3 ms·
Please read the document. They suggest removing the private dwelling exemption, but later on they talk about adding free speech protections. It's boggling that
by DanBC 6y ago
Please read the document. They suggest removing the private dwelling exemption, but later on they talk about adding free speech protections.
It's boggling that people feel they can comment on a >500 page document without having read any of it, after having only read comments from groups like "We are fair cop".
- thinkingemote 6y agoYour two first comments intending to refute the claims had no evidence to back up your comments but instead proved the claims! Then, with no actual defence, instead you just say for us to read a 500 page document. To be charitable, perhaps you originally pasted the wrong quotes for your argument? Did you?
- DanBC 6y agoI quoted that bit because that's the piece that's being widely discussed. It does say that they're thinking of suggesting that the private dwelling exemption is removed, but that covers a wide range of options: 1) Remove it and criminalise "stirring up" in private dwellings 2) Remove it and add private conversations in private dwellings, thus continuing to allow stirring up in private dwellings unless it's a public meeting in someone's home 3) Remove it and add protections for private conversations, thus adding protections for hate speech that are private conversations but not in the home. It's a consultation, this is how Law Commission consultations work. Your unfamiliarity with them doesn't make you right, it just means you don't know how they work.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thinkingemote 6y agoThank you for editing your comment that was in all caps, I have deleted my comment in reply to that.