He's not been banned for a year, though, has he? He's been banned until he retracts his hate speech. Which seems eminently fair to me.Mellsblue wrote:Yes, I would. As I said, it's the national legislature and he's representing his constituents - though hopefully 99% will say he doesn't represent them on this. You can't just ban someone for a year because you don't like their opinion. By all means point out their idiocy, pick at the obvious holes in their argument and make them look silly, but if you're getting offended that badly by an idiot like that then politics was a bad career choice. That's before you get to the point that these sort of people and their supporters thrive on 'the liberal elite don't listen to us' line and banning them just plays in to their hands.cashead wrote:When your argument hinges on denying the rights to exist of one of the most maligned and targeted groups in society (broadly speaking, trans people are six times more likely to be targeted for hate crimes, for example), then you can go fuck as far as I'm concerned.Mellsblue wrote: You’ve missed the point of a debate, in a debating chamber in a national legislature. A representative democracy doesn’t work if you censor the representatives’ opinions just because you disagree with them.
Would you have the same response if this UKIP fuckknuckle was going on in the same way about non-whites?
It's not like he's saying: "I think a disproportionately large amount of attention is being given to a very vocal minority when we should be concentrating on the rights of traditional families". While that still expresses the same sentiment, it's not name calling. It's a respectful way of expressing an opinion you may not agree with.