Hate speech but not hate

Looking at your post history to get a clearer idea of your opinion: it appears (correct me if I am wrong) that you 'don't agree w homosexuality' and believe it is a choice. If this is your view, and I apologise if I have misunderstood, then I would say this is a prejudiced viewpoint. But you should be able to hold it and express this view.

Your comment about it being a choice presumably means that you don't agree with gay people's choice to have gay. Presumably you don't think having an attraction to the same sex is a choice itself? I always find it v odd when people say it's a choice, having gay relationships ofc is, but being gay or bi itself is not.

As to the trans issue, I completely agree w you. As I said, I do think you hold prejudiced views, if I interpreted them right, but you clearly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings etc ...this hate speech issue : did you make comments like this in public/at work or something? I wouldn't see the need to make comments about the immorality of being gay, (though you should be allowed to) it's not like gay relationships threaten any rights, but on the trans issue, it has recently, so I can get more why you would bring it up..

Hi OP, I'm bi myself, I feel you're being given a hard time. But otoh your words are pretty ambiguous.
When you say being gay 'isn't your path' etc that's obvs fine, most people are not gay

. But then you compare it to smoking, which you don't agree with.

Then you say it's not that you don't agree but you have a different view...so you do disagree, presumably believing it's wrong?

Then you compare it to a gay person saying straight is not their thing. But if the gay person also said, as you did, that they didn't agree w being straight and had a different view, implying it was morally wrong, I'd say you could call them prejudiced, but not hetero phobic.

So are you essentially saying you think it's wrong morally you have a gay relationship but you wouldn't vote against any rights or anything?

If that is your opinion, I would say that is prejudiced, but not in the sense of hatred or fear. Is this your view though? It's not really clear.

If that is your view, I disagree strongly but it's definitely not hate speech & it's good you're not being unpleasant to anyone about it. You have the right to your opinion ofc.

That’s inciting violence

“I’m not racist…I have black friends….”

What about people calling for attacks on hotels housings asylum seekers?

Where would they fall?

Do you think being gay is a choice?

It's hard to know what OP actually thinks from her garbled posts and refusal to clarify.

Freedom of speech is precious and so any attempts to curb it need to be limited and proportionate. IMO something is only “hate speech” if it is actively inciting violence against a group. I would include the marches through London calling for the eradication of Israel and “infitada now” as hate speech as they express violent intent.

saying you don’t agree with gay marriage, or there are too many immigrants or whatever is not hate speech. You should be free to share your views and for others to decide whether they want to engage with you/ be friends with you on the basis of your lawful opinion.

But she doesn’t. She doesn’t exclude gay people from her friendship circles or discriminate against gay people.

@myplace the oxford dictionary defines homophobic as 'having or showing a dislike of or prejudicee_ against gay people'.

Hope that helps.

You think she fears homosexuality, or homosexuals?

I'm a police officer and work in Hate Crime, the only one of two in my force, so I feel like I can answer a few questions. Maybe I should do an AMA? 😂

I'm currently doing a huge piece of work with the Centre for Hate studies on a new training package for fellow officers because of the confusion of when and what to record.

So basically, no,.what you've said in your OP would not be a Hate Crime or a Non Crime Hate incident (NCHI).

An opinion can be as unpalatable or disagreeable as it wants, it doesn't necessarily mean a NCHI has occurred, much less a Hate crime/racially aggravated public order offence.

Definition of Hate Crime needs to be motivated by Bias, and the foundation crime (ie - assault) has to be made out first. It is for the police/prosecution to prove the basic offence (assault) was motivated or demonstrated hostility between one of the protected characteristics (please note these do not include all of those in the equality and diversity legislation, maternity/adoption etc for example).

NCHI are very different. Essentially a police force got sued successfully by an ex police officer after he tweeted what he stayed were gender critical views on Twitter and these were reported as a NCHI. His name and details were recorded on police systems as the 'suspect' and these would be disclosed as part of an enhanced DBS. He took the force to court and won the case, with the new term ' A chilling effect ' being coined by the CPS. This essentially means forces now have to have a very good reason to record the 'suspects' details when a NCHI occurs. Off the top of my head these are if there is 'a high likelihood of violence' OR ' A high probability of an offence being committed".

