In a supreme effort to censor opposition left-wing zealots are pushing harder than ever to close down contrary opinion and rational debate.The assault is ramping up as they continue their campaign to label certain expressions of free speech as hate speech and, therefore by default, a hate crime. Here is why libertarians everywhere should fight 'tooth and nail' against this shifting war on words of freedom...
FREE SPEECH MATTERS
From Free Speech to Hate Speech and Hate Crime
LEFT-WING LIBERALISM is now being challenged to an extent it was never dreamt possible. Exposed and unmasked, dishonest left-wing media channels, news networks, activist groups, universities and colleges, and SJW's are floundering, spluttering, gasping and stretched like never before…………….
Desperate to regain control of the narrative the liberal left are ramping up their assault on free speech. This is no more evident than in the relatively sudden introduction of accusations of ‘hate speech’ and the accompanying offences they generate and label as ‘hate crime’. Most will probably have heard these increasingly familiar cries which are now becoming a popular addition to the liberal left’s catalogue of politically correct wonder words (along with old favourites like ‘racism’, ‘Islamophobia’). And we know these words have been unashamedly high-jacked (as in the case of racism) or concocted (as in the case of Islamophobia), by the far left in particular. The purpose of this selective appropriation of words has, moreover, never been a mystery – that purpose being to silence any point of view, any argument or opinion, other than their own.
So much is common knowledge but there remains, for those on the sensible side of reason, at least two questions that urgently need addressing: the first of these is, just what is meant by ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’? The second question is, how should normal people respond to these accusations, and generally deal with this assault on free speech?
Now, it might be pointed out that it has not yet (here anyway) been established that the introduction of hate speech and hate crime actually does pose a threat to free speech. Indeed, one might respond that such categories may provide us (and the relevant authorities) with better tools for dealing with terrorist propaganda, radicalisation, and incitement to violence for instance. And this may very well be true. Or at least it would be somewhat true if this was the express purpose and implementation of these categories of speech and crime. The problem is it’s not. And in the course of unpacking just what ‘hate speech and crime’ actually involve it will hopefully be seen that what lies behind many, if not most, of these shallow allegations is next to nothing.
Nothing at all, that is, beyond heavily censoring free speech, suppressing freedom of thought, and criminalising opposition to radical hard-left neo-Marxist political doctrine.
Accusations of hate speech and hate crime are becoming increasingly frequent. Like accusations of racism, Islamophobia, transphobia, Nazism, fascism, white supremacy, along with popularism, patriotism, and nationalism the ‘hate’ couplet have become part of the far, extreme, and ctrl-left’s (Control Left’s) arsenal of word weapons. These nasty-minded weapons of political correctness and conquest are fired off, by liberal ideologues, at just about anyone audacious enough to question hard-left ideology – and even those simply suspected of dissent. The intention is always the same, however - to shut down debate, stifle discussion, subvert reason, and circumvent the truth (and even reality at times). Indeed recently it has become increasingly evident that the intention may be far more insidious - which is to say, to flatly replace or even criminalise the truth if it does not fit the leftist ideology.
But let's not be distracted, rather we should return to the precise matter in hand, what is ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’? Before this, though, just a word or two about the term ‘control left’ or ‘ctrl-left’ as presented above. This is introduced as a broad term and abbreviation to distinguish the vast number of snowflakes, moderates, and extremists on the liberal left and extreme left that are dedicated, in particular, to controlling so much of what we might do, think, or say. However, what to some extent distinguishes these far-left liberals from other leftists is their focus on, or occupation within, the media as a means of further their political agenda. The ‘ctrl-left’ are, then, typically found operating in or from left-wing press and media organisations or heavily biased leftist television channels that support a broadly neo-Marxist socialist agenda dedicated to shutting down debate, banning discussion, and silencing opposition by any means at their disposal.
