University of Westminster: Stop ANTI-GAY preacher Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad speaking

Why isn't that simple? You have chosen to be a member of that religion (or forced by your parents).

Well, you kind of grow up with it... it becomes important to you and you do become attached to it. It does become a part of your identity and you are reluctant to leave it completely.

But that is still your choice.

You don't get to choose your race, gender or sexual orientation.

So if I was using your argument, would you agree that people who opt to have sexual reassignment surgery should not be included in the definition of hate speech?

i think that is a more complicated than it seems at face value. I believe that gender reassignment issues generally stem from mental health issues such as Gender Dysphoria.

You cannot compare gender reassignment and religion.

But your arguments tend to look more at the choice itself, rather than what brought on the choice... suddenly you've switched from this reasoning and now look at certain factors of the situation that lead to the choice, justifying it?

Not saying you're wrong, just inconsistent.

Dangerous ideas lead to mass genocide.

Well, no they don't usually but there is a probability. I mean, imagine if the No Platform Policy existed just before Hitler won over Germany.

I hate the No platform policy. I am in favour of free speech.

However hate speech should never be given a platform. It is a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.

Clearly you are not in favour of free speech, just privileged speech. Speech does not sufficiently harm people. No one has the right not to be offended. A free society is one were others are free to offend us.

There should be no such criminalisation of opinion no matter how reprehensible that opinion may be.

I am in favour of free speech. To a degree.

I am not in favour of incitement of hatred, nor am I in favour of abusive of threatening language to be used.

Ideas don't directly kill people, actions do.
To suggest otherwise is to create a notion of thought crime and robs us of our moral autonomy. Thinking about an idea of something nasty does not compel to act on it.

Clearly you are not in favour of free speech, just privileged speech. Speech does not sufficiently harm people. No one has the right not to be offended. A free society is one were others are free to offend us.

There should be no such criminalisation of opinion no matter how reprehensible that opinion may be.

"I'm for free speech,but..."

I've heard it all before.

Abuse is not enough to warrant force against someone.
Threats however are a different matter, as they are an act of initiating violence.

But expressing it may incite others to. That's why hate speech is generally prohibited worldwide.



With the sort of language he is using, particularly calling gay people "criminals", and the fact that he is a respected sheikh, it may incite in others into doing acts which harm or interfere with the rights of gay people.

Human rights end when they start to interfere with other people's rights in a significant way. Freedom of speech is fine until it is likely to incite others to interfere with the rights of others.

And "free speech" does not mean unlimited speech, it never has. One can still be in favour of free speech, such as that found in the European Convention on Human Rights, but still believe in things such as defamation, criminalising threats to kill, etc.

Both you and I know that "Free" Speech can never be truly free.

Well I don't think a 'right' to free speech exists, but rather than no one has the right to deny us it.

Of course this does not apply on another's property. If I ban you from swearing in my house that is fine.
It is just the notion of public spaces where this rule does not exist.

I'm not carrying on with this we are going in circles.

I am in favour of free speech not hate speech.

Your definition of hate speech will just end up whatever you subjectively think is hateful.

Do you think we should ban the Quran and the Bible from society?

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”.

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Surely sounds pretty hateful right?
Would you also be against hate speech about groups you may not like?

I may think white nationalists and racists are horrible and no moral person should have anything to do with them. Would this be inciting hatred against racists?

Again most calls for restriction for free speech arise due to misanthropy.
Humans can't be trusted with these ideas so we must ban them.
People who act on these ideas are the ones to be held responsible. We should be treated all as individuals moral autonomous beings.

The European Convention on Human Rights is an idiotic document that justifies the state in restriction free speech. Without a doubt, it is inferior to the US' First Amendment.

Threats are not a free speech issue but rather about assault. Telling someone you are going to kill them is a sufficient method of initiating violence against someone, so it is acceptable to respond with force in that case.