Hjem Idioti Fjern all «hate-speech» lovgivning! – Gikk Jordan Petersons viktigste, hus forbi?

Fjern all «hate-speech» lovgivning! – Gikk Jordan Petersons viktigste, hus forbi?


Jordan B. Petersons Storbritannia-besøk fikk mye oppmerksomhet ved intervjuet hos Cathy Newman på kanalen 4News. Fullt forståelig, men kom ikke hans viktigste uttalelser i BBC5 intervjuet, der han forkaster all «hate speech» lovgivning?

Altså denne følelse-begrunnede ytringskriminalisering-epidemi som har spredd seg over hele «Vesten» – også Norge (primært Straffeloven § 185)!

Norge og «Vesten» kan ikke regnes som rasjonelle og frie samfunn, før alt av dette som er:

  • rotfestet i Marxisme (Kommunisme/ Sosialisme)..
  • gjort ekstra giftig med en dose Postmodernisme (relativisme etc.)..
  • og delvis også påskyndet så langt mulig (for eksempel via FN) av teokrater med masse penger (islamister med «petro-» og andre milliarder)..
  • OG attpåtil innført og/eller beholdt evt. utvidet av offisielt konservative og liberalistiske politikere/ partier/ regjeringer i både Norge (Høyre og FrP), Sverige (Moderaterna), Danmark (Venstre, Liberal Alliance og Det Konservative Folkeparti), Storbritannia (Conservatives), Nederland (VVD), Tyskland (CDU/CSU),..

..er fjernet!


Og hva sa så Peterson om «hate-speech» lovgivning?

BBC: ..governments do tell us how to speak in the sense that hate speech for instance is somewhere where we are told the words that we can and can’t say and we’ll be prosecuted for saying,,


JBP: no, we’re only told the words we can’t say. We’re not told the words we must say and that’s exactly where I drew the line and I’m not an..


I’m not an admirer of hate speech laws either, I think they’re deadly dangerous and are a big mistake most of the time but..


BBC: Why do you think that?


JBP: Well who defines hate?


BBC: The person who feels as though that they have been a victim of it


JBP: But that’s the problem!  It’s like.. there’s no reason to assume that a person’s feeling about whether they’ve been targeted unfairly, let’s say, as an unerring guide to the accuracy of that.. of that feeling!

Feelings are no proof of anything, they are indications that something might be going on..


BBC: But not having been a minority presumably in Canada or indeed in America, you would not know how would that feel to be a victim of hate speech based on something you have no control over your race for instance?

??? Hvilken stein (ekkokammer) har denne «journalist» vært begravd under (befunnet seg i) de siste tiår??
«..fuck/ kill all white people this.. white supremacy that.. redneck.. whitey.. cracker.. albino ape.. dough boy», affirmative action («white» people; don’t bother apply for these positions), osv. osv…


Nuvel. Tilbake til intervjuet:

JBP: Well I’m not and.. I’m not making the case that there’s no such thing as hateful speech and I’m certainly not making the case that hateful speech isn’t abhorrent because it is!

I’m making the case that they push legislating.. well, legislating hate speech has..


..legislating hate speech restrictions is far more dangerous than allowing hate speech, even though hate speech is dangerous. Because you enable a level of control over what people are allowed to say and think, that.. that is dangerous in the extreme!


And it does boil down to; who defines hate! And you can’t say that it’s the target of an int.. it’s the target of an intended act who defines what the act meant!

Because that would mean that if someone.. anyone in your own life if you insulted someone accidentally and they decided that they were crushed and traumatized by that, that they could have you thrown in prison!


You might say; ‘well I didn’t mean it’ and they would say ‘well that doesn’t matter because that’s how it made me feel’ it’s like; off to prison for you!


That’s not a good.. that is absolutely no way to run a legal system. Intent matters, rather than.. rather than mirror.. the mere feelings of the recipient.


BBC: So then.. so then it is the job of the law to discover the intent behind what they have said, yes? And then that would be a justifiable case for there being in law: hate speech.


JBP: Oh well I would still say that’s not a justifiable reason for hate speech, but I would say that yes, it’s the.. it’s the responsibility of the legal authorities to ferret out intent to the degree that that’s possible and that that’s actually the hallmark of a sophisticated legal system.
If it’s only..


BBC: What about of a civilized society?


JBP: Yes, of a civilized society.


BBC: What if you can go around saying whatever you wish to people however hateful that may be with no recourse to the law, no sanction whatsoever, you feel that that’s a sign of a civilized society?


JBP: Oh there’ll be plenty of repercussions! I mean people responds terribly to you if you.. if you’re incautious with your speech and they’ll take you to task in all sorts of ways, and if you have any sense you’ll listen to them.

But at least you’ll be exposed out in the open where people can take shots at you.


BBC: So revenge rather than the objective nature of the law, so I can just go and punch someone in the face who calls me, rather than recourse to a police officer..


JBP: No you can’t do that, you have to use reasonable recourse. I mean one of the.. one of the tenants of the English common law is minimal necessary force.. like if I say something that you find offensive, you don’t get to hit me!
I mean that.. that.. that isn’t how it works!


BBC: What do I get to do if there’s no recourse in law then?


JBP: Well you could take me to task verbally, you could expose me publicly, you could debate me, you could make a case for why that’s unfortunate, you could act nobly..


..you just had a story on just before I was on your show, about a black guy who was being targeted very badly when he started playing sports and acted like a noble individual, and played the game properly and remarkably and everyone came around and thought he was a remarkable person..


BBC: But people didn’t come around until it was made very clear by authorities that if you were to make statements like that as you do today, you will be ejected from the ground, you will be banned from going to watch your favorite football team for as long as you live, so people brought laws in to protect those players so they didn’t have to go out onto the ground and have bananas thrown at them.


JBP: Well there’s a difference between assault and speech and to have things thrown at you as a form of assault.


No look; I don’t want to have an argument about whether or not there is such a thing as hate speech or whether or not it’s bad! My point was very straightforward:


There’s tremendous danger in allowing people to define hate! Because who defines it? And you say well, it’s the intended victims!
It’s like.. yes, that sometimes works, but there’s lots of pitfalls in that, because it doesn’t take intent into account.


[det samme gjelder andre relevante faktorer i tillegg til ‘intent’ (hensikt)]


Det fundamentale argument

kan ikke gjentas for ofte:

‘..legislating hate speech restrictions is far more dangerous than allowing hate speech, even though hate speech is dangerous, because you enable a level of control over what people are allowed to say and think that.. that is dangerous in the extreme!’

Og dette er massivt, empirisk bevist, av Sovjet og ellers når under sosialisme; Øst-Europa, Kina, Nord-Korea, Cuba, samt når under islamisme; Pakistan, Iran, Saudi-Arabia,
osv. osv. osv…