Hate Speech Public Consultation

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Race isn’t a scientific reality, it’s a social construct,

Social construct. Ahh jaysus... That's all you needed to say to tell me you're parroting a third hand regurgitation of 1960's blank slate social and political ideas that the "Left" followed hook line and sinker. The "Right" go the other equally daft opposite and see everything in "genes" and "evolutionary theory". Both are out of step with actual science.

While "race" is not nearly so clear cut, there are most certainly broad genetic diversities in modern humans in the world and they tend to overlap with the outdated notion of "race".

and racists are real enough.

I've repeatedly stated they are and racism is a major issue with "multiculturalism".

they’re the sort of idiots who think that a multi-ethnic society is a recipe for going to hell in a handbasket. No idea what you expect to happen down the road, but I’m willing to bet I don’t subscribe to your theories.

Because it doesn't suit you to. This time it's different. It is a provable fact of history and the world today that multiculturalism brings extra social problems wherever it's tried. Again not least to those seen as outsiders, no matter how long they're around.

Pick any established multicultural nation you like. Who is more likely to be poor, in gaol, or unemployed, a Black man, a White man, or an East Asian man? Nope it isn't anything to do with any "inherent race differences" or any of that sh1te. Ask why, ask the wider questions of how people and societies actually work and have always worked. Then again we've seen how you see history through the prism of your politic, or ignore any such points and dogwhistle "RACIST!!", because that's just easier and keeps your mind from redlining trying to come up with something cogent beyond that.

Ironicname

Ironicname wrote:

And yet I am still waiting what you define as hatred.

alastair wrote:

Straw man argument in lieu of actually engaging in the real legislation. How unsurprising.

And yet I wait...

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

While "race" is not nearly so clear cut, there are most certainly broad genetic diversities in modern humans in the world and they tend to overlap with the outdated notion of "race".

Nope. They do not. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races

Now, if you find yourself in this following (and should be familiar) scenario, you really have to come to terms with your racism.

A. Themmuns are the problem makers!

B. Who’s that then?

A. Themmuns!

B. Eh?

A. The darkies! They’re the worst you know. Particularly the darkies from bongo bongo land!

B. You can drop me off anywhere here.

it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans

alastair

Ironicname wrote: »

And yet I wait...

I’ve no interest in playing that game - cheers. We both know what hatred means.

nkl12xtw5goz70

alastair wrote: »

Everybody understands what hatred is, just as they understand defamation, assault, slander, affray, etc.

Defamation, assault, and other such terms are all defined relatively clearly in law. But we have no legal definition of "hatred," which is partly why the law is being reviewed.

Maybe you think there's consensus on what constitutes "hatred" — although there clearly isn't, as this discussion illustrates — or maybe you're happy to rely on a vague, subjective "I'll know it when I see it" definition. Either way, your position is problematic.

The proposed hate-speech legislation will also seemingly give more weight to the feelings of the alleged victims, rather than to the intent of the person making the statements. This means I'm supposed to know what someone else might find offensive before I open my mouth? That's crazy, especially in today's culture of hypersensitivity and perpetual outrage.

alastair

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Defamation, assault, and other such terms are all defined relatively clearly in law. But we have no legal definition of "hatred," which is partly why the law is being reviewed.

Maybe you think there's consensus on what constitutes "hatred" — although there clearly isn't, as this discussion illustrates — or maybe you're happy to rely on a vague, subjective "I'll know it when I see it" definition. Either way, your position is problematic.

The proposed hate-speech legislation will also seemingly give more weight to the feelings of the alleged victims, rather than to the intent of the person making the statements. This means I'm supposed to know what someone else might find offensive before I open my mouth? That's crazy, especially in today's culture of hypersensitivity and perpetual outrage.

