Q+A – free speech or hate speech?

Stephen Franks: New Zealanders don’t have to welcome, we didn’t have any desire to welcome, we just wanted people to be allowed to make up their own decision as to who heard, not have politicians make it for them. I think that countries where politicians decide who you can hear and who you can’t, who you can question and challenge…Phil Goff said repeatedly that he had the power to do it, and a whole lot of people jumped in behind him.

We’ve had holocaust deniers, we’ve had scientologists, we’ve had a lot of very very unpleasant people speaking, and we should be able to see them and decide yes that’s unpleasant.

Stacey Morrison: It’s not unpleasant speech, it’s hate speech. Do you not admit it’s hate speech?

Stephen Franks: there’s no difference. Hate speech is just a way for people to try and say ‘I don’t believe in free speech, but i can’t say that, so I’ll call something hate speech – and that’s not free. That’s all it is.

Anjum Rahman: That is absolute nonsense. there’s a lot of research that’s been done on hate speech, and what it does, hate speech, it silences it’s victims, it causes them to withdraw because of fear, it causes them to move from their jobs, leave neighbourhoods…

Corrin Dann: Let’s be clear about the bit that you’re arguing is hate speech, we’re talking about they argue on the IQ thing, on the racial superiority.

Anjum Rahman: It’s not just that. They argue that, for example, their comments around aboriginal culture and that white people have done more in two hundred and fifty six years than aborigines did in forty thousand years and therefore it was a good thing you took the land away.

Stacey Morrison: We need to look at that in the context of this country, and in terms of our bi-cultural framework for our country, and therefore if they’re talking about multiculturalism as a danger and trying to make people feel threatened so that they fight back, that’s when you incite hate.

So telling people that they are threatened is where it becomes dangerous, whereas it’s not true in terms of whether they face danger.

Stephen Franks: I am threatened, I am threatened when Amjun and the Islamic Federation says we don’t want someone coming here who doesn’t like Islam.

Anjum Rahman: I didn’t mention Islam, I’m talking about people, no I did not, I’m talking about the fact that what these people do…what I am saying to you, these acts of hate speech have an impact on people’s daily lives, and what I’m saying to you is whenwould you draw the line? When there are people with tiki torches on the street, and driving cars into people, and killing them, would you stop the line when we start wearing yellow stars, would you stop it when they’re on cattle trains…

Bryce Edwards: We can clearly see that we’ve got this looming culture war, and it’s happening on this panel…it’s actually happening throughout the globe at the moment…it’s an escalation of new debates, and we’re seeing over the last five years that there’s been this rise of radicalism, and we’re seeing it with these Canadian duo, it’s a reactionary version of it.

We’re seeing it on the left, we’re seeing it amongst gender politics, ethnicity politics, it’s happening everywhere.

Corrin Dann: Is New Zealand hostile to that free speech?

Bryce Edwards: I think everywhere’s having to deal with these radical views, especially when they’re pushing the boundaries, to find a way of dealing with it. At the moment the way of dealing with it is to try and ban it, and there will be consequences if we go down that route. I mean it is a logical way to do it, but it means that I think other groups, marginalised groups, suppressed groups will end uip being banned as well.

Stacey Morrison: You don’t need a stage to have a platform, and what they’ve done is performed an excellent PR opportunity. We’ve been talking about people that I didn’t know about a month ago, and therefore in terms of their free speech, that is welcomed on other platforms, you don’t need to be at a particularly privately owned venue like the Powerstation.

Stephen Franks: The question though about rights of assembly and association is that you actually do, because you’re getting a filtered message through almost all media. People actually want to go and say, can I look at, what sort of body language do I see, they want to hear other people’s questions in the meeting. I didn’t want to go and hear them because our researchers said some of it’s quite offensive, it’s set out to be agent provocateur,

Corrin Dann: They don’t have filters on a Youtube channel, you can go and watch half an hour lectures if you really really want…

Stephen Franks: It’s structured the way he wants it. The thing about meetings is that they’re not structured. They’ll get questions and challenges…

Anjum Rahman: Did you see the rules of those…

Stephen Franks: …at a meeting you actually get a chance to make up your mind directly, you see body language, but more importantly you see the other people at the meeting, and you make up your mind how are they feeling…

Corrin Dann: And you think the people going to that meeting were there to be open minded about what was going to be said?

