The whole point is... we don't need to!!
We can discuss immigration in general. We don't need to hone in on the specifics of race or religion. We can discuss marriage in general. We don't need to discuss whether the person is heterosexual or homosexual. We can discuss foreign investment all we like, but we shouldn't be focussing on the fear-mongering peddled for a political cause.
We might feel better having France build our submarines rather than a country we consider a 'threat'. But there's no guarantee that the latter country doesn't have a spy (or spies) firmly planted in the French company to begin with. So what's the difference?
You may find it stifling to be a white, middle-aged heterosexual male, but that means you just don't get it. If you look at issues objectively, rather than with prejudice (which is what this whole thing is about), then you can't ever find yourself 'stifled'.
The debate about immigration has been going on for decades... since the ending of the so called ‘white Australia’ policy. The issues haven’t really changed. It’s one group after the other that get subjected to the same prejudice. Starting with Asian immigration, now Sudanese. The debate shouldn’t be about the race (or religion) but about how to provide the services and infrastructure to prevent the issues (and prejudice) that are faced by those we welcome.
Society makes laws through parliament. That means the majority rule. The harms identified are very real. Just one example of many... youth suicide in the LGBT community is a major issue. We shouldn’t have people contributing to that harm under the banner of ‘free speech’.
Debate the issues, not the person, and no one should feel stifled or that their free speech is curtailed.
So these debates that we've all been having for decades about "the issues", can only be accomplished if all elephants in rooms are ignored and references to the stakeholders and specifics of any kind are excluded? That's just not sensible.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens though, if you can call it a debate. As soon as someone says, for example, "the Chinese buy too much of our land", the racist chants commence. But somehow, in the interests of keeping it general, I doubt we're going see much discussion about how little land other countries are buying though. No-one likes beating around the bush.
I'm a scientist. I'm trained to look at things subjectively, objectively and most of all, critically, despite your suggestion to the contrary. (But hey, you don't know me so what were you saying about not playing the person?) Anyway, I write Impact Assessments for a living. It's not possible to do that properly without looking at the potential for harm or risk that a particular proposal may bring. A robust debate is no different. If you want to shut down those wanting to discuss the downsides, provided it's done within the bounds of lawful speech, then, as I said, we're not able to have a civil and mature debate.
I was specifically referring to the fear-mongering spouted when objectivity and critical analysis is brought into the debate. It is presented as finger-pointing and name-calling by those on hobby horses. Because of who/what I am, I'm the first to be stifled.
Also, I have worked on the submarine project and your secret squirrel theories might be interesting to a few blokes I know. I'll report back on their level of naivety next time I see them.