Hatred is an emotion, disagreement is an intellectual position.

Both may reside in the one person simultaneously.

But to ignore the possibility of disagreement-without-hatred, turns every opposition into hate-speech. I had a chuckle at his phrase “the majority of average Tasmanians”.

There is no such thing as a majority of the average.

The average is a putative singleton.

So my disagreement must constitute hate-speech in David’s eyes.

Unfortunately, some marriage equality proponents rely on linguistic nonsense and pejorative language to make their case.

Mr Broughton wants to nip in the bud every argument against marriage equality.

He does not like the marketplace of ideas; he opposes free speech; he belittles the democratic process.

Mr Broughton did not acknowledge the representative function of our Parliamentarians.

Their job is to represent the “majority of average Tasmanians” whom he maligns.

I suspect that he is afraid that the architects of “public” opinion have lost some of their power of persuasion, as the Brexit vote, the Trump and Lambie/Hanson/Xenophon phenomena indicate.

The citizens of the West are starting to turn away from being cajoled into what to believe.

He is not helping his cause.

THE idea is being mooted for Parliament to be increased to 35 members to take the workload off those already sitting in the house.

Maybe people should remember that it's not just extra MPs but they would all have minders and other staffers, probably earning more than the MPs for their advice.

If we can't employ more nurses and teachers how can we possible afford more MPs and their hangers on?