The law isn’t being reviewed on account of any ambiguity on what hatred means. And no - the reporting of hate incidents are predicated on a belief of discrimination, but the prosecution requires evidence beyond that.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Nope. They do not. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/

Well... actually they do. Those same scientists if asked about archaic human admixture across geographical populations would agree that there are indeed differences. IE: Europeans will have a percentage of archaic Neandertal genes, Asians will have both Neandertal and Denisovan genes, Africans will have neither. Oh and many of these genes are coding and active.

Now, if you find yourself in this following (and should be familiar) scenario, you really have to come to terms with your racism.

A. Themmuns are the problem makers!

B. Who’s that then?

A. Themmuns!

B. Eh?

A. The darkies! They’re the worst you know. Particularly the darkies from bongo bongo land!

B. You can drop me off anywhere here.

Nope, yet again with your lowbrow dogwhistle in lieu of a response, much less anything approaching an argument much beyond "You're WRONG!! and you smell, RACIST!!". Any conversation like the above I would have would kick off with "Humans are the problem makers!".

alastair wrote: »

I’ve no interest in playing that game - cheers. We both know what hatred means.

If that were the case it should be all so easy for you to comfortably define it, yet here we are many pages in and the very best you can do is regurgitate definitions from your intellectual betters. Or dogwhistle. And if anyone needs reminding any dogwhistle from any quarter only attracts yapping dogs attendant to their particular master.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

The law isn’t being reviewed on account of any ambiguity on what hatred means.

So again please define it then. You keep avoiding this and other points, but this one would be helpful and illustrative of your politic and position on the matter.

Which is maybe why you are avoiding the definition? You either can't simply because that would be way beyond the redline of your brain, or you know it's not nearly so easily defined in actuality. I extend you the courtesy of hoping it's the latter.

nkl12xtw5goz70

alastair wrote: »

The law isn’t being reviewed on account of any ambiguity on what hatred means.

Yes, it is. The consultation document explicitly notes the lack of a legal definition of "hatred" as a problem with the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Well... actually they do. Those same scientists if asked about archaic human admixture across geographical populations would agree that there are indeed differences. IE: Europeans will have a percentage of archaic Neandertal genes, Asians will have both Neandertal and Denisovan genes, Africans will have neither. Oh and many of these genes are coding and active.


Nope, yet again with your lowbrow dogwhistle in lieu of a response, much less anything approaching an argument much beyond "You're WRONG!! and you smell, RACIST!!". Any conversation like the above I would have would kick off with "Humans are the problem makers!".

If that were the case it should be all so easy for you to comfortably define it, yet here we are many pages in and the very best you can do is regurgitate definitions from your intellectual betters. Or dogwhistle. And if anyone needs reminding any dogwhistle from any quarter only attracts yapping dogs attendant to their particular master.

You’re wrong on claim as regards genetics - as evidenced in the link provided, and that racist conversation is 100% aligned with your wee missive. It’s straight up racism. No getting around it.

Dick_Swiveller

Why do Wibbs and others bother trying to engage with these thought police types?? Their only debating tactic is to smear their opponents as "racist". Yiz are wasting yer time.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

I’ve no interest in playing that game - cheers. We both know what hatred means.

I hope your grasp of the proposed laws goes above an assumption that it refers to words that are spoken while in an emotional state of hatred. A synonym for 'hate crime' is 'bias crime'. Hate and bias are two separate things. Calling hate crimes 'hate crimes' is ridiculous. How many assaults, murders, muggings, and bullying have been done out of love? At most 'hate speech' is only tangentially related to the emotional state of hatred. Which is just as well, because it isn't possible to scan people's emotional state of being.

I feel it's a bit unfair to be ganging up on you, as you are currently the only person here banging the drum for these censorship regulations. However I feel a little less bad if I consider the fact that you might be of the opinion that we shouldn't even be allowed have this conversation in the first place.

alastair wrote: »

You’re wrong on claim as regards genetics - as evidenced in the link provided, and that racist conversation is 100% aligned with your wee missive. It’s straight up racism. No getting around it.

