal statutory provisions on hate literature, and in the principles which can be adopted from the Bhadauria case. The Criminal Code in sections 318 and 319 prohibits the advocating or promoting of genocide and the incitement of hatred of identifiable groups respectively. It is noteworthy that "identifiable group" is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin", but does not include gender identification. These sections allow groups, rather than individuals, to seek redress for the disseminatio...