The influence the Ctrl-left has had should not be underestimated. Furthermore, the knock-on effect of this blatant media bias has been to encourage support (often including taxpayer-funded financial support) of a number of radically liberal and/or extremist organisations that are pushing political ideologies that a large proportion of the public do not subscribe to or are even vehemently opposed to. Worse that this, however and if can possibly be worse, some of these organisations are peddling highly contentious (to be polite about it) views and ideologies that fly square in the face of substantial scientific evidence. Not that this seems to matter just so long as they can convince everyone of their flat-Earth hypothesis - or criminalise denial.
A perfect example of the above presented itself in several newspaper reports on and around 24th Feb 2018. On this occasion the Daily Mail, amongst others, outlined the case (first appearing in the Times Education Supplement) of a teacher that had been reported to the police for the ‘crime’ of not using the appropriate pronouns when referring to a certain pupil. The pupil, a child of unreported age at the time, was apparently a transgender ‘male’ and demanded that ‘he’ be referred to as such. What we might assume this meant in the real world is that this psychologically confused girl, plainly born a biological female, decided (or, more likely, was persuaded) she wanted to be identified as a boy. Little other information regarding the background to this child’s story was proffered. However, it would hardly be surprising were we to find that her parents, probably Malcolm and Cressida (Viz type), were complicit in at least aggravating this delusional young girl's confusion.
Regardless, none of this mattered because in the event the police were called and promptly attended. The initial call was made by a self-righteous left-wing gang of gender identity thugs that call themselves ‘Mermaids’ of all things, the hypocrisy (and irony) of which clearly eludes them – but perhaps some members are Manmaids, or Mermales? Whatever they are called, their equally delusional website is truly something to behold. Incredibly this group are funded by Children in Need. If you have concerns regarding the whole ‘gender identity’ issue that has surfaced relatively recently then it's worth looking at this truly disgraceful bunch just to see what rational thinking people are up against. You might, moreover, think again before donating so much as a penny to charities like Children in Need when you consider 'Mermaids' are the kind of politically motivated extreme left activists they are funding with your cash. 'Mermaids' is certainly one those charity organisations (yes, it has charity status too) that deserves closer scrutiny, but we shall leave that for another time and place (and there will be another time and place).
Returning to the disgraceful tribulations of our errant educator, as incredible as it may seem to any rational, reasonable, thinking person the police not only attended but went on to warn the wicked teacher that his horrifying ‘misuse’ of certain pronouns constituted a heinous ‘hate crime’. Yes, you read that aright – apparently in Britain today calling someone by the wrong pronoun is a crime, even where you are biologically and therefore scientifically justified in doing so. Why? Because according to the rhetoric propounded by these 'Mermaids' gender is only contingently assigned at birth. Some people suffer from ‘gender dysphoria’ so even though they are evidently (biologically) male they identify as, for instance, female. By ‘identify’ what they mean here is ‘call themselves’ or refer to themselves as, female - but here’s the crux, so must you, or you are breaking the law. You are compelled by law, or so it seems, to go along with the delusion of a mentally disturbed youngster who thinks they are the sex/gender they claim to be, even when it is simply and biologically not true. You must comply with their fantasy because, to not do so, mean possible prosecution under 'hate crime' legislation.
Science apparently no longer matters, empirical evidence is out of bounds, what matters, and crucially what determines gender identity, is what you say you are - period. That is, sexual identity is determined not by biological science but by gender or transgender identity defined by preference according to the individual, and it’s against the law to speak in a way that denies this. How is it against the law?
Well, it seems that to use these (true) words can cause terrifying and 'hurtful' offence, and is therefore contrary to the Equality Act 2010 as this is what constitutes a 'hate crime'. At least this appears to be the interpretation of the law according to the SWAT team at the scene - which is all that matters apparently. The small article inside the pages of the Daily Mail did not say what subsequently happened to the offending teacher, which is to say whether he was simply chastised, or sacked, or charged, or sentenced to death, or none of these.
