So hate speech is real (independently of whether someone puts the phrase “hate speech” into law or not), and the typical way of being anti-immigration involves hate speech. I agree. I don’t see what the problem is—it’s up to the anti-immigration activists to find a way to protest that wouldn’t be hate speech. The fact that until now, they usually used hate speech, is purely their problem, and purely their fault.
Alternatively, what you’re saying could also be interpreted as claiming that Europe abuses the phrase hate speech to ban non-hate-speech discourse (which becomes “hate speech” upon the speech being legally banned)… but that’s not true.
So hate speech is real (independently of whether someone puts the phrase “hate speech” into law or not), and the typical way of being anti-immigration involves hate speech. I agree. I don’t see what the problem is—it’s up to the anti-immigration activists to find a way to protest that wouldn’t be hate speech. The fact that until now, they usually used hate speech, is purely their problem, and purely their fault.
Alternatively, what you’re saying could also be interpreted as claiming that Europe abuses the phrase hate speech to ban non-hate-speech discourse (which becomes “hate speech” upon the speech being legally banned)… but that’s not true.
The typical way of being anti-immigration “involves hate speech” because “hate speech” is so broadly defined that it’s just about impossible not to.
European governments get to define hate speech, so activists can’t find such a way, if the governments don’t want them to have one.