Careless Tories!

[Andy_Faber]

Oh but it does and I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it constitutes "hate speech". But then you won't because you can't.

So let’s start with UNESCO, and surely even you wouldn’t challenge their credibility.

The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech refers to the working definition as: "any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are. Forms of hate speech can include scapegoating, stereotyping, stigmatization and the use of derogatory language.

I can go on if you wish, EU and HMG definitions are actually even more pertinent

[Geoff Parkstone]

"So let’s start with UNESCO, and surely even you wouldn’t challenge their credibility."

Don't bet on it if it fits the agenda

[Geoff Parkstone]

"So let’s start with UNESCO, and surely even you wouldn’t challenge their credibility."

Don't bet on it

[swaledale]

I have absolutely no problem with the UNESCO definition, just the way you have incorrectly applied it!

There is one obvious flaw in your claim, though not obvious to you clearly, which is that "gammon" is not applicable to a person or group of people because of who they are. Its a mocking and insulting term for people who express certain views in a certain manner, whilst it des apply to white males from middle age onwards, it is neither applied to all such white men, nor indeed to all who hold similar views, but to those whose behaviour and mode of expression is shall we say exaggerated. Clearly thats not who they are, its what they say, their views and their behaviour and demeanour.

Its amusing to see you and GP trying to justify this approach, given both of you tend to be quite willing to denounce woke, cancel culture etc. etc.

Next you will be telling me that calling people who express extreme right wing views fascists is also "hate speech", mm well that might be your view but you'd have to pass a very high threshold in terms of the extent and nature of the use of the word to prove that.

Now you also quote this "Forms of hate speech can include scapegoating, stereotyping, stigmatization and the use of derogatory language."

The important word here of course is CAN, but of course context is everything and whilst gammon could be held to be derogatory, the use of a mocking and insulting term to describe people who hold certain views and behave in a ridiculous fashion is basically taking the piss and Hate Speech is not taking the piss, however much those people who dislike the piss being taken out of them might wish it were so.

Context is also important, if the person or group of people being mocked are perfectly capable of defending themselves and aren't suffering discrimination, or other negative effects (other than hurt pride), and by and large relatively well off white males over 50 tend not to be, its difficult to see where the case could be made even if one ignores the main flaw of your argument.

Indeed as the Scottish Police found out after the Scottish Government passed their recent law, there were a lot of people taking the piss by reporting those who were taking the piss as hate speech!!

Anyway nice try, but an epic fail, mocking and being derogatory about someone or a group of people is not hate speech, it might be insulting behaviour, though to prove that would depend upon the context and the person or group being mocked in order to reach the threshold required.