I'm afraid a smiley does not automatically make somethin funny Diasi. The paragraph you refer to says: "I think you would have to offer some more intellectually justifiable evidence than the biased opinion of one man, e.g., a proper legal summary of the complexity of this subject before I personally - and I would guess the law - would even begin to take his so called proof seriously." Could you point out what I have said that is personally offensive in this and I will apologise. I feel you should at least tell me what you are pointing to if you are going to say, in a post, that you are offended.
I was just pointing out that I could have taken offence at the way you put your point across, the "intellectually justifiable evidence" etc, you could just have asked for evidence of those parts of my post with which you don't agree.
In the event it didn't bother me & I didn't take offence which is why I put the
at the end.
Are these the facts that you dispute & for which you would like evidence?
A hate speech / incident doesn't require any evidence of an element of hate.
The person to which the hate speech / incident is directed doesn't have to perceive it as such.
A third party, such a professional 'I've been offended' warrior, who perceives that incident & probably every other incident they see as a hate crime, can report it based on their personal subjective view.
Police officers can take action based on their personal subjective views.
Evidence is not required, all that's needed is for anyone who thinks that it's a hate crime, based on their personal subjective view, to make a complaint.