I said you they can’t tell you why they oppose immigration, because many people’s true full reasons break the law. There are people in jail for naming non-government-approved reasons, and there are millions more who would agree with what they said to get there, if they could, without going to jail.
I have seen plenty of people making arguments that are absolutely to the effect of “this nationality/ethnicity/religion is in some way fundamentally incompatible with our understanding of civilized life” in all kinds of capacities. And others that are just thinly veiled versions of that, but I suspect that’s more about rhetorical motte and bailey than fear of literal legal repercussions.
Now you can argue whatever about e.g. the legality of using slurs, but you don’t need those to make a cogent racist argument. And plenty of such arguments are made daily. I’m not here to say they should be curtailed by speech laws (as I said, I’m actually much closer to the US’ First Amendment on what should be free speech), but it’s just playing the victim to pretend they are right now.
I do not think arresting people for speech crimes is right. But the answer was addressing specifically the notion that people could not express racist opinions in support of anti-immigration policies. And that is false, because expressing racist opinions in general does not seem to be criminalised—specific instances of doing so in roles in which you have a responsibility to the public, or in forms that constitute direct attacks or threats to specific individuals, or incitement to crime, etcetera, are.
As I said, the current political debate has virtually everyone arguing various points on the anti-immigration spectrum. Reform UK is an entire party that basically does nothing else.
I have seen plenty of people making arguments that are absolutely to the effect of “this nationality/ethnicity/religion is in some way fundamentally incompatible with our understanding of civilized life” in all kinds of capacities. And others that are just thinly veiled versions of that, but I suspect that’s more about rhetorical motte and bailey than fear of literal legal repercussions.
Now you can argue whatever about e.g. the legality of using slurs, but you don’t need those to make a cogent racist argument. And plenty of such arguments are made daily. I’m not here to say they should be curtailed by speech laws (as I said, I’m actually much closer to the US’ First Amendment on what should be free speech), but it’s just playing the victim to pretend they are right now.
Yeah, the TWELVE THOUSAND people the UK jails per year for wrongspeech
are all “playing the victim”.
That’s a very rational opinion.
https://x.com/OlgaBazova/status/1968376382452379753
I do not think arresting people for speech crimes is right. But the answer was addressing specifically the notion that people could not express racist opinions in support of anti-immigration policies. And that is false, because expressing racist opinions in general does not seem to be criminalised—specific instances of doing so in roles in which you have a responsibility to the public, or in forms that constitute direct attacks or threats to specific individuals, or incitement to crime, etcetera, are.
As I said, the current political debate has virtually everyone arguing various points on the anti-immigration spectrum. Reform UK is an entire party that basically does nothing else.