From the above we can, then, deduce, that when it comes to sexing the species homo sapien we no longer look to the transparent, unequivocal, biological facts. No, what we do is ask the individual, presumably at the earliest opportunity, what they would like to be - and that settles the issue. On a more serious note, though, what really beggars belief is that the police actually took this even slightly seriously. At a time when senior police officials are whinging and moaning about a desperate shortage in manpower and resources their overworked under-funded officers rushed to the scene of this terrible 'crime'. They are, we are constantly told, stretched to breaking point and can no longer investigate many 'real' crimes such as burglary, shoplifting, damage to property, theft of motor vehicles, etc. But nasty pronouns were more than they could bear and a prompt visit was the law and order of the day.
Apparently this crime was no ordinary crime, or so it seems, rather it was that most diabolical of offences, a 'hate crime'. Someone had, allegedly, used bad words, words that caused great offence, misery, harm, and destruction (according to the Mermaids), hate-filled words that implied a youngster who is a female is girl. These are apparently incendiary pronouns, banned words, illegal semantics. If one is to avoid potential arrest hideously wrong pronouns must not be mentioned for they are hate speech, and therefore by definition a hate crime. Only words approved by these 'word police', these authorities on what must or must not be said, are permissible and to waver is to invite legal prosecution.
(There is an exception, a particular protected group, that is mostly immune from prosecution in the UK. In this case not only are the 'wrong' pronouns probably ignored but some of the most vile, hate-fuelled, misogynistic, aggressive, anti-semitic, violence-inciting, speech imaginable. Hate speech spewed by segments of this victim group, however, rarely appears to be viewed as a 'hate crime', let alone lead to procecution for such.)
Now let’s be crystalline about this issue; allegedly hard-pressed law enforcement, in having to make all those ‘difficult decisions’ about which crimes to investigate and which (essentially) to not bother with, deemed this intentional misuse of language a crime of a magnitude significant enough that they should attend and investigate the allegation. If your house is burgled by a 15-year-old rat-faced caravan dweller who adorns himself with your wife’s underwear (because he’s ‘gender fluid’), and has a dump on your lounge carpet as he departs the local police will, if you are lucky, provide you with a ‘crime number’. That way you can at least claim on your ever-rising home insurance policy. But don’t expect a visit any time soon from the local plod because ‘they don’t have enough officers on the beat’ and since no physical harm was involved it’s ‘not a priority’ anyway.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's look at this example from a slightly different angle. Suppose instead that you get home just in time to catch our gender fluid burglar 'Rat-Face' red-handed? Well, given how certain cases have been reported lately calling the police will probably result in the suggestion that you take the nice gentleman’s name and address and let him be on his way. You could even ask Rat-Face nicely if he wouldn't mind not taking with him all your hard-earned valuables, but don't press unduly, least we avoid any unpleasantness or nasty confrontation. Then, when an officer has a little spare time on his or her hands, they will pop round to his caravan and ask dear old Rat-Face if he wouldn’t mind owning up to his misdeeds.
Imagine now, however, that this burglary scenario takes yet another turn in events. While you're speaking on the phone to the police, and holding Rat-Face by the scruff of his filthy neck, he quietly pulls out his newly stolen iPhone and calls the police himself. In a hushed, gravelly, tone he tells them that whilst grabbing his collar you gender misidentified ‘her’ and that, since ‘she’ was wearing your wife’s underwear, it was very clear he should be referred to as ‘she’. Moreover, Rat-Face might even have told you as much, yet unpersuaded you continued to offend and abuse 'her' with the wrong pronouns both personally and when talking to the police about ‘her’.
Yes, this is a bit stupid but do stick with it if you can, what's important is the moral/conceptual point underlying the otherwise ridiculous scenario.
Going by the unfolding of events in the case of the terrible teacher one could fully expect sirens blazing and a quick arrest, but not of Rat-Face – of you. This sounds daft, or at least it should, but the reality is it’s not. Events something like this are occurring all over the UK and even a cursory perusal of the papers or an online search will reveal just how endemic problems of this nature are. UK police forces up and down the country have swung so far left they have all but fallen off the edge. Nothing in the story (of the mealy-mouthed teacher) makes much in the way of common-sense, as is the case in our tongue-in-cheek but apt example of Rat-Face. Moreover Rat-Face’s swarthy complexion, heavy build, shaven tattooed head, goatie beard, and decorated knuckles are no help to you here because your crime, of not playing the gender identity game, is perceived of as the greater offence by a veritable mile and more.