Stephen Franks: As I said, we’re there for the right to do it. I don’t actually care about that meeting. It doesn’t worry me that it was stopped except that it’s a trend that changes our society dramatically. I didn’t like Phil Goff saying…

Anjum Rahman: I just want to go back to what Bryce was saying. This is not new. It happened in the 1930s and 1940s in Germany, it’d happening in Myanmar with that Royhingyas, it happened in Rawanda, it’s happened all around the world and it’s happening all the time. And what the research on hate speech shows is that acts of racist violence are preceded by vilification in speech.

That we create the atmosphere that makes violence acceptable, because victims of that speech are so vilified that people then act it out. And that’s what I’m saying, if you were living in the 1930s at what point would you have said ‘right we have to stop this’. We can’t have this language that’s going to end up at this place.

Bryce Edwards: There are all these offensive things that are being said, and I think you’re right, it’s increasing, but it’s a question of how do you deal with it. Do you suppress it? And does that work? I think we’ve seen over the last couple of weeks it doesn’t work. It’s had the counter effect, that we’ve had more…

Anjum Rahman: I disagree with you, I think it’s really worked. If there had been no protests…I’ve been to a speech like this that was real vilification, I’ve sat through it, there was ov er a hundred people in the room, there was no question and answer session, there were strict rules to their meeting, and there would not have been a debate…

Stacey Morrison: In terms of free speech, whose freedom of speech do we always protect, and in terms of say for instance Taika Waititi as a Maori man saying that New Zealand is racist, no one responded in terms of  that was his freedom of speech to express his opinion, it was more about how dare he say that.

So in these experiences it is important that we look at what we think about this, where we stand, and what we support and at what point we define this as hate speech.

 

 

61 Comments

  1. I think there’s a lot of issues arising from that discussion, but I will keep my opinion to myself at this stage and leave it open to reactions and thoughts.

  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  August 6, 2018

    Should the Koran be banned if there is hate speech in it? Or the Bible?

    • Gezza

       /  August 6, 2018

      No they should both be publicly debated & religionists asked to justify their believing in nonsense as often as possible. The core beliefs – that Jaweh now Allah (Allah is simply Jaweh.3 (revised Arabic version) communicated to ignorant ancient humans & has kept them ignorant & enthralled must be demonstrated & their adherents must be persuaded to see it for what it is. Rubbish.

      • Zedd

         /  August 6, 2018

        @Gezza

        I was of the understanding that ‘Allah’ is the arabic name for ‘The one true God’ (same as Yahweh ?).. but recently I saw a christian preacher (on TV) say that if you take the 4 hebrew letters for Yahweh (tetragramaton) push them together & turn it upside down.. it looks the same as ‘Allah’ in arabic script ??? ; his ‘evidence’ that Allah is actually Satan ?!

        so again its all ‘open to interpretation’ ! I personally dont think that muslims are ‘Devil worshippers’.

        Im more inclined to believe that the Pope/RCC is the ‘Antichrist power’ in books of Daniel & Revelation (if you read them.. it seems clear) ‘the great deception’ :/

        • Gezza

           /  August 6, 2018

          Well there ya go. You believe what’s in the Bible you end up promoting hate speech like that. Which is exactly my point. Some idiots would think you were serious.

      • PartisanZ

         /  August 6, 2018

        When people say its “rubbish” Gezza, I always find myself thinking: If its rubbish, why is ‘religion’ so pervasive?

        Immanuel Kant, the most profound thinker of our age, said, “Two things fill my mind with ever new and growing wonder: the starry sky above us and the moral law within us” …

        ” … our morality is rooted in our perception of the universe, and in the feeling(s) with which we face it … the irrational feelings awakened by this recognition … the moral law within us is nothing other than the reflection of the starry sky above …” (Frank E Warner)

        These irrational feelings cannot be put into words – not by Kant, Warner nor anyone else – because words are intransigently rational by nature … Yet prophets sporadically and religionists regularly attempt to do so … and here is the rock upon which the ships of all religions founder …

        Maybe even, figuratively speaking, the Cross upon which Our Saviour is Crucified …?

        However, this desire to know, understand, live by, honour and somehow express – perhaps best described as ‘worship’ – “the moral law within us” and the irrational feelings awakened by it, certainly does not necessarily make people fools IMHO …

        • Gezza

           /  August 6, 2018

          Mostly colourful ramblings, imo. A sense of wonder and awe I also often feel when l look up at the stars & planets & our own planet & its environment contemplate how amazing it all can all seem. At times I feel somehow very important that I can even marvel at it, & at other times it makes me realise how insignificant I am when I look at the vastness of what I can see & know that it almost infinitely more vast than what I can see.

