Classify the terms “denier” , “climate denier” or variants thereof as hate speech. – e-petitions
July 24, 2014
https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/61879
There is a petition running here requesting that the use of the term “denier” is classified as hate speech.
Go and sign.
23 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Good suggestion. Thanks.
No, I won’t. I’m proud of denying the mish-mash of cod science, political trafficking and of standing against global domination by a profoundly anti-human cabal. “Climate change denier” is a grotesque misrepresentation of scientific scepticism of both Catastrophic CO2-led climate change and the religious fervour with which it’s proponents pursue their blatantly political and misanthropic ends. I class the appellation of “Denier” in the same way the BEF in WW! classed the Kaiser’s “Contemptible little army” – as a badge of honour to those who have stood against the nonsense and worse produced by the Consensus. Instead of going all bed-wetter over nasty people calling us names, adopt the name as an honorific and throw it back in their teeth. Here endeth the rant.
Agreed Kevin.
Agreed.
Sorry, I cannot defend the use of the term “hate speech” in ANY case. I do, however, view the use of the word “hate” in any argument as the conclusion of the argument because when someone uses that term, it is clear they are incapable of rational thought. Keep up the good work, we need to fight for reason and order and yours is a bright beacon of hope.
Wish I’d read Kevin’s reply first. Concur 100%.
As much as I detest the term, I will not sign it. I do not believe in hate speech. There is speech, and no speech. And any speech is going to be objectionable to someone.
Agreed.
I will not.
Assert / Deny is a word pair, one I have used many times in technical work.
So what precisely is denied?
a unit of weight by which the fineness of silk, rayon, or nylon yarn is measured, equal to the weight in grams of 9,000 meters of the yarn and often used to describe the thickness of hosiery.
a French coin, equal to one twelfth of a sou, which was withdrawn from use in the 19th century.
I am one who tends to send the term back to the one(s) who tries to attach it to me. The way I see it, by expressing my skepticism, by taking the time to look into contrary arguments, to verify whatever data I can find, I do not deal in denial but rather in acceptance. Acceptance of reality, acceptance of what actually exists, acceptance of what the evidence and the data is trying to tell me.
So, to me, the ones who are actually in denial, those who are deniers, are the ones who refuse to ever even consider there may be an alternate position that is more correct that the one they currently hold. The ones who refuse to admit that they might possibly be wrong. That they might be mistaken.
I am flexible, I will accept the information new learning presents. If that causes me to reverse what I presently believe, then so be it. But for it to do so, the evidence has to be there, the data has to be valid, the information presented has to make sense.
“Because I said so” is not sufficient, in my mind, for that to be the case..
Whether we sign or not and whether we agree or not about the whole politicized topic of “hate speech,” there is no question in my mind that those who use the term “denier” regarding skeptics of global warming have hatred in their hearts. We need to ask ourselves why. It is very troubling to me. Indeed it is shocking. Why would so many people want to gag anyone who disagrees with them on a supposedly scientific question? Such abuse is not hurled at religious believers of any stripe or those who believe in the literal truth of the bible or evolutionists or anti-evolutionists. What is going on here?
Mob mentality. Most of those carrying pitchforks and torches are followers. If the leaders said “don’t do that” they would not. So there really is not many doing it.
But those who are, are inciting their followers to violence.
I’m not against hate speech. I think people should be able to say what they think of others and I think it is OK for people to feel offended. People pretending to be nice and trying to be inoffensive when they hate what you stand for just misrepresents their position and denies others the opportunity to see what kind of people they are dealing with.
Done Derek Buxton
It will only allow British citizens.
“I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Hate speech is too 1984.
NO. I will not sign. To do so would be to put another nail in the coffin of free speech.
“Climate nigger” is the best analogy, as it is calculated to demean , humililiate and disempower skeptics.
– However I too would not ban it, word use is about context ..it is entirely appropriate to call green activists eco-nazis on a blog , when they behave like eco-nazis..
however it is not appropriate for “climate denier” to be used in media discussions like on the BBC cos it weights the debate.
do not want to restrict freedom of speech, so am not signing. What we must do, rather than try to ban speech, is to make sure that when the term is used there is a clear rebuttal of it, and that the user is made to look foolish for using it.
Dellers weighs in: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/25/In-praise-of-hate-speech
You can’t deny Climate. Climate exists and is what they are arguing about. Those who use the term ‘Climate denier’ are obviously uneducated. and should be sent a dictionary or thesaurus for Christmas with instructions how to use it. ( and also perhaps an English Grammar….) All available on line from your favourite bookseller 🙂
”deniers” don’t deny that the ”climate is changing” deniers deny that is any ”GLOBAL”
warming! Climate is in constant change – parts of the planet get warmer than normal -> instantly other parts get colder than normal; then changes again – otherwise the winds would have stopped.
On the other hand: the ”global” warming crap is, completely wrong, misleading crap! I’m proud to be a denier. Most of the ”Skeptics” believe in ”global” warming – believe that CO2 is a global warming gas – then when is no global warming -. they brag about that… Cannot even realize that: they have being proven WRONG!If CO2 is increasing – most believe that CO2 is a ”global” warming gas… can they put two and two together?
2] same goes with ”sunspots” when is more sunspots, but the planet doesn’t get warmer; shouldn’t they admit that they have being WRONG on ”sunspots crap” also…?
Te demiers of course are the other side, as tge denythat things are not proven , it’s pure projection.
Due to their lack of proper science and maths they also DENY the right for anyone to chalkege their dogma,