Pertaining to the issue of former Pribumi VP Hamidah Osman revealing Lim Kit Siang had engineered the creation of Pribumi (to be led by Mahathir) to drain Malay votes from UMNO as a form of hate speech that required laws to prevent, Commander (rtd) S Thayaparan wrote in Malaysiakini the article Is accusing Kit Siang of creating Pribumi a hate speech?
Commander Thayaparan sees Hamidah Osman as stirring the racial sh*tpot by imputing Lim Kit Siang has been the puppet master of a Malay venerable leader, wakakaka.
Near his conclusion, Commander Thayaparan wrote:
The reality is that Harapan has not shown commitment to acting with the laws at its disposal to curb hate speech against non-Malays in this country, while claiming that hate speech laws are needed.
In other words, Thaya has virtually accused the Pakatan government of 'cakap ta'serupa bikin'.
But hello there, Pribumi, UMNO and PAS as Über Malay nationalistic parties rely on hate speeches to captivate, capture and command their supporters. So why would Mahathir or UMNO and PAS leaders set laws to curb hate speeches?
Anyway, good old Thaya continued:
Now, for some people, jokes that people making these statements belong in Tanjung Rambutan – which is rather dated, but considering the source – it is a reasonable response, but it should not distract that all this merely contributes to the narrative that the Malays are under siege.
There is a difference between restricting speech – which, in my opinion, affects non-Malays more than it would Malays – and changing the racial and religious narratives of this country.
Notice how it is the DAP, Amanah and PKR which talk about hate speech, butBersatu Pribumi finds it difficult to do anything beyond poaching political operatives from Umno and making feeble overtures at PAS.
I deem Thaya's statement "Hate speech in this country is defined by what Malay politicians can say and what non-Malays can’t" as the BEST political statement 2019 thus far.
Now, for some people, jokes that people making these statements belong in Tanjung Rambutan – which is rather dated, but considering the source – it is a reasonable response, but it should not distract that all this merely contributes to the narrative that the Malays are under siege.
There is a difference between restricting speech – which, in my opinion, affects non-Malays more than it would Malays – and changing the racial and religious narratives of this country.
Notice how it is the DAP, Amanah and PKR which talk about hate speech, but
Even though I may not subscribe to hate speech laws, why isn’t the Harapan regime cracking down on hate speech with the available tools at its disposal, which it uses on the average rakyat?
If Harapan is committed to cracking down on such speech, why is it that it does not do anything when such speech is injected into the public discourse?
I think the answer is obvious. Hate speech in this country is defined by what Malay politicians can say and what non-Malays can’t.
If Harapan is committed to cracking down on such speech, why is it that it does not do anything when such speech is injected into the public discourse?
I think the answer is obvious. Hate speech in this country is defined by what Malay politicians can say and what non-Malays can’t.
I deem Thaya's statement "Hate speech in this country is defined by what Malay politicians can say and what non-Malays can’t" as the BEST political statement 2019 thus far.
Best political statement (2019) series:
Quote: "Hate speech in this country is defined by what Malay politicians can say and what non-Malays can’t"
ReplyDeleteActual Meaning of Hate Speech:
"abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."
In America according to their 1st Amendment to their Constitution:
"Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment."
In the UK:
"Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden."
What is legally considered Hate Speech:
"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
So, Hamidah's speech does not fall under the category of "Hate Speech". It is instead a criminal act nonetheless under Defamation and Slandering to tarnish the reputation of an individual or party.
LKS should file Criminal or Civil charges against her to help her understand Politiking is not an excuse to justify such speech against the Laws/Acts.
Sue the pants off her for defamation!
Is Trump's latest racist remarks about that 4 elected non white female politicians considered hate speech?
ReplyDeleteWhatever u want to define that 'theme' can to be selective by the power in control!