We need to draw the line between ‘offence’ and ‘hatred’. ‘Hatred’ implies or incites others to agree that the people with the beliefs and systems in question are inferior to you and/or others. It is a situation founded on persuasion by sentiment rather than reality.
We also need to distinguish ‘hatred’ from ‘condemnation’. There are infinite aspects various sections of society do indeed consider unacceptable, the degrees and aspects of which fuel – if indirectly - most conflict in the world. We can’t go into it in a blog post.
Hatred is NOT:
As for the term ‘offence’, it’s completely ambiguous and needs to be discarded. I can take offence at your putting the toilet paper roll on the holder in a manner I’m not used to, but that’s entirely my bag and nothing to do with your committing some terrible crime. ‘Offence’ is a crock of shit.
If I walk into a place of worship, I do so on sufferance, under the understanding I will obey whatever customs are demanded in that situation. If I enter a country I agree to abide by the laws it imposes, for the duration I am there. Neither of these mean that I cannot either disagree with the customs or laws or raise my voice to change them. You can believe yourself to be a fairy and ride an imaginary unicorn down the high street while dressed in a tutu and I will consider the world a richer place for it. But you try making me wear tutus or insist unicorns are the only mode of transport and we have a problem. If you block off the street for unicorn dance practice, we have a problem. Siphon off government funds for unicorn enrichment classes, create segregated areas where unicorn owners only can enjoy special privileges, start imprisoning anyone who suggests the whole unicorn craze is a bit silly, and we have a problem. In fact, I might rather start disliking unicorns altogether. Which opens up another whole kettle of fish. Fish? Who’s disrespecting fish now?
Currently the Australian Christian Lobby is calling for a suspension of Australian anti-discrimination laws to be able to ‘argue’ the case against legalization of same sex marriage in Australia. Apparently their reasoning is ‘not seeking to say anything bigoted, but to put forward the "millennia-old" argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.’ Now, call me old-fashioned, but the argument that something is because that’s just the way it is done is generally given up as a method of crowd control by parents of anyone over 18 months old. There is no theoretical or statistical argument against same sex marriage. It’s even easier for Australia because the path has already been paved by more freedom-loving countries and there are indeed no adverse effects. The fabric of society has not been ripped apart. No water is held, no fucks are given. That unicorn needs to keep to its own side of the road.
We also need to distinguish ‘hatred’ from ‘condemnation’. There are infinite aspects various sections of society do indeed consider unacceptable, the degrees and aspects of which fuel – if indirectly - most conflict in the world. We can’t go into it in a blog post.
Hatred is NOT:
- Finding flaws with the belief/system
- Not identifying with or believing or siding with the system
- Not understanding the system
As for the term ‘offence’, it’s completely ambiguous and needs to be discarded. I can take offence at your putting the toilet paper roll on the holder in a manner I’m not used to, but that’s entirely my bag and nothing to do with your committing some terrible crime. ‘Offence’ is a crock of shit.
If I walk into a place of worship, I do so on sufferance, under the understanding I will obey whatever customs are demanded in that situation. If I enter a country I agree to abide by the laws it imposes, for the duration I am there. Neither of these mean that I cannot either disagree with the customs or laws or raise my voice to change them. You can believe yourself to be a fairy and ride an imaginary unicorn down the high street while dressed in a tutu and I will consider the world a richer place for it. But you try making me wear tutus or insist unicorns are the only mode of transport and we have a problem. If you block off the street for unicorn dance practice, we have a problem. Siphon off government funds for unicorn enrichment classes, create segregated areas where unicorn owners only can enjoy special privileges, start imprisoning anyone who suggests the whole unicorn craze is a bit silly, and we have a problem. In fact, I might rather start disliking unicorns altogether. Which opens up another whole kettle of fish. Fish? Who’s disrespecting fish now?
Currently the Australian Christian Lobby is calling for a suspension of Australian anti-discrimination laws to be able to ‘argue’ the case against legalization of same sex marriage in Australia. Apparently their reasoning is ‘not seeking to say anything bigoted, but to put forward the "millennia-old" argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.’ Now, call me old-fashioned, but the argument that something is because that’s just the way it is done is generally given up as a method of crowd control by parents of anyone over 18 months old. There is no theoretical or statistical argument against same sex marriage. It’s even easier for Australia because the path has already been paved by more freedom-loving countries and there are indeed no adverse effects. The fabric of society has not been ripped apart. No water is held, no fucks are given. That unicorn needs to keep to its own side of the road.