You don't need to call someone a name to insult them. If I insinuate you're racist, it's fairly insulting, whether I do it with a smile or dance around the issue with maybes, or vagueness, it's still insulting.. It's a massive act of direspect to assume people have ulterior motives based on a legitimate difference of opinion, you didn't specify who you are refering to, but whoever it was has a right to be insulted, but of course you'd rather they had the right not to be.
Nonsense, as is being pointed out time and again, expressing an opinion is not in itself insulting......Section 5 deals with the Use of Insulting Words and Behaviour, not the expression of a legitimate opinion......I was not insulting to anyone, I was giving a legitimate opinion on what I consider the motivation of some people.
If you are not within those groups or your motivations are otherwise, then you have no reason to be insulted, and if you are one of those groups then you shouldn't be insulted either as I have no used any insulting words or behaviour in expressing my opinion.....all the racist has to so is counter my opinion for example.
Again, logically it's consistant. You would have those rights, as long as you you're weren't trampling on another persons right, but this is not possible which is where the validation of limiting your rights come in.
Thus the need for such laws.
A Government based on a strong constitution and definition of it's citizens rights. I stated that Governments should limited, not that it shouldn't exist. Utopia doesn't exist, thus the a Government is still required where necessary and I'd argue it should also take action when there is a net benefit to society.
Everyone knows Government is a massive wastage machine, so limiting it down to bear minimun is in the net benifit to its citizens, as it should result in a lesser tax burden. I'm not one of those right-wing fanatics who thinks privatising a monopolised industry is a good idea, I'm a lefty at heart, but that doesn't mean I can't accept Government has vested interests contrary to that of its citizens.
Oh, and the idea that you're free to do anything besides deny someone else their rights is less arbitrary than what we have right now I'd say, which is more a case of you're free to do whatever you like, as long as we don't mind you doing it, it doesn't upset the general public, and we can't get any more votes from banning it.
The point I was making is that you logic is entirely based on the reasonable demeanour of all involved to respect each others personal rights.....that is not based in reality...thus we have laws, such as S5.
Given that logic, the only feasible end points for a Government is Totalitarianism, Stalinism, Facism, or some other terrible-ism. Government is a construct of the people, it has no business controlling, only serving.
Again you are making out I said something I did not.......I merely stated that a Governments job is to Govern....which includes maintaining law and order.....I made no reference to any specific type of Governance or the benefits or disadvantages thereof.
You appear to be creating an argument that no one is actually having.
I honestly don't. People sail close to the wind because they're worried about public acceptance as opposed to prosecution. That doesn't mean there aren't frustrated people, there are many of them, it's just that Government policy is a major motivating factor for that frustration. It'd be hard to be frustrated in a fair and equal society.
I have seen and experienced societies where effective Governance and the rule of law has broken down....unfortunately what invariably happens is that people quickly revert to their baser instincts.....some will try to band together and create smaller protective communities, create their own set of boundaries and laws, however some will simply ignore that and do whatever they wish, to whomever they want. These people are not swayed by public acceptance, they are motivated by their greed and lust for power and the ability to persecute whoever they like and take whatever they like.
You are being idealistic if you think that a fair and equal society comes without the need for imposing at least some rules on that society.
I find the entire premiss of minorities harmful to our society. We are all human, and we are all equal, there are no minorities, and any thoughts of the contrary are a relic of failed Government policy. The idea that someone is weaker than another because they're darker skinned is something I can't really get behind.
Unfortunately we don't live in your idealistic, utopian world where everyone is reasonable and no one feels superior to another simply because of an inherent trait such as skin colour. I too would like to see the idea of minorities sweat away, and people see everyone as simply being one race, one people.
We simply do not live in such a world.
Kids (or anyone for that matter) being constantly bullied is harrasment, and I've always agreed with you I'm happy for an harrasment law.
Yet is it harassment if each time he is vilified by someone different.....what if 100 people call him "fatty" only once....by your logic, none of those people are doing anything illegal and thus it is ok for them to so so....yet is the child subject to any less harm?
And Section 5 is quite clear that any insult must also fit into certain criteria as has been mentioned plenty of times, this included it being harassing or causing distress etc....
"(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable."
Then as a compromise, why not limit the law to such people? Pretty simple, you can't insult a mentally deficient person because a constant stream of insults would be damaging so such a person.
Because it isn't just about the individual, it is also about the wider society.....just because an individual cannot effectively be insulted, doesn't mean that society should allow such behaviour......the law should apply equally to everyone and the issue here is not the law itself, but the way it has been applied in very certain circumstances. The compromise would be to clarify the way in which the law is to be applied, not remove it or weaken it.
Of course, there aren't enough people who'd do such a thing for it to become a regular thing, and if one person did it regularly, that'd be harassment, but you seem to be ignoring those points.
I am not ignoring anything....I simply know that the world is not as reasonable as you suggest. Ask a homosexual how they feel about the casual insult or how often it occurs? I grew up in a community where it was acceptable behaviour to insult and demean me because of my mothers heritage...and again in another community where that heritage was the norm, but it was socially ok to demean my Father's heritage instead, there was little I could do about it simply because the protections did not exist in the laws of that society.....I was generally told to "take it on the chin, you'll get used to it, its just the way it is"......what may seem as trivial casual insults to some are not so trivial and casual to those that are subjected to them regularly, even if not by the same person.
Everyone has a basic right to go about their business without being unreasonably insulted or subjected to unreasonable insulting behaviour, and society should enforce that right...that doesn't mean that all insults are illegal and the legislation doesn't say that they are either........which is something people cannot seem to grasp for some reason.
but i was using your sarcasm to reinforce my point on how i feel people are not fully reading what section 5 covers.
just because you feel threatened by the fact your right to hurl abuse/insults at people is taken away, does not mean someone is using abusive, insulting or threatening words or behaviour towards you?!?