Incredibly, in the same issue of the Daily Mail a two-page spread outlines the truly disgusting crimes, committed by predominantly Pakistani Muslim gangs, of the rape, abuse, slavery, and prostitution of young white girls and children that continues to grow in towns and cities across the country. According to this report very little has changed since the Rotherham scandal of 2011 and the relevant agencies (e.g. police, social services, CPS, Local councils) continue to put their collective heads in the sand. This very real horror story continues to grow, with token trials of a few of the more prolific gangs being publicised just so we all get the message – 'see, we really are doing something'. More recently still a similar scandal in Telford where more than a 1000 young white girls and children have reportedly been raped and abused, again by mostly Pakistani Muslim gangs, has surfaced and the police, mainstream media, and other relevant authorities are again attempting to hush it all away. The fact is the police (and all the other agencies involved) remain very reluctant to do anything substantial to help these children because of the continued threat that it might be perceived as politically incorrect and, much worse, results in them being branded a racist organisation or individual. This was the case with Rotherham, it persists there, and in very many other places across the country to this day.
No such problem exists when following up and investigating a ‘hate crime’, however, on the contrary there go our good old British bobbies flying the flag for the LGBT…QZXY, etc community (most of Mermaids ‘staff’ are card-carrying members it seems). Using the wrong pronouns is such a dreadful, evil, use of words, of language, that it must be stamped out at all costs. Bad words can be offensive, they can hurt feelings, and that is a very serious crime indeed (apparently). The question must be asked, and indeed often is asked, at what point in our history did we as a nation, as a people, decide that offending someone or hurting their feelings, with the 'wrong' words become criminal offence punishable with imprisonment? How do we get to a point where certain attempts at contrary opinion, opposing words, dissenting narrative, are construed as 'hate speech' and, consequently, a 'hate crime'?
Much more can be, and needs to be, said about 'hate speech' and the myths of gender identity and this is in fact something that is scrutinised much further in another article. For present purposes the point made here, with the aid of the examples above, is that the way in which ‘hate crime’ is construed is of paramount importance. That hate crimes exist and are perpetrated is not something one can seriously contest. Some bad people do indeed commit crimes against other persons and/or their property, family, etc, motivated purely by hatred of and for the victim’s race, religion, gender, creed, etc.
The murder and systematic persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt cannot seriously be seen as rooted in anything other than hate for the religious beliefs of the victims. This is of course an inconvenient ‘hate crime’ for many far-left movements and the Control-Left media and press in the UK who are more inclined to publicise those instances that involve their preferred victims (members of the protected groups). Nonetheless, the fact remains hate crime exists and where it is actually found it can be absolutely abhorent. Troubles creep in, though, when people start accepting blanket assumptions about what kinds of free speech constitute hate speech or that hate speech is or should be, by default, a hate crime.
And there are further problems besides: firstly, there are great differences in the severity of crimes committed and, therefore, common-sense should dictate that saying things that hurt feelings is not a very serious offence at all. In reality there is no justifiable reason for censoring, in this way, almost anything people say to each other – there is every reason not to. Secondly, outlawing speech acts of any kind simply because they offend or hurt feelings is a very dangerous thing to do. Hateful speech may very well be distasteful, offensive, or hurtful, and perhaps should be discouraged. But to ban it through legislation is not, in the end, a victory for anyone.
To go the further step of cherry-picking, on such a ludicrously loose criterion as 'offensiveness', specific speech acts that count as hate speech is the road to hell. To then legislate against use of such speech and elevate its status to that of a ‘hate crime’ simply because someone doesn’t like it, is offended by it, is a disgraceful infringement of a fundamental human freedom. To then enforce, through legislation, the use of certain words (as appears to have happened in Canada) is to elevate this infringment to an absolute violation and atrocity that has no equal in human history. Such a violation is a crime against humanity itself, against the very nature of a free and healthy society and, most important of all, against the fundamental right to liberty and freedom itself.