Why is it considered hate speech when I express my disinterest in being associated with lesbians as a member of the same group, but not when it’s the other way around? How do we define “hate” in a legal context? Do individuals genuinely comprehend the legal definition of “hate” when they passionately discuss hate speech and hate crimes?
I believe the concept of “hate crime” and “hate speech” emerged to safeguard potential victims of violence who lack the means to protect themselves. These victims often belong to minority groups because they have limited resources to represent their political interests in the Congress system. Advocacy groups emerged to assist them because, as minorities, they are often perceived as vulnerable.
However, if we examine how this principle has been exploited by various individuals for different purposes, it becomes evident that it may be time for everyone to reconsider this principle, which we adopted to protect marginalized individuals in society.
Laws are subject to change as society evolves. Rules and regulations are fluid and adaptable, allowing us to respond effectively to various social changes. This flexibility enables us to collectively survive and thrive. If you embrace this flexibility, you must also recognize that it benefits individuals you dislike as well. This is the essence of democracy. Legislation is not a mere joke; rules are rules that apply to everyone living in the same country or society. You cannot create new laws solely to benefit yourself and your associates.
Let’s consider the example of Roe v. Wade. Many American feminists were upset when it was overturned. However, do they genuinely delve into the reasons behind its overturning? Is it solely due to the eccentricity of the president and the fervent support of those who share similar views? I’ve observed numerous feminists, including those in South Korea, who merely adopt the rhetoric of comparing President Trump to Adolf Hitler without actually discussing the underlying factors that led to the shift in societal norms. Instead, they focus on corruption, the malevolent intentions of powerful individuals, and a myriad of depressing thoughts that seem to permeate their minds.
If the world is indeed inhabited by fanatics, as they claim, who is responsible for this situation? Are these feminists entirely exempt from the consequences of their actions? Why are they? Who absolves them of their responsibility? Is it God? Whose God is it then?
I believe that as a society, it’s crucial to establish and prioritize the fundamental principles and values that we must safeguard as members of our community. The Anti-Discrimination law presents a compelling vision because it offers an ideal that everyone can agree upon and adhere to. However, it’s important to recognize that this law is not solely intended for minority groups; it also applies to the majority. If those who advocate for legislation fail to grasp this fundamental concept, it’s highly unlikely that the law will be successful. This is simply a reality that we must acknowledge and address.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
