First off I want to commence by stating that Intelligence should not be determined by a person’s sex. Men and Women are not equally as good in all aspects, we are different by nature, but that does not mean that one is more dominant or better than the other.
When given equal opportunities women can be as good as men. It is not sexist if one says “biologically men are more adapt to being fire fighters, due to their stronger upper body” because it is biologically proven, but saying that “women cannot and shouldn’t even be entitled to such a Job, simply because they are female” is utter gibberish. Fire doesn’t mind who fights it, and being a female shouldn’t hinder a person from becoming what they want.
Mikke’s speech is a sexist remark because it is false and has no basis. He is simply making a stereotypical assumption based on gender, without any objective facts or evidence to support his statement.
“Women must earn less because they are weaker, smaller and less intelligent”. Weaker and smaller do not denote less intelligent! He has no valid reasons to back up his argument, he has no empirical facts, what he has is a sexist, stereotypical mentality. Intelligence varies within every individual, and is effected by one’s upbringing, exposure to current situations, education, morality and the list goes on, but it surely is not because one is a female. Trying to justify his statement with “generalisations” is not acceptable.
With this question, comes a bigger question which we constantly discuss. Should there be a limit to freedom of speech?
I’m a strong believer of freedom of speech therefore I disagree with whoever insinuates that hate speech should be censored, simply because hate speech is freedom of speech! We do not have the right to not be offended, therefore if we disagree with a statement because we believe it’s either racist or because it offends us we should debate and contest it and not censor it.
Hate speech is part of freedom of speech, so if one supports freedom of speech only when it is harmless (in his eyes) he is a sham believer. There wouldn’t be a right to freedom of speech if certain arguments didn’t give rise to controversies or if they offended no one; therefore we are under the obligation to tolerate any kind of opinion. Being able to hear different opinions (even ones you don’t like) is an essential part of being part of society.
By saying so, I am not saying that hate speech is right or that the person voicing it shouldn’t ever suffer the consequences. Having a freedom is not the same thing as applauding everything a person chooses to do with that freedom, and it doesn’t mean that everything they do with that freedom is acceptable; but the moment I become so aggressive in my self-righteousness that I declare all those who don’t agree with me either Satan or backstabbers, I’m threatening the right of others to live In their world, I’m denying peaceful co-existence.
We should contest hate speech in every way possible, but we should not stop people from voicing their opinion simply because it offends us. “Hurt” is subjective. You cannot please everybody, when one imports his/her opinion it is a reward in itself. People are free to express their dissent and to even get hurt.
Keeping in mind our current discussion; that of whether the Polish MEP should be kicked out of the European parliament or not, I think it would be a mistake to silence him, however an action must be taken as soon as possible. If debating his statement is not sufficient enough, I am of the opinion that “yes”; he should abdicate, and if he doesn’t, he must be kicked out. He does not deserve such a status if he is unable to generate rational arguments. Now again rationality might be a matter of perspective, but a line has to be drawn. If he had sensible arguments it would have been a different story, but stating that women are “weaker and smaller” and therefore should be paid less, is absurd.