I think that many people would find your highly dubious claim that there isn't such thing as race to be, itself, racist. Just shout 'there are no such things as Jews' in Jerusalem or 'there is no such thing as a person of color' in Harlem and see how you get on. I mean, they might just laugh at you. You say there is no such thing as an Irish person, that it's just a random bit of citizenship bestowed due to location of birth. Would you find it legitimate to be investigated for this potentially offensive, sorry, 'hateful' statement?

alastair

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

Yes, it is. The consultation document explicitly notes the lack of a legal definition of "hatred" as a problem with the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

No it doesn’t. It merely asks if the terminology is the best one for criteria that it makes explicit:

Issue 2: Use of the term “hatred” in the Act
Under the 1989 Act, in order to be an offence, the words or material must be intended or likely to stir up “hatred” against one of the protected list of groups. This is a high threshold. It is important to remember that the Act is designed to deal with hateful behaviour that is sufficiently severe to reach the threshold for criminal prosecution. The term “hatred” is not defined and has its ordinary meaning. Given that prosecutions under the Act have been relatively rare, the Department is considering whether the requirement to stir up hatred should be replaced by another term (hostility or prejudice, for example).
Question
2. Do you think the term “hatred” is the correct term to use in the Act? If not what should it be replaced with? Would there be implications for freedom of expression?

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

You’re wrong on claim as regards genetics - as evidenced in the link provided, and that racist conversation is 100% aligned with your wee missive. It’s straight up racism. No getting around it.

Clearly you have zero clue about Modern Human history and genetics and yet again simply regurgitate what you think fist your politic, while still digging the "RACIST!" hole for yourself. Then again you're convinced "hate" is a constant and easily defined trait, yet for some odd reason can't define it. I may just retract that courtesy as evidence mounts.

Have an oul read or maybe this? Or this?

Europeans will have a percentage of archaic Neandertal genes, Asians will have both Neandertal and Denisovan genes, Africans will have neither. Oh and many of these genes are coding and active.

These are scientific facts. No ifs, buts or maybe. There are Neandertal genes that seem to code for immune response and an increase in clotting, even and very oddly a trend towards addictive behaviour, specifically tobacco and even tendencies towards depression. We can even see that Neandertal genes in Asians are different to those found in Europeans, because that mix happened at different times in different areas. No European or African has Denisovan genes, because that mix happened at a geographical remove yo both. Ancient DNA doesn't preserve well in Africa itself, but even there we can see signs of archaic mixture in folks living there today not found anywhere else.

But facts, and facts which proffer no advantage to any "race", you still see as "RACISM!!!". Mostly I suspect because you simply don't understand this stuff and only climb on the backs of those who do when it suits your politic.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

I hope your grasp of the proposed laws goes above an assumption that it refers to words that are spoken while in an emotional state of hatred. A synonym for 'hate crime' is 'bias crime'. Hate and bias are two separate things. Calling hate crimes 'hate crimes' is ridiculous. How many assaults, murders, muggings, and bullying have been done out of love? At most 'hate speech' is only tangentially related to the emotional state of hatred. Which is just as well, because it isn't possible to scan people's emotional state of being.

The definition for identifying hate crime is pretty straightforward. You are free to suggest whatever alternate terminology you like in the consultation.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I feel it's a bit unfair to be ganging up on you, as you are currently the only person here banging the drum for these censorship regulations. However I feel a little less bad if I consider the fact that you might be of the opinion that we shouldn't even be allowed have this conversation in the first place.

That’s quite the flight if fancy. Based on precisely zero evidence too.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think that many people would find your highly dubious claim that there isn't such thing as race to be, itself, racist. Just shout 'there are no such things as Jews' in Jerusalem or 'there is no such thing as a person of color' in Harlem and see how you get on. I mean, they might just laugh at you. You say there is no such thing as an Irish person, that it's just a random bit of citizenship bestowed due to location of birth. Would you find it legitimate to be investigated for this potentially offensive, sorry, 'hateful' statement?

