So what will ‘hate-speech’ laws protect us from exactly?

Currently,?there is no such thing as ‘hate speech’. There is legal speech and there is illegal speech. Lefties in New Zealand are keen to bring in so-called ‘hate-speech’ laws, which are Islamic blasphemy laws in disguise. They are puppets on a string reacting to the manipulations of Muslim activists.

The push for hate-speech laws only started in the west when Muslim populations started to grow and started making demands. We have had no need for them previously because our population was content with our existing laws. Inciting violence to harm or kill others and to damage their property is already illegal so ask yourself why there is such a push to create hate-speech laws?

The people behind them?are not concerned with genuinely harmful speech?as that is already illegal. They are, instead, keen to protect the?hurtie?feelings of Muslims in a way that they have never felt compelled to do for any other culture or religion.

Hate-speech laws are about outlawing criticism and perceived insults, which opens a Pandora’s box. Hate-speech laws lead?to people being prosecuted for liking a Facebook joke or retweeting a comment on Twitter, like we have already seen happening in Germany and the United Kingdom.

In a newspaper an opinion piece on free speech was written by?Professor Jan Thomas, the vice-chancellor of Massey University. She claims that free speech is welcome at universities but hate speech is not.?Quote.

An “alt right” speaking event in Auckland has been cancelled after Mayor Phil Goff made it clear the two speakers, Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, were not welcome and the council would not provide a venue for “hate speech” by people who sought to abuse and insult others.

While I support Mr Goff’s decision, it has kicked off a tide of controversy and has again raised the issue of what differentiates free speech from hate speech. End quote.

Alt right means alternative right, which is simply another name for a modern take on conservative and traditional views. It has been unjustifiably demonised by left wingers and the mainstream media as Nazism and white supremacy because it supports defending and having pride in a western countries culture and supports controlling a country’s borders. These were both mainstream viewpoints less than two decades ago before globalism and multiculturalism started to take over.Quote.

Issues such as this are increasingly common in New Zealand. Last year a group of high-profile New Zealanders put their names to a statement supporting free speech on New Zealand university campuses.

The open letter warned that freedom of speech was under threat at our universities following the demise of a student group promoting white supremacist beliefs. End quote.

Yet again a group has been demonised unjustly. We wrote a lot about the group at the time and they did not promote white supremacist beliefs at all. They were attacked for the use of a Celtic design in their logo and for wanting to celebrate European culture with a European culture club just like the many other culture clubs on campus.

Jan Thomas, like so many other lefties, seems to think that white people wanting to celebrate their own extremely diverse European culture is white supremacy, but that black pride and pride in any brown-skinned culture is wonderful and beautiful multiculturalism. There is an extreme bigotry from academics like her towards white cultures that is very disturbing to see.

In Thomas’s opinion piece she claims that, “The right to speak freely is a bedrock principle of democratic society” and that it “includes the right to hold opinions and express one’s views without fear and the ability to freely communicate one’s ideas.” She then, of course, immediately?moves on to explain why people with opinions and viewpoints that she doesn’t approve of should not be allowed to freely communicate them! Quote:

Freedom of expression is one thing, but hate speech is another. As a concept that has now entered common parlance, hate speech refers to attacks based on race, ethnicity, religion, and increasingly, on sexual orientation or preference. End quote.

If we look at her extremely general definition of what hate speech is we can easily see that it is nothing but censorship of people’s opinions and viewpoints. But first, let us remove from our definition anything to do with inciting violence, murder or?damage to property as that is already covered by our existing laws.

Hate speech (which would be in addition to existing laws ) can only be used to cover words causing offence to people via insult or criticism. What would that look like and how much would that censor courses and students at university?

Using Jan Thomas’s definition of hate speech, the following things would be labelled hate speech and would have to be censored inside a university as they could be perceived as criticism or insults.

Attacks based on race or ethnicity

This will affect the history department, the science and biology department as well as the languages department. Historical facts reveal horrible things that different races and ethnic groups have done to each other in the past: war, murder, torture, slavery, rape, cannibalism, stoning, crucifixion. People from those races, today, may decide to be insulted and offended by these facts and feel that talking about them is racist.

The languages department will have offensive words from various languages in their literature that will need to be removed as they cannot possibly teach the Japanese or Spanish word for a?black or gay person as it may insult or offend someone in the class or be perceived as a criticism of them.

Equally, the science and biology department may reveal factual differences between the races that may be interpreted as criticisms and insults. Stefan Molyneux, for example, has been called a racist and a white supremacist because he has quoted the results of a study by the army that revealed IQ differences between the different races of applicants.

Attacks based on religion

How can religion be discussed at all inside a university since to do so requires a historical context which will reveal the terrible histories of certain religions and the fact that some have not progressed and are still barbaric and brutal in their application and their laws in modern times??How can Islam be studied and discussed if some Muslim students will feel criticised and insulted and even incited to violence by a picture of Muhammad and the historical facts about his life as a barbaric warlord, torturer, rapist/paedophile and taker of sex slaves?

Attacks based on sexual orientation or preference

The philosophy department will have to be censored if social and moral topics cannot be freely explored for fear of insulting or upsetting a member of the LGTB?community. Even when I was at Waikato University more than two decades ago a discussion of abortion was censored and shut down because the lecturer was concerned that my pro-life?views were upsetting a student who was pro-choice. If hate-speech laws existed it would be impossible to discuss nature versus nurture or any other topic to do with sexual orientation at a university without fear of it being perceived as an attack.

Jan Thomas in her opinion piece goes on to expand even further her definition of hate speech, which she claims is “a vehicle for racist comments, judgements and practices.” Considering that her ‘judgement’ of a person who wants to form a European culture club is that they are a white supremacist and that her ‘judgement’ of Lauren Southern is that she is repugnant and should not be able to hire a council venue to speak, I shudder to think what views and opinions she would label ‘hate speech’ if she got to write hate-speech laws.

She also seems to think it is the job of universities to be the thought police and to re-educate people who have opinions and views that she considers unacceptable. Quote

Academics have a responsibility to engage with the communities we serve, to correct error and prejudice and to offer expert views, informed by evidence, reason and well-informed argument. […] universities are in many ways obliged to make positive societal interventions.

Universities support our staff and students to push boundaries, test the evidence that is put to them and challenge societal norms, including examining controversial and unpopular ideas.[…]End quote.

It seems to me that the very views she wants to label as hate speech were previously seen as societal norms, such as the heterosexual nuclear-family unit, traditional gender roles and European nationalism. Now they are labelled as controversial and unpopular ideas.

She says that hate speech has no place at a university which, going by her definition, means that censorship and attacks by universities on viewpoints that only two decades ago were considered mainstream are only going to get worse.