Here's the case:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/21/ex-police-officer-wins-appeal-over-forces-guidance-on-hate-incidents

So essentially since then things have changed a lot, but of course this takes time.

A good example I use is an officer (who is one of the best and most victim led I know), recorded a S5 rac aggravated public order offence because whilst in custody for drink driving, a detainee said words to the effect of 'You think I'd drive drunk with someone else in my car? Never, it was just me. I'm not Romanian you know. I'm not Polish" and was arrested.

I reviewed it and there was no crime or Hate incident. What he said, whilst almost certainly based in racism, is nothing worse frankly than what some newspapers print. Moreover, someone needs to be caused Harassment/alarm or distress on this specific offence, and no where had the officer detailed that they were (having been the only other person to have heard it). So if the officer hadn't been effected by it, what harm had actually been done? This is how my contact in the CPS explained it anyway as I was new to the role and so confused!

However, another woman under arrest called the same officer (who is black) the N word multiple times. Very different and clearly an offence. There is no stand alone offence of Hate Crime, it is a bolt on onto the foundation offence which increases the sentence the suspect can get. So with this woman for example, the basic offence was a public order, which she probably would have got an out of court disposal for, but because it was proved to be Hate related (motivated by hostility - in this case the officers race), she ended up receiving a two month long custodial instead.

Neighbour disputes are another - A neighbour could strongly believe their neighbour is moving their wheelie bins because they're gay - without corroborating evidence, it doesn't make it a Hate Crime. It may be recorded as a NCHI (Without recording the other Neighbours details). Hate crime has to be PROVEN to be motivated by hostility, NCHI's only need to be PERCEIVED as such by the reporting person.

Now if of course the neighbour was moving their bin further away so the victim (now victim, not just reporting person) had to walk past their window in order for them to call out homophobic slurs out their window at them, then you've got yourself a Hate related offence.

Essentially I think it's important to take each case on its own merit. Especially with gender criticism, so long as you're not being insulting/intending to cause H/A/D, then everyone should be free to express their views. It's when these views cross that ever blurry line that we need to look closer at it as a whole.

Goodness that was long! I hope some of it makes sense!

But you miss read me😂I gave the word freak as an example same with sending people "home". Between us we also illustrated the problem of not listening!😂

Exactly. Plainer would be a one word answer yes or no.

If you won't/can't answer whether being gay is a choice what about whether gay people should be able to get married?

"..nothing is plainer than saying I don't hate anyone and that different views don't mean hate."

I mean answering the very straight forward questions would be plainer. But you go be the victim of an issue you have created and could alleviate very easily if you wanted to.

Maybe it would be best if you gave some examples of the hate speech you’ve been accused of?

You do seem quite homophobic, but that’s not hate speech.

As Ricky Gervais said, you have the right to be offended and I have the right not to care.

It's all getting ridiculously out of hand.

I asked if you think being gay is a choice and in your rambling response you said 'each person must decide for themselves their paths, choices...'

So I'm going to assume you do think it's a choice but if it's not and you're not homophobic I'm sure you'll be eager to return to clear that up.

Well if you're going to avoid answering questions then yes, continuing the thread is pointless but refusing to answer speaks volumes.

People calling you homophobic isn't the same as people saying you're guilty of hate speech.

People can say all sorts of daft bigoted things and calling them daft bigots isn't silencing them or censoring them or saying they should be arrested for hate speech

@Tropics4

Do you think being gay is a choice?

Do you think gay people should be able to get married?

But any “genuine debate” is immediately shot down as hate, bigotry, “our existence isn’t up for debate”, trans rights are human rights, etc etc etc.

How do you see such a genuine debate happening?

well yes, lots of opinions about what people might do, but BEING gay isn't a matter of opinion so you can't really be persuaded out of it and into another opinion