Unfortunately, it’s the same conundrum as with the Pano report: should we expose them or not? Should we give them attention that they can use or not? Not exactly sure if there’s a good answer to that actually. The effects are a result of the way society thinks of these types: in a healthy, democratic society this wouldn’t boost his popularity, on the contrary…
Seems like a good and fair punishment. The guy was actively and intentionally undermining democracy, spreading hatred and planning for creating conflict. He was and still is clearly a danger to society and people’s safety and should be punished accordingly.
“It’s just humour your honour” - How is that even a viable defense, using humour to advance your political agenda is textbook propaganda, which historically should be under the highest form of scrutiny. I hate this post-irony bullshit.
Indeed. Humour is subjective, but that also means we can completely ignore whether it’s humour or not because it’s not relevant. All that matters is intent, and here it was not part of some standup comedy where everybody knows it’s an act that can be taken with a big grain of salt and stops at the door. This was clearly a long time ongoing campaign meant to push an agenda of hatred and harassment.
I’m quite content with the verdict, especially his revocation of his civil rights, which seems apt and proportionate because of his contempt of democracy.
Add comment