There is no Jewish race. Plenty of Jewish people, no Jewish race. I’m merely reflecting the science - which has no basis for defining any distinct races. I never said there was no such thing as an Irish person either - see flight of fancy above.

Suggest you work on your comprehension skills.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Why do Wibbs and others bother trying to engage with these thought police types??

My parents grew up in a country where people's beliefs and expression — as well as what they were allowed to read and view — were closely policed by the Catholic Church. Even Monty Python's Life of Brian was banned until the late 80s. I don't want my children growing up in a country where their beliefs are just as closely policed by the political correctness brigade. Triumph of the Will — a film with significant historical value — was banned by YouTube recently because of hate speech concerns.

Dick_Swiveller

alastair wrote: »

The definition for identifying hate crime is pretty straightforward. You are free to suggest whatever alternate terminology you like in the consultation.


That’s quite the flight if fancy. Based on precisely zero evidence too.




There is no Jewish race. Plenty of Jewish people, no Jewish race. I’m merely reflecting the science - which has no basis for defining any distinct races. I never said there was no such thing as an Irish person either - see flight of fancy above.

Suggest you work on your comprehension skills.

Why do I have a strong feeling you know absolutely nothing about race and genetics??

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly you have zero clue about Modern Human history and genetics and yet again simply regurgitate what you think fist your politic, while still digging the "RACIST!" hole for yourself. Then again you're convinced "hate" is a constant and easily defined trait, yet for some odd reason can't define it. I may just retract that courtesy as evidence mounts.

Have an oul read or maybe this? Or this?

Europeans will have a percentage of archaic Neandertal genes, Asians will have both Neandertal and Denisovan genes, Africans will have neither. Oh and many of these genes are coding and active.

These are scientific facts. No ifs, buts or maybe. There are Neandertal genes that seem to code for immune response and an increase in clotting, even and very oddly a trend towards addictive behaviour, specifically tobacco and even tendencies towards depression. We can even see that Neandertal genes in Asians are different to those found in Europeans, because that mix happened at different times in different areas. No European or African has Denisovan genes, because that mix happened at a geographical remove yo both. Ancient DNA doesn't preserve well in Africa itself, but even there we can see signs of archaic mixture in folks living there today not found anywhere else.

But facts, and facts which proffer no advantage to any "race", you still see as "RACISM!!!". Mostly I suspect because you simply don't understand this stuff and only climb on the backs of those who do when it suits your politic.

No mention of race in any of those three links, which is unsurprising, as race isn’t anything to do with science, as already established, “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.” That’s the actual fact of the matter.

alastair

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Why do I have a strong feeling you know absolutely nothing about race and genetics??

Why do I have the feeling you know even less?

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

The definition for identifying hate crime is pretty straightforward.

And still you can't define such a straightforward thing without appealing to your betters, or obfuscating by reaching for the Right On playbook of easy retort, when one's facility for argument run dry.

There is no Jewish race. Plenty of Jewish people, no Jewish race. I’m merely reflecting the science - which has no basis for defining any distinct races.

Nope, you are only "reflecting the science" where you think it concurs with your position, without having a blind clue of the actual science behind it.

Oh and while being Jewish is a faith and cultural attachment so one could have a native Japanese or Hawaiian Jew by conversion, there are indeed a few genetics markers for Jewish folks. To the degree that they can track historical population movements along those lines. Indeed when a small group of East African folks showed up and said they were Jews and followed the faith - and quite a few in Israel were understandably "eh wut?" - it turned out their long standing culture and genetics supported their claim.

Let's break it down to just one genetic marker and one present in a goodly chunk of the Irish population. M222 on the Y chromosome. If you have that you simply can't be African in origin, not unless you had an African ma and a Donegal da.

Suggest you work on your comprehension skills.

Bless. Medice cura te ipsum

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Let's break it down to just one genetic marker and one present in a goodly chunk of the Irish population. M222 on the Y chromosome. If you have that you simply can't be African in origin, not unless you had an African ma and a Donegal da.

