Do you know what a “hate crime” is? When you hear (or read) something, can you determine whether it is “hate speech?” A school in California is not concerned by some students telling Jewish students that all Jews and Israelis should be killed. The educrats investigated and determined that was not “hate speech” but just political speech. How did they determine that? How would you, dear reader, decide?

It is not just a Woke California school taking this position. The now-ex-president of Harvard seems to share the view. (And is there any indication that getting rid of their embarrassment has changed Harvard’s position?) Many other institutions and a fair number of street mobs seem to share the hatred of Jews and Israelis and urge them to be killed.

Both some conservatives (and a few self-defined liberals) point out that it is as much hypocrisy as anything to give an exemption. After all, they say, if the same things were said about and to African-Americans, or Native Americans, or Latinos, would that not be considered hate speech and banned by the institutions? Even punished?

Many of us, I know, consider the entire idea of “hate crimes” to be tyrannical, at the minimum. After all, why should someone be punished more for attacking, injuring, or killing someone because they hated them personally, because they were part of a group the attacker hated, or because it was a random act of violence? But hate crime laws make the second reason the grounds for a harsher penalty.

And laws against hate speech also seem to be tyrannical and to violate the God-given right of free speech. Again, is not our reasoning similar? We are to understand that it is an attack when we tell a person that the group(s) with which they are identified is/are hated and all members of it should be killed. And that such a verbal attack is worse than telling that individual that they should be killed. If I understand it correctly, the standard for “hate speech” is more broad than the usual definition of actual verbal threats to wound, maim, or kill someone.

Here at TPOL, we’ve heard the argument that it is okay to say these things and hate Jews and Israelis because they are not a “race.” Hate speech and hate crimes, we are told apply only to inherent, immutable characteristics. Like skin color eye shape and ancestry. And being a Jew is a religion, not necessarily inherited. And being Israeli is a nationality.

Nationality? It is okay, I understand, to hate Russians. To hate Venezuelans. Because of their political government’s stance. But we aren’t to hate those Russians or Venezuelans when they are fleeing or have fled their country. Regardless of reason: they are migrants and we must love them, not hate them.

At the same time, we are told it is wrong (as defined as banned and punished by government) to hate Muslims. In fact, many claim that Islamophobia is just a form of racism. It isn’t, they say, about religion but origin.

I guess we here at TPOL just are unable to comprehend this. But it does seem that both the so-called Conservatives and so-called Liberals, are both being hypocrites in this matter.

It makes sense that people don’t like being told they are hated and should be killed. And we understand that there is a difference between a general “all you kind of folks need to be killed” and “I’m gonna kill you.” But unless someone is actively trying to kill that person or group, or obviously planning to kill them, is that not free speech?

Today, of course, more and more people seem to say (even scream) that no one should be offended by words, by speech. In practice, does not this boil down to “no one who agrees with me should be offended by words”? After all, why does speech that everyone agrees with need protection?

So when what someone says gets us angry, upset, or “offended,” should that not be precisely the speech that people should have a right to say?

Just thinking, this January afternoon.