Dear David,

There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And
hate speech is what I am against.

According to the UN - hate speech is:

Any kind of communication in speech, writing, or
behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or
discriminatory language with reference to a person or
group on the basis of who they are, in other words,
based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race,
colour, descent, gender, or other identity factor.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can
create a climate where discrimination and violence are
permitted and condoned. Hate speech is not about hurt
feelings, it's about dehumanizing, silencing, and
negating a person's or group's right to exist.

Such acts have real consequences. For example, exposure
to racial vilification has been shown to contribute to
very real health disparities between Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal Australians. To suicide rates of people.

Toleration is not the solution to intolerance. There are
differences between what is right and what is wrong and
what is intolerably wrong. There are views that a free
society cannot and must not tolerate.

One right cannot be used to destroy another. Freedom of
speech exists alongside freedom from discrimination and
other freedoms. It does not and should not trump it.

This reflects the affirmation in the UN Declaration of
Human Rights - of the inherent dignity of all people.
This inherent dignity is the source of our rights.

Hate speech which seeks to destroy or deny the inherent
dignity of individuals and groups is therefore inconsistent
with the mission to promote the freedoms that are the
birthright of all people.

This means that we can place less weight on claims that
hate speech deserves similar protection to other kinds of
speech. It does not.

Foxy,

If the Uighurs use pejorative language to describe the Chinese is that hate speech?

Dear Foxy,

Section 18C was added to the Racial Discrimination Act just over 20 years ago, with the passage of the Racial Hatred Act. Under Section 18C:

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

I am against hate speech but do not think the prohibition against such speech should be written into law even though hate speech dehumanizes, silences, and negates a person's or group's right to exist.

The reason I am against such prohibitions written into law is that such a law is inherently discriminatory. A well educated, intelligent bigot can express his or her bigotry in such refined language as would make her or him beyond the reach of the law. Other bigots can make such statements when they are in a position where they cannot be touched by the law. President Trump has talked of sh**hole countries and has made other statements that denigrate countries and peoples such as referring to would be immigrants coming from Mexico as rapists and criminals. However, he is the bigot-in-chief of the USA and will not be called to account. However, a poor, working-class man having too many beers will be liable to punishment if he makes such statements.

No person either capable of expressing hate in polite, oblique language or beyond the reach of such laws will touched by them. Respected, fundamentalist preachers openly wish the death of homosexuals. They will not be touched by such a law because they operate under the cloak of religious freedom.

Some people will use 18C to claim they are offended by another person’s comments. I think we have already gone too far in anti-vilification legislation.

Dear David,

I've stated my views on this subject.

I respect your opinion.

I look forward to our next discussion.

david f : 1

Foxy : 0

Foxy,

Firstly I thought you had finished with this topic.
Sadly you are only making my case for me.
At no stage is there any evidence or intent on what "I" call or consider HATE speech, therefore if I say I do not practice hate speech, I should know.
The fact that I do know what hate speech is, has exposed you of the very act yourself.
Foxy, by your continuing to chase me and persistent accusations about these imaginary hate speeches you are becoming quite fixated over, does not bode well for you or your credibility, as I have already mentioned.
I can assure you, if I wanted to dish out some hate speech, you would not confuse it with anything but; I think you know very well my comments so far are not even close, and besides as I am continually reminded, if I so much as even think about hateful comments, I run the risk of expulsion, so if I get kicked off for what I have said so far, so be it, at least those of us with a broader focus of our faculties and a pragmatic, objective and realistic outlook on life will know the truth.
The words I have used are in a descriptive and rhetorical sense and are all related to the point being made, only in a stronger tone or with emphasis, so as to highlight/strengthen the message.
As I've said before, if this is the style of maturity and level of reasoning here on OLO, it's possible I might get the flick, then you and your mates can rejoice.
Oh I mis-spoke previously when I said I will be setting up a pod-cast, I meant VLOG.
If I am doomed to be censured or censored, so be it, I am but one against the will and opinions of many.