          These feelings are common to lots of people but the philosophers are only telling people their own take on it.

          Morality I think mostly comes from those of us who feel empathy. That’s why people ignore the parts of the Bible that still allow them to keep slaves, for example.

          • Gezza

             /  August 6, 2018

            The other thing I would add is that the last 7 of the 10 commandments is something most of us have been exposed to in Western society & they tend to permeate our culture as a moral backdrop to even our legal system and form part of the moral concepts of Western formerly Christian societies.

            And yet many or all of them are quite common sets of sensible rules that have equivalents in other cultures because they deal with the sorts of things that typically cause strife & violence & even murder. Even today. Adultery, theft etc.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  August 6, 2018

      They were both written centuries ago without our knowledge. The problem is that people pore over them looking at the miniature rather than the big picture. Southern and Molyneaux are in the here and now promoting exclusion rather than inclusion.

      I note Canada has given us them where as we are sending fire fighters to help fight their wild fires, that is my NZ not what Southern and Molyneaux are offering

    • Gezza

       /  August 6, 2018

      @ Patz

      They were both written to tell people who believe that they are specially favoured & morally just & to justify the seizure of other people’s land & resources, and they both tell myths & stories & prescribe rituals & rules of behaviour that are primitive and no longer applicable.

      There was a good comment here, posted early this morning I think on last night’s thread about the Sunday programme. It bears repeating. I think it’s excellent. A problem you have to deal with in challenging Islam’s worst aspects is you have to challenge where they purport to come from.

      This means you have to challenge the Bible because as I’ve said before it makes the same claims about the same God in the same circumstances (hardly surprising since it’s lifted from them as Muhummad studied both & Arabised the idea) & so in the West both religions nowadays stress tolerance & acceptance of each other to perpetuate the other’s continued existence. But one of them wants to dominate its area because it’s the correction of the others. The last communication by Jaweh there will be.
      … … … …
      RML  /  August 6, 2018
      It was good to have some coverage of Molyneux & Southern on the Sunday programme. However, the reporting team did a very poor job of distilling the essence of the messages Molyneux & Southern are peddling.

      In particular, the attempts by Molyneux to claim meaningful correlations between race and intelligence are easily discredited by reputable scientific studies which show negligible biophysical differences as one would expect given we are all descended from the same common ancestors. Research indicates that environmental factors affecting childhood development are of extreme relevance to how much of their potential people realise.

      It would have been great if the Sunday programme had spent some time debunking Molyneux’s claims with expert scientists and educationalists presenting the real facts. In a world of ‘claim’ and ‘counter-claim’ and the ‘need to present both sides’ sometimes the facts are very helpful arbiters that will help people make informed judgments so they know bullshit when they see it.

      The subsequent coverage of the same topic on Q & A with Corin Dann again did a weak job of exploring the hate speech versus free speech dimension.

      It’s always rather offensive listening to a Muslim (Anjum Rahman in this case) arguing that free speech should not be applied to their pet religion because that constitutes hate speech when Islam contains numerous verses that can only be described as pure hate speech and which directly generate terrorism.

      One reason we have free speech is so we can openly discuss the problems associated evil ideologies. We back free speech up with an understanding that we must remain civil in our dealings with each other. Not threaten violence. A lesson never learned by those Muslims who shot the satirical journalists at Charlie Hebdo.

      The thing that people like Anjum Rahman fail to understand is that by saying that it is wrong to criticise Islam they are providing moral support to the fundamentalist members of their faith who are intolerant of the blasphemous infidels who criticise it.

      Dealing with evil religious ideology is a major issue and we must not shy away from it, even if it upsets the people who have been brainwashed from birth to believe it. Those holding such beliefs ought not be surprised if the citizens in a free democratic society choose to exercise their free speech rights in a manner that “rattles the cages that constrain their beliefs”.

      There are members of the LGBTQ community who are only now in 2018 escaping the clutches of Christian hatred and intolerance that has spanned centuries. Their human rights deserve active protection.

      This means that certain primitive religious teachings authored by “Stone Age” people 1500 – 2000 years ago need to be abandoned in favour of the better principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which itself needs to be updated to explicitly recognise the rights of LGBTQ people).

