Equality Legislation
I don't like it. Oh, I'm fine with the big picture - we're all equal without question or qualification. But I hate this nitty bitty lawyers-gone-wild stuff which enumerates every possible inequality and puts realms of it into law.
It's fundamentally pointless.
Richard Waghorne at his hugemongous blog
Sicilian Notes has a post on Maman Poulet's posts on the EU's Resolution on Homophobia.
Legislating against speech is a bad idea - for the most part it's subjective and the test of reasonableness is hard found.
Crimes are crimes regardless of who they're committed against or why - the thug who beats up a homosexual person commits the same crime as the thug who beats up a heterosexual.
Why do we need laws to protect minorities when the main priniciple that they're protected under, namely the right to be treated equally, stands on it own?
Reactions to my post on Kevin Sharkey focused mainly on why the opponents of gay marriage should not be allowed to air their views, at all. The reasons being their hatred, homophobia and general awfulness and similiarity with Nazi apologists - I do not accept this view at all.
I think it's censorship rooted in a smug superiority that's afraid, or unwilling to engage opponents in a meaningful discourse.
If you are so adamant that those who do not agree with you are so fundamentally wrong, why shy away from the public forums where you can competently and convincingly dismantle their arguments?
Why resort to name calling and excessive labelling?
It's fundamentally pointless.
Richard Waghorne at his hugemongous blog
Sicilian Notes has a post on Maman Poulet's posts on the EU's Resolution on Homophobia.
Legislating against speech is a bad idea - for the most part it's subjective and the test of reasonableness is hard found.
Crimes are crimes regardless of who they're committed against or why - the thug who beats up a homosexual person commits the same crime as the thug who beats up a heterosexual.
Why do we need laws to protect minorities when the main priniciple that they're protected under, namely the right to be treated equally, stands on it own?
Reactions to my post on Kevin Sharkey focused mainly on why the opponents of gay marriage should not be allowed to air their views, at all. The reasons being their hatred, homophobia and general awfulness and similiarity with Nazi apologists - I do not accept this view at all.
I think it's censorship rooted in a smug superiority that's afraid, or unwilling to engage opponents in a meaningful discourse.
If you are so adamant that those who do not agree with you are so fundamentally wrong, why shy away from the public forums where you can competently and convincingly dismantle their arguments?
Why resort to name calling and excessive labelling?
Labels: I'm Not A Feminist
posted by Auds | 18:14
2 Comments:
I think it's censorship rooted in a smug superiority that's afraid, or unwilling to engage opponents in a meaningful discourse.
If you are so adamant that those who do not agree with you are so fundamentally wrong, why shy away from the public forums where you can competently and convincingly dismantle their arguments?
Why resort to name calling and excessive labelling?
That is one of the best point I have read in ages.
I'm one who brought up the Nazi's amn't I, thereby rendering my point invalid :)
I don't think that there argument should be banned. They can say whatever they want, but I do think that on certain issues there is a wrong side.
Anyways, I'd be more concerned over people still watching the Late late and Pat Kenny.
Post a Comment
<< Home