If you can get people silenced/fired/banned/cancelled/arrested/jailed for criticizing/questioning you or hurting your feelings you're not a victim... you're an oppressor.
Nobody wants hate speech but I defend anyone's right to say what they want - sticks and stones and all that. However, it depends how you define hate speech. If you are urging people to kill people of a certain religion/race/culture or sexuality, that is not acceptable. If you want to say you don't agree with it, that is fine. We really need to get rid of Human Rights, British Law and culture was based on freedoms - ie freedom to do what you want unless it is considered socially unacceptable (ie murder, rape, theft etc) by the majority - not outlawed if considered unacceptable by a minority. You will obviously understand that by giving people rights these can be stretched and developed by lawyers in any number of ways that the majority do not accept - freedoms can be taken away if they are affecting the majority of society. For example, allowing a rapist to see a resultant child of that rape as his human right to have a 'family life' cannot be acceptable - thus in the old day his freedom to do so would have been taken away. Under Human Rights Law he can have contact with the child who is a result of his criminal behaviour thus leaving further damage to innocent victims and individuals. If he is an illegal immigrant he can also demand to stay in this country regardless of what crimes he may have committed due to his 'right to a family life'. Human Rights laws often conveniently forget the 'rights' of the victims - particularly those who have lost their lives. I believe the first pillar is 'the right to life' and if somebody takes another person's life away they should not be able to shelter under the Human Rights Act 1997. BTW I am not a proponent for the death penalty but just saying. Sorry for the length of the reply but it is easy to be simplistic about these matters without really delving deep. A few misguided people shouting extreme things (from either side of the argument) should not enable our legislation to err in favour of one or the other by law. This is what divides people.
They want control
If you can get people silenced/fired/banned/cancelled/arrested/jailed for criticizing/questioning you or hurting your feelings you're not a victim... you're an oppressor.
Free speech is fine if the government agrees with you but if your views aren't the governments views your a faaar right trouble maker
Who do these people think they are,
Good - you might be offended.
So you want hate speech
No such thing
Nobody wants hate speech but I defend anyone's right to say what they want - sticks and stones and all that. However, it depends how you define hate speech. If you are urging people to kill people of a certain religion/race/culture or sexuality, that is not acceptable. If you want to say you don't agree with it, that is fine. We really need to get rid of Human Rights, British Law and culture was based on freedoms - ie freedom to do what you want unless it is considered socially unacceptable (ie murder, rape, theft etc) by the majority - not outlawed if considered unacceptable by a minority. You will obviously understand that by giving people rights these can be stretched and developed by lawyers in any number of ways that the majority do not accept - freedoms can be taken away if they are affecting the majority of society. For example, allowing a rapist to see a resultant child of that rape as his human right to have a 'family life' cannot be acceptable - thus in the old day his freedom to do so would have been taken away. Under Human Rights Law he can have contact with the child who is a result of his criminal behaviour thus leaving further damage to innocent victims and individuals. If he is an illegal immigrant he can also demand to stay in this country regardless of what crimes he may have committed due to his 'right to a family life'. Human Rights laws often conveniently forget the 'rights' of the victims - particularly those who have lost their lives. I believe the first pillar is 'the right to life' and if somebody takes another person's life away they should not be able to shelter under the Human Rights Act 1997. BTW I am not a proponent for the death penalty but just saying. Sorry for the length of the reply but it is easy to be simplistic about these matters without really delving deep. A few misguided people shouting extreme things (from either side of the argument) should not enable our legislation to err in favour of one or the other by law. This is what divides people.
I noticed you wrote a book, People can say what they want, , It's nobodys business,
@@debbiedavies6161 tldr
Enjoy your subservience, you've earned it.