@Jennifer1984 Said
I don't have any real idea of what Utopia should be. Why should I..? All I try to do is make as decent a world as possible for my family and people I know and care about.
The thought that we can't say what we want is a fallacy. We can. We can say anything we like.
What we can't do is break the law with our free speech.
The government - bowing to the same "will of the people" and the exercising the same democratic process that Brexiters were so eager to defend as "sacrosanct" last year - have voted over the years, quite democratically, to pass certain laws that prohibit hatred and discrimination.
Liberty and the law of the land are not
quite the same thing although generally they co-exist alongside each other. But when they do come into conflict, the law trumps liberty. Every time. And rightly so in my opinion.
Where the two come into conflict (eg: an individual wants to say something that contravenes the law) then the law will prevail. The law doesn't tell you "Don't say these words", it says "If you say these words, you will be penalised for it."
There is a strange idea that freedom of speech is freedom to say anything you like without consequence. This is not so and nor should it be. All wrong, harmful, hateful and discriminatory actions be they physical or verbal SHOULD have consequences.
I mostly find that the only people who buck against anti-hate legislation will generally:
a. Want to do hateful things.
b. Expect to get away with it by using flimsy excuses ("It was only a joke" ).
c. Get very angry about being penalised quite lawfully for... er.... breaking the law.
d. They will then claim they are law abiding and not hateful despite having demonstrated quite clearly that they aren't and they are.
Me...? I like to use my freedom of speech. I exercise it quite frequently as you may or may not have noticed. I'm doing it now. I'm not being hateful or discriminatory. I'm not breaking any law.
Overwhelmingly I like the law of the land. It does have some aspects that I don't like. For instance, I don't like the Snoopers Charter but I understand that if used correctly and not abused by the State, it is a useful tool in the fight against crime and terrorism.
I don't like the police having firearms units - I'd much rather we had a 100% unarmed police service. But I understand that some criminals use firearms and are extremely dangerous. Armed police units are a regrettable fact of life.
These are aspects of our society that I don't like, but this is the same society and law that allows me to go about my daily life in - generally - peace and liberty. It tolerates the Gay Pride festivals my wife and I love to attend - despite the hate and intolerance we still suffer from some sections of society.
It's the same law that changed to enable my wife and I to marry, something that was denied to us for so long. It was later changed to enable me to obtain the IVF treatment that I couldn't previously lawfully obtain, and has blessed me with a daughter whose future I am determined to do all I can to ensure.
We have GOOD law. We have a good society. We entrust the administration of both of these things to people who we believe will make us a humane and civilised country. We are a free people with liberties that need to be guarded and protected jealously.
And whether we like it or not, whether it suits our own personal aims and desires in any given situation, we ARE all subject to it equally.
Do as you will. That is your liberty. Use that liberty to break the law at your peril.
The problem with hate speech laws is how they are defined, who defines them, and how they are implemented.
The United Kuckdom is a great case in point. It is considered hateful to say "it is ok to be white," but it is not a hate crime to say, "white lives do not matter."
Or look at Australia - it is a hate crime to tell people the koran says non Muslims are not human, unless you are a Muslim telling other Muslims about it, then it is ok ("the most vile animals are they who disbelieve," "the disbelievers are the worst of beasts" )...
None of this will end well
And look at your own hateful speech towards Australians.
You have called me and Shadow fascists and hateful bigots, claimed we rejoice in innocent people being killed, we want the UK to burn because we are full of hate etc,. because we are typical Australians. Apart from being borderline psychotic and revealing of your own mental state, it is a type of thing you have never got from either me or Shadow in return.
What punishment should your hate speech lead to?
Now, how would you react to me saying that about a community that actually does have a problem with killing the innocent for ideological reasons? If I were to say, for example, "Muslims want the UK to burn because they are hateful bigots and they like it when innocent people are killed," is that hateful? Should it be a crime? What should the punishment be? It is a far more accurate statement than your claim about Australians. Does that make it more or less hateful, or is it the same?
What about if I say lesbians are violent, angry man hating child abusers who suffer psychosis and should never be allowed near a young boy..? Is that ok? If not, why is it fundamentally different to the psychotic drivel you have regularly spouted?
To give a real example, consider an actual quote from you that I have modified ever so slightly:
@Jennifer1984 Said
Oh, a Jew..... that explains everything. There is no group of people anywhere else on Earth who would be more happy to see Britain go to hell in a handbasket than Jews.
What is the difference between what you actually said, and the slight adjustment I made? And before you talk about race and power, I will remind you that the claim of a relationship between race and power comes from the original purveyors of "social justice" in Germany, c.1930. If you want to accuse your opponent of sounding like a Nazi, maybe it is not a good idea to parrot Nazi ideas as you do so. Jus' sayin'...