Sometimes they don’t prosecute them where they actually are violent! See the panel discussion in my latest post- the police failed to prosecute the man who broke the nose of the man with the ‘Even Milo’ banner even though it was caught on film! A bit later some students ripped his banner to pieces!
Why is one of the protected characteristics ''sexual characteristics' rather than simply sex? For sure it's to enable the 'sexual characteristic' of being a man wearing lipstick to crowd out actual sexism towards women. In any event, 'hate speech' laws need to restrict themselves to clear incitements to violence, and leave the rest of us alone.
Thanks. Very good point - they have left out 'sex' and put in 'sexual characteristics' - yet another problem with this piece of legislation. Misogyny, anyone? I also agree , if I get your drift, that we could probably do without 'hate speech' altogether and just have 'incitement to violence'. Orwell would love all this!!
It's probably illegal for me to read your pieces now, Dusty.
😎 It’s probably Illegal for me to write it, Forest…but not just yet 😎
Grand.. thankyou.
Glad you found it useful
Dusty
I hope they’re going to start prosecuting all the women hating TRA’s who actually incite violence. Oh silly me, of course not because trans, obvs. 🙄
Hi Lyndsey
Sometimes they don’t prosecute them where they actually are violent! See the panel discussion in my latest post- the police failed to prosecute the man who broke the nose of the man with the ‘Even Milo’ banner even though it was caught on film! A bit later some students ripped his banner to pieces!
Dusty
Well of course. Trans trumps everything doesn’t it. It’s almost like there’s an agenda 🙄🤦🏻♀️
Why is one of the protected characteristics ''sexual characteristics' rather than simply sex? For sure it's to enable the 'sexual characteristic' of being a man wearing lipstick to crowd out actual sexism towards women. In any event, 'hate speech' laws need to restrict themselves to clear incitements to violence, and leave the rest of us alone.
Thanks. Very good point - they have left out 'sex' and put in 'sexual characteristics' - yet another problem with this piece of legislation. Misogyny, anyone? I also agree , if I get your drift, that we could probably do without 'hate speech' altogether and just have 'incitement to violence'. Orwell would love all this!!
Dusty