Bless - the Irish are not a race, and if your ma is African you can still be Irish, so what’s the big deal about the marker for you? It neither defines a race nor a nationality.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

The definition for identifying hate crime is pretty straightforward.

I'll go with your definition so

alastair wrote: »

Nope - offensive on the basis of race, ethnicity or other broader grouping. And then the claim has to be proven in order for a crime to have been committed.

Trekkies are nerds. There you go, hate crime.

It is interesting though that you'd say that race is useful for defining hate crime when you believe it doesn't exist in the first place.

alastair wrote: »

There is no Jewish race. Plenty of Jewish people, no Jewish race.

That’s quite the flight of fancy. Based on precisely zero evidence too.

alastair wrote: »

I never said there was no such thing as an Irish person either - see flight of fancy above. Suggest you work on your comprehension skills.

Ah I can't find your definition, but it essentially amounted to nothing more than a piece of paper. Maybe my comprehension dedication could be better, but there's only so many pages I'm going to wade through to find a quote.

alastair wrote: »

No mention of race in any of those three links, which is unsurprising, as race isn’t anything to do with science, as already established, “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.” That’s the actual fact of the matter.

What's the quote from? I couldn't even find it in the non-peer reviewed blog post from the woke student that your linked, who seems to believe that all human behavior is environmental rather than genetic, and uses the statistic that 99% of our DNA is the same as one another to prove that there is no such thing as race, which must also mean we are all chimps, as we share 99% of our DNA with chimps. Clearly animal species do not exist. That's the actual fact of the matter.

You know those times when you have to do a double take, and really question if people believe what they're saying, or are they so driven by ideology that they are prepared to say 2+2=5?

alastair

Kameron Rapid Seacoast wrote: »

My parents grew up in a country where people's beliefs and expression — as well as what they were allowed to read and view — were closely policed by the Catholic Church. Even Monty Python's Life of Brian was banned until the late 80s. I don't want my children growing up in a country where their beliefs are just as closely policed by the political correctness brigade. Triumph of the Will — a film with significant historical value — was banned by YouTube recently because of hate speech concerns.

Jaysus. One more time for luck:

...its sole purpose is to protect individuals and communities belonging to ethnic, national or religious groups, holding specific beliefs or opinions, whether of a religious or other nature, from hostility, discrimination or violence, rather than to protect belief systems, religions or institutions as such from criticism. The right to freedom of expression implies that it should be possible to scrutinize, openly debate and criticize belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones, as long as this does not advocate hatred that incites violence, hostility or discrimination against an individual or group of individuals.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

No mention of race in any of those three links, which is unsurprising, as race isn’t anything to do with science, as already established, “The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.” That’s the actual fact of the matter.

What they are saying is - and I agree 100% - the old idea of "race" isn't useful in describing modern human populations. They are not saying that native populations don't exist. They are not saying that native populations don't have genetic differences that are linked geographically. They are not saying that these geographical populations aren't measurable. Even on the phenotype level. Ask any pathologist and he or she will be able to tell you that if they're presented with a skull in teh course of their job, they will have a pretty good idea of the broad population affilliations the skull belonged to. This of course will vary in cases of intermarriage and the like where the suite of features will be mixed, but that basal suite is there. If they do a DNA test they'll be able to narrow things down even further. Hell archaeologists in the UK who have extracted ancient DNA have been able to show Irish people in Roman Britain and people from central Europe at Stonehenge. If we were all "blank slates", how does that work?

OK, really simple stuff: Do native Europeans and Asians have Neandertal admixture, where native Africans do not? Yes, or No. Simple question. If no, then you're contradicting science. If yes, than there are indeed genetic differences between those above populations. And yep they run along roughly "race" lines, but like I said the old notions of "race" aren't useful in describing modern human populations.

Dick_Swiveller

"offensive on the basis of race, ethnicity or other broader grouping"

LOL, that could literally be anything!!