      In this society, criticising bad ideas is not the same thing as saying we hate the people who hold those ideas.

      • Zedd, some people think (and I have heard them say so) that Santa is an anagram of Satan.

        People I knew had a bizarre code that ‘proved’ this and that from the Bible (anti-Pope, I think; something like that, anyway). They didn’t have the sense to realise that as the Bible was not written in English, their code was meaningless. I think that it was something along the lines of taking letters at intervals and seeing what the message was.

        Gezza, the Stone Age was not as recent as 1500-2000 years ago !

        • Gezza

           /  August 6, 2018

          I know. I don’t use that term. RML did. Yaweh’s origins are difficult to date – derived from other religions in all likeliehood, like the Jesus is God-made-man idea. It’s why it wasn’t too difficult to sell the story. There were several predating religions around at the time of Moses that had both Jaweh & Jesus concepts in their mythologies. Also the 10 commandments in one form or another, usually included in others.

          The Yaweh myth probably originated in either the Bronze or early Iron age. The Jesus mythology is Iron age.

          The Israelites & Muslims were into stoning. ISIS still is.

          • Is it any worse than the gas chambers that the US use ? In stoning, the person is knocked out, as I understand it, by a well-aimed blow to the head.

            The gas chamber is painful and prolonged, and a description of what happens is sickening. I had naively imagined that it and the lethal injections were quick and painless. It was a horrible surprise to read the truth.

          • Gezza

             /  August 6, 2018

            I’ll just leave it where I did above because that’s irrelevant to the topic I’m talking about – which is the Abrahamic religions. I don’t think the US executes people for adultery. And no, stoning hadn’t been done by ISIS with a well aimed blow to the head first.

      • sorethumb

         /  August 6, 2018

        Link?

      • sorethumb

         /  August 6, 2018

        Good luck with that

        You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work. Indeed, the study led by Dr. Kong showed that in Iceland, there has been measurable genetic selection against the genetic variations that predict more years of education in that population just within the last century.

  3. NOEL

     /  August 6, 2018

    The S&M act have left without any impact on the majority of New Zealanders.
    They said they came here to debate serious issues but all the intervews proved that was bullshit.

    • Gezza

       /  August 6, 2018

      Well I reckon:

      Southern did come here to talk about the Islamic religion & its associated culture being fundamentally different & separatist when Muslim numbers get large in any other cultural community, & seeking to have its own laws implemented for its own communities. And these things are happening in Europe. There are laws being passed which ban face veils & burkas. When she talks about multicultualism not working, she pretty well always means Islam.

      Molyneux came here to springboard off that but to talk about blacks & browns being inferior.

      Both of them most fundamently came here to stir up trouble & controversy, video it, & use it to boost their respective profiles & income streams from their YouTube & any other web-based sources. They are businesses.

      They knew stuff all about NZ, just enuf to know how to provoke a reaction.

      They succeeded well beyond their expectations & will be laffing themselves silly.

      • sorethumb

         /  August 6, 2018

        Molyneux came here to springboard off that but to talk about blacks & browns being inferior.

        “inferior” is rhetorical. Would you prefer we hide from the truth?

        • Gezza

           /  August 6, 2018

          I would prefer you don’t distort it.

          • I didn’t see the whole thing on 1; it seemed to be old ground. LS seems to a bit old for the enfant terrible act. The smirking and giggling wears a bit thin.

            One woman in the crowd made a good point; why couldn’t they come out and just address the people there ?

            They seem to object to people coming in and supposedly trying to change things (vastly exaggerated and/or inventions when one looks into this) but are astonished when people in other countries react negatively to them doing the same.

          • Gezza

             /  August 6, 2018

            One woman in the crowd made a good point; why couldn’t they come out and just address the people there ?

            High probability of being physically attacked by someone in that stirred up antifa mob, imo – did you look at them? Likely one or both would’ve been physically struck or had things thrown at them. Dildo might be one thing, a pole or bottle or poo – who knows.

            Let it happen, everybody cheers, blame & prosecute someone afterwards. If I were them I wouldn’t risk it either.

            • The protestors seemed quite peaceful as far as I could see. L & S could have been whisked away if needed.

              My guess is that it was a question of $$$. They wouldn’t want to give a free show, especially to a crowd that wouldn’t be made up of sychophants.

              They were left with egg on their faces when they assumed that the interviewer was white….alas, I missed a bit of that part of the interview.

