Free Speech

I was recently putting a case rather forcefully on Facebook that it was wrong to think vilification laws were a universally good idea because:
1. People's experience differs and people build prejudices on their experience.  Someone might say 'All men are bastards' and we might look at their life, their social circle (Cabinet?) and conclude they were making a fair enough point rather clumsily.
2.  The law is a slow and blunt instrument; and trying to legislate on behalf of every group who might identify themselves in a pejorative adjective is infeasible.

But, I thought to myself later, is there not progress of political ideas?  This was partly informed by my thinking about secularism, legitimacy and genuineness.  At some point, western societies began to give up on 'legitimacy' and be satisfied with 'genuineness' - a real Quaker is accepted as better than a fake Anglican.

If WWII taught us anything (and let's hope it did) surely the lessons were: 'give refuge', and 'in fighting and dying, all are equal.' Out of those lessons come the UN conventions on refugees, human rights and so on, and within states, you get the fulfillment of the new deal, the national health and the economic liberality of the fifties trying to respect the sacrifices of the troops.  Mussolini was elected on a platform of fascist racism.  That was what his brochure said about him.  Now, that sounds absurd. (National socialism sounds a lot better...)

Is it wrong to codify these lessons in law? Do we really have to win the argument again and again?

The Prime Minister of Australia persists in describing asylum seekers as illegals, the Treasurer wants to talk about the 50% of our lives in which we are too young, too old, too unskilled or physically disabled as being a leaner, a shirker, a rorter.  The labels are pejorative and wrong.