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Bless - the Irish are not a race, and if your ma is African you can still be Irish, so what’s the big deal about the marker for you? It neither defines a race nor a nationality.

Annnd you avoid the point yet again. The "big deal" is you are talking from a position of ignorance on human population genetics and history, while claiming to know more than you do, beyond a link. And even then, because you know there are such markers you come back with "ah sure it doesn't matter. Unless... you're a RACIST!!!". This is fun at this stage. Though I will admit a certain discomfort as it's like beating a toddler in an arm wrestle.

Wibbs

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

"offensive on the basis of race, ethnicity or other broader grouping"

LOL, that could literally be anything!!

Or like the example I gave earlier: My deeply held faith considers being Gay as immoral, corruptive and a sin and those who engage in "Gayness"* (:D) are immoral corruptive sinners". That's kinda under the banner of inciting "hate" on a "group of individuals". It's certainly "hostile" and no mistake. Nice one, that makes all the Abrahamic faiths guilty of "hate speech". Maybe we should bring in Thoughtcrime too.






*well there's no point in being Gay or Straight and not engaging to be fair. The Bisexual folks are just being greedy, or are they more inclusive?

iebamm2580

Is it racist to suggest that people of west african origin have genetics that make them better 100m sprinters?

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'll go with your definition so



Trekkies are nerds. There you go, hate crime.

It is interesting though that you'd say that race is useful for defining hate crime when you believe it doesn't exist in the first place.

I made clear it was a social construct - not a scientific one,

RandomName2 wrote: »

That’s quite the flight of fancy. Based on precisely zero evidence too.



Ah I can't find your definition, but it essentially amounted to nothing more than a piece of paper. Maybe my comprehension dedication could be better, but there's only so many pages I'm going to wade through to find a quote.

As I said - a flight of fancy.

RandomName2 wrote: »

What's the quote from? I couldn't even find it in the non-peer reviewed blog post from the woke student that your linked, who seems to believe that all human behavior is environmental rather than genetic, and uses the statistic that 99% of our DNA is the same as one another to prove that there is no such thing as race, which must also mean we are all chimps, as we share 99% of our DNA with chimps. Clearly animal species do not exist. That's the actual fact of the matter.

You know those times when you have to do a double take, and really question if people believe what they're saying, or are they so driven by ideology that they are prepared to say 2+2=5?

The quote is from Craig Venter

John Craig Venter (born October 14, 1946) is an American biotechnologist, biochemist, geneticist, and businessman. He is known for leading the first draft sequence of the human genome and assembled the first team to transfect a cell with a synthetic chromosome. Venter founded Celera Genomics, The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) and the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), where he currently serves as CEO. He was the co-founder of Human Longevity Inc. and Synthetic Genomics. He was listed on Time magazine's 2007 and 2008 Time 100 list of the most influential people in the world. In 2010, the British magazine New Statesman listed Craig Venter at 14th in the list of "The World's 50 Most Influential Figures 2010".He is a member of the USA Science and Engineering Festival's Advisory Board.

We are a different species to chimps. Glad to help.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Annnd you avoid the point yet again. The "big deal" is you are talking from a position of ignorance on human population genetics and history, while claiming to know more than you do, beyond a link. And even then, because you know there are such markers you come back with "ah sure it doesn't matter. Unless... you're a RACIST!!!". This is fun at this stage. Though I will admit a certain discomfort as it's like beating a toddler in an arm wrestle.

Nope - it’s because it’s not a marker for anything of significance - not Irishness, not race. My links make very clear that race isn’t a scientific concept - race is a social construct. A notion you’re clearly uncomfortable with, hence the flailing about with references that have nothing to do with race, and the sad need to try and demean me. Bless.

Again - this is indicative of sad sack racism:

Again I note that when this "I'm Irish and you better believe it, or else you're a Wacist!!!" stuff comes up, it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans, you don't hear it nearly so much from lighter skinned Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Czechs, Latvians et al, even folks from the Middle East and China, no matter how long they've lived here or what passport they carry.