  4. sorethumb

     /  August 6, 2018

    Taika Waititi as a Maori man saying that New Zealand is racist, no one responded in terms of that was his freedom of speech to express his opinion, it was more about how dare he say that.
    …………………………………………………………
    One of the most powerful arguments against multiculturalism is this:

    Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.
    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/06/the-misguided-advocates-of-open-borders/

    Young women of Latin and Turkish origin living in Melbourne find it hard to see any Australian culture. Some see a vacuum; others see a bland milieu populated with ‘average-looking’ people. In contrast, they feel that their own migrant cultures are strong. They ‘get through more’. If there is any Australian culture it is, in their opinion, losing ground to migrant cultures.
    https://zuleykazevallos.com/2012/10/06/its-like-were-their-culture/

    Taika can’t be racist because he is calling out the racists but if we look at it through an ethnocentric lense we may reach a different conclusion?

    • My objection to his statements was that they were mindlessly sweeping generalisations and that by calling everyone a racist, he was being racist himself. The claims were inaccurate and misleading. If he had been able to back them up, it would have been different.

  5. sorethumb

     /  August 6, 2018

    Focussing on free speech ignores the elephant in the room and that is media control and bias. EG Nigel Latta’s Hardstuff – The New New Zealand. Latta is the impartial expert. Then you see his twitter feed and he is up their with Keith Locke. Paul Spoonley is another he calls S& M wolves in sheep’s clothing (not those words) but it is he who is the radical dedicated to changing NZ.

  6. Corky

     /  August 6, 2018

    The talking is over. Time to choose sides, folks. I said yesterday war is coming. Well, it’s already started to be precise. Bryce puts it more succinctly:

    ”Bryce Edwards: We can clearly see that we’ve got this looming culture war, and it’s happening on this panel…it’s actually happening throughout the globe at the moment…it’s an escalation of new debates, and we’re seeing over the last five years that there’s been this rise of radicalism, and we’re seeing it with these Canadian duo, it’s a reactionary version of it.”

    The only thing I would disagree with Bryce about is this:

    ”We can clearly see that we’ve got this looming culture war.”

    Unfortunately the majority of people only have a cursory understanding of politics. To them this recent fiasco was about two strange people with weird beliefs annoying weird people who protest at the drop of a hat. They are more interested in the price of discounted butter.

    That ignorance is helping activist liberals. The problems will start when thE blinkered majority wake up and take sides….and some of them are starting to do that.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  August 6, 2018

      “That ignrance” or just plain getting on with their daily lives also allows extremists such as Southern & Molyneaux, who havd an agenda or message to push, to get more attention than they deserve.

      Immigrants come to NZ because they see a better life here than where they come from. Demonizing them once they are here will only dash that and allow extremists within their cultures to get traction.

      We would be better to make them welcome and show them that life here is indeed better. There will be teething problems with some but we have malcontents within our culture that is just life.

      Going down the whole “IQ” path is just a way of marginalizing people and reflects poorly on the people who propound it, suggesting a feeling of inferiority or lack of confidence in themselves.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 6, 2018

        IQ is a sidetrack. Stupid, harmful cultures are the issue.

        • sorethumb

           /  August 6, 2018

          Let’s face it IQ doesn’t change because IQ tests are made public (any more than average heights do), however if we assume we are all the same: who gets the blame?

          • Patzcuaro

             /  August 6, 2018

            But who designed the test? A test designed by Europeans will favour Europeans whereas a test designed by Aborigines will favour Aborigines.

            Then having an IQ is one thing using it is another, hard work and perseverence are what count in the end.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  August 6, 2018

            I am unconvinced that IQ tests are much more than skill tests dressed up. Two comments from my professors as a student:
            a) Undergraduate students are overwhelmingly from the better parts of town but graduate student classes are more likely to contain those from poorer families.
            b) By the time you get to honours level students have been selected for diligence and determination.

            And as often noted, genius is 10% brains and 90% effort. In other words, IQ is a cultural product.

            • sorethumb

               /  August 6, 2018

              The heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[6] and 86%.[7]) Genome-wide association studies have identified inherited genome sequence differences that account for 20% of the 50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

            • sorethumb

               /  August 6, 2018

              Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings
              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270739/

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  August 6, 2018

              Don’t forget most published research results are not reproducible.

              And that as a parent you provide both genes and environment. Take most social science results with a large pinch of salt.

