1984 Redux?

By Nathan Barton

The United Kingdom, once a land of far more liberty than 95% of the world, has become the poster child for the new “democratic despotism” which (like all forms of involuntary government) seeks to control not just the lives but the thoughts of those under its rule.

“Hate crimes” are defined by the Royal government as: A crime that the victim or any other person perceives to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards any aspect of a person’s identity. Police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland annually monitor five strands of Hate Crime:

  • Disability
  • Gender Identity
  • Race, Ethnicity or Nationality
  • Religion, Faith or Belief
  • Sexual Orientation

“Hate incidents” are “Any incident, which may or may not be a crime, that the victim or any other person perceives to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards any aspect of a person’s identity.”

Her Majesty’s civil servants (including the police) tell those “victims: “If you think it is, it is. Whatever they call you, call us.

How very “newspeak” this is. Not just the “victim,” but ANY OTHER PERSON can “perceive” any action “to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards any aspect of a person’s identity.” The aspects are NOT limited to just those five categories. Nor is it limited to some criminal activity: some crime or act of aggression against the person.

For example, it could be applied to a man who stands up for a woman he thinks is being harassed or is in danger. If she is an extreme feminist, and does not want him to come to her aid, she can file this as a “hate incident,” claiming that he “was prejudiced” against her by assuming (a) she could not take care of herself, and/or (b) he was wrong in perceiving that she perceived that she was in danger. In an extreme case, the charge could be levied (and this might even be a hate crime, not just a “hate incident”) if someone sees someone trying to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff or bridge, and put their hands on the person to pull them back: physical assault.

There is, that I can see, no limit on what can be “perceived” as a hate crime. Grab that special sale item out of the bin at M&S or Aldi before the woman beside you could? If she perceives that you did that because you were prejudiced against her because she was a woman, a woman of color, a woman of lower (or higher) social status, then can rat you out as a hater.

Didn’t intend that? Sorry, you don’t get to decide: the offended person does.

But it isn’t just in the UK that this is happening. The trend seems to be present around the world.

It can and is in social media, in the classroom, in the workplace, and in any public or private place. No witnesses are needed; the word of the “victim” or anyone else is sufficient to cause a police investigation. And to be castigated by the social media “police” and the media and any one else. No matter what their relationship is. Apparently, the UK police can define “unfriendliness” as a form of hostility to justify a charge of hate incident or hate crime.

And with the new laws about “snatch then perform due process” for government stealing guns, no doubt the list of freedoms stolen by this bizarre attitude will be long. But here are a few:

  • freedom of speech
  • right to keep and bear arms
  • freedom of association

How bad will it get? Look around and decide. “Officer, he called me a girl, because he is prejudiced against fat women.” “Officer, she called me a boy, because she is prejudiced against people of color.” “Officer, she didn’t go on a date when I asked her to, because she doesn’t like tall men.” “Officer, he wouldn’t join our club because he believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong and therefore looks down on us as ‘sluts.'”

The list is endless. We have accepted society and government as having power over us that not even the Creator exercises.

Mama’s Note: As with so many other things, here in America I believe this idiocy is pretty much limited to cities, maybe the universities and liberal “clubs.” At least it doesn’t have the weight of law at this point. There sure isn’t any of this obvious in the sticks where I live. But I have read that this attitude is seriously affecting how young people date, and is reducing the number of young men willing to marry anyone.

I just wonder how long the people of Europe, especially the UK, will tolerate this nonsense. They are indeed long suffering, but somewhere down deep I think the spirit of William Wallace, and all of the other storied freedom heroes of the past, still lingers.

About tpolnathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (christian), Pahasapan, Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer.
This entry was posted in Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to 1984 Redux?

  1. beau says:

    obviously not all Brits agree with the ‘offensive’ claptrap put forth to serve the totalitarian need to censor reality and substitute propaganda in its place:

    “It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.”

    Stephen Fry (born 1957), The Guardian, 5 June 2005

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s