I don’t know what made them pick such a restrictive definition here. Why not extend it to extremist hate speech against any of the protected grounds (sex, sexuality, gender expression, race, age, etc…). Like it’s great we’re protecting one group of people from extremism, but why not protect everyone?
That is why I say it is suspicious, and given recent UK history they just might say that students protesting TERFs are extremists and round them up.
This might also be virtue signalling so that other groups are persecuted. Several things it can be, except the one they claim it is, because if it was, the general consensus is that modern extremists target all those groups of people.
Their choice shows that they don’t care that much for those other groups. Effectively, it can be understood as a pink washing move for throwing all the other classes under the bus. I hope I am wrong.
I don’t know what made them pick such a restrictive definition here. Why not extend it to extremist hate speech against any of the protected grounds (sex, sexuality, gender expression, race, age, etc…). Like it’s great we’re protecting one group of people from extremism, but why not protect everyone?
That is why I say it is suspicious, and given recent UK history they just might say that students protesting TERFs are extremists and round them up.
This might also be virtue signalling so that other groups are persecuted. Several things it can be, except the one they claim it is, because if it was, the general consensus is that modern extremists target all those groups of people.
Their choice shows that they don’t care that much for those other groups. Effectively, it can be understood as a pink washing move for throwing all the other classes under the bus. I hope I am wrong.