      • sorethumb

         /  August 6, 2018

        or “just plain getting on with their daily lives” plus invidious attitudes and whatever plus why do we have such excessive rates of immigration plus why shouldn’t we put NZr’s interests over foreigners.

    • sorethumb

       /  August 6, 2018

      The thing is Corky that the arguments are like the one I posted above on ethnocentrism but we don’t have any politicians espousing those views.

  7. Blazer

     /  August 6, 2018

    How much attention do they actually…’deserve’?

    • sorethumb

       /  August 6, 2018

      It isn’t about “them” it is about the truth: do we paint a benign picture or allow for skepticism?

  8. Gerrit

     /  August 6, 2018

    To me it is simply a matter of “whoever defines what hate speech is, controls free speech”.

    So if you define any interpretation as “hateful” you control the speech allowed.

    Worth a read in full

    https://www.hoover.org/research/sordid-origin-hate-speech-laws

    Reference and stature in regards to hate speech date back to 1948 at the insistence of the Russians after WW2 to prevent any fascist promoting discussion.

    “The idea that deliberate state action — even at the expense of individual liberty — is the principal vehicle for social change and human progress is a hallmark of socialism, fascism, communism, and in some cases, forms of progressivism. The liberal democracies of the day, committed to the value of individual freedom, were sympathetic to the need to fight racism, even if several Western states did have real problems with racism at home. But they regarded the dangers of equipping the state with draconian powers to combat racism and intolerance more dangerous than the evils that these measures were employed to cure. However, in the context of the recent memory of the Holocaust and Western qualms about colonialism and apartheid, liberal democracies were unable to persuade communist states, as well as a range of newly independent states, that icerd would be a useful tool of dictatorial nations in proscribing the freedom that their peoples had just won. However, some eighteen countries (including the U.S.), upon ratification, entered reservations and/or interpretive declarations specifically aimed at protecting freedom of expression.”

    Sentence with the most resonance

    “But they regarded the dangers of equipping the state with draconian powers to combat racism and intolerance more dangerous than the evils that these measures were employed to cure. “

    • Is someone’s right not to be grossly insulted greater than the right of someone else to grossly insult then ?

      • Gerrit

         /  August 6, 2018

        For that to happen you have to define what a “gross insult” is.

        As I said, those that get to define what a “gross insult” is (hate speech if you like) get to set the rules for free speech.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  August 6, 2018

          If someone walked up to your wife and called her a fat ugly whore who should have been put down at birth, that would be a gross insult.

          • Gerrit

             /  August 6, 2018

            Good that you are defining what a “gross insult” is. Keep going and now put that into a law that defines that remark as “hate speech”.

            How would you draft that law?

            You are going to have so many definitions it would fill a book. Plus you would need to upgrade the definitions list as new words come into vogue to degenerate people.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 6, 2018

              Well, I’d say that it was the degenerate who are using those words.

              It was an example, not a definition.

              I am not a lawmaker, I was simply asking a question.

          • Gerrit

             /  August 6, 2018

            When you say that about a person, that person and those around her have a choice.

            Get highly offended and take the snowflake grievance attitude and cause a self righteous ruckus (even to the extend of having a girl fight and scratching your eye balls out – if you for example said those things).

            OR

            Simply walk away and not spend the time or energy debating the slur with you. Picturing you as just another communist looking at denigrating those who they perceive as the enemy.

            Not worth effort and simply use it as a reflection on your narrowness and weakness.

      • sorethumb

         /  August 6, 2018

        • Corky

           /  August 6, 2018

          Yep, that was a great clip. Boy,Dawkins had to work hard for that admission ( albeit with riders).

          This is my all time favourite clip. It should be compulsory viewing for our pathetic media wimps.

      • Er, why should anyone have the right to not be insulted?

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  August 8, 2018

          That’s what I was asking.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  August 8, 2018

          Is someone’s right to call you a cretin greater than your right not to be called one ?

    • ‘Hate speech’ is Humpty-Dumpty territory – it means anything the speaker wants it to mean. If the speaker has ideology and power then the people are in serious trouble.

  9. sorethumb

     /  August 6, 2018

    Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people’s position. In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that…

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html

    The Labour Party ideology is more powerful than all that! ? Yeah right it is too late already. Labour dissolved the nation.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  August 6, 2018

      Very interesting link, st. Thanks.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  August 6, 2018

        … speaking of which the IQ difference between Lee and our PM is deeply depressing.