A Quote by Dominic Raab

We should protect free speech by repealing offences that stifle legitimate debate - like 'glorification' of terrorism and religious hatred - but take a 'zero-tolerance' approach to extremists inciting violence.
I think the debate in our society now is that people have to agree on zero-tolerance to terrorism.
The antidote to hatred in the heart, the source of violence, is tolerance. Tolerance is an important virtue of bodhisattvas [enlightened heroes and heroines] - it enables you to refrain from reacting angrily to the harm inflicted on you by others. You could call this practice "inner disarmament," in that a well-developed tolerance makes you free from the compulsion to counterattack. For the same reason, we also call tolerance the "best armor," since it protects you from being conquered by hatred itself.
There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech. Free speech encourages debate whereas hate speech incites violence.
We must have the approach of 'zero tolerance' against any type of terrorism.
Firmly believe that terrorism, in any shape or form, is against humanity. There should be zero tolerance towards terrorism.
While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive.
The intelligent defense of free speech should not rest on the notion that we must tolerate every form of speech, no matter how offensive. It's that we should lean toward greater tolerance for speech we dislike, and reserve our harshest penalties only for the worst offenders.
We turn now over the debate of the proposed Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero....The controversy has raised profound questions about religious tolerance and prejudice in the United States.
Religious tolerance. No! Zero tolerance for any type of religion.
Free speech is important whether you like what's being said or not. The reason why it's so important is that the entire spectrum of ideas needs to be heard so that the best ones are embraced and rise to the top. If you're a liberal and don't like conservative speech and you try to stifle that conservative speech, you need to be prepared for your own progressive speech to be stifled when the power shifts out of your favor.
If your definition of homosexuality is being able to do whatever you want to, and that you should be able to go and engage in sex with another person, and that because of that, the disease you have is going to spread to that person and they're going to take it home and give it to their wife, how much tolerance should we have for that? We should have zero tolerance for that.
The BJP has a zero-tolerance policy towards terrorism and is determined to equip the Indian armed forces with modern and hi-tech equipment and take steps to restrict illegal immigration.
Actually, they (extremists) wanted to take this opportunity to mobilize the people for the religious unification and to divert the government's attention from other issues in the war against terrorism. So they are using this issue as a matter of unity.
Extremists and populist movements are exploiting people's fear of those who are not like us. We can see the consequences in the form of terrorism and racially motivated violence.
The US constitution's First Amendment rights only cover Americans, but I believe that in a democracy the competition of ideas and free speech should combat beliefs that it does not agree with - more speech and debate, not censorship.
We have adopted zero-tolerance policy against terrorism. We have not fed biryani to terrorists.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!