And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14
You think we imprison people on a whim? If you think our humanistic system capable of it… that alone would justify your arrest.
Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler, “The Lives of Others”, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck 2006
One of the biggest sins a writer can commit is to amplify or heighten his points to levels of absurdities. Exaggeration is antithetical to reason, which is why cries of fascism, nazism, misogyny and white supremacy ring so hollow these days. The words have lost their meanings, by being being levelled at anyone not aligned with Leftist orthodoxy. When it can be said that Germaine Greer’s views “have no place in feminism”, this vocabulary have indeed lost all implications.
Recognising this principle, I still believe it appropriate to say that The Stasi has now come to Britain.
And, just as with the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, this reincarnation portrays itself as upholding moral values and defending the good. It claims to defend the weak, the downtrodden, the “minorities” from the crime of hate.
There are countless examples of this claim, but the two most sinister are Scottish MP Humza Yousaf’s so called “Hate Crime Bill” (which would make it illegal for a person to say anything “hateful” within the confine of their own homes) and The National Police Chiefs Council initiative ominously named “True Vision”.
The comedian Andrew Doyle, the mind behind the brilliant Titania McGrath, has already written superbly on Yousaf’s bill here, and I wouldn’t be able to add anything more of value to his exceptional exposé. The focus of this column will therefore be on the latter enterprise.
On the True Vision landing page, you are informed that “The Police don’t tolerate Hate Crime - why should you?”. The visitor is then encouraged to report “any crime as a hate crime where the victim or any other person perceives it was motivated by hostility or prejudice towards their identity”.
There are 5 primary categories of identity specified by this Ministry of anti-hate;
Disability Hate Crime
Race Hate Crime
Religious Hate Crime
Sexual Orientation Hate Crime
Transgender Hate Crime
And then, the miscellaneous “Other” Hate Crimes. In the calls for police action, you will find the chilling sentence “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element” - words Erich Mielke would have been proud of.
The ambiguity and dubiety is undoubtably intentional - a net so wide that it can catch all the fish in the ocean.
No one reading the guidelines outlined in this program can possibly claim to be innocent of every “crime” specified, as it’s humanly impossible. Where does hate start and suspicion or scepticism end? Who has the authority to determine this?
If you read Darwin, Gould and Thomas Hunt Morgan and it leads you inescapably to question the claim that, in this single mammalian species we call Homo Sapiens, there are more than two genders - are you committing a crime? Yes, says The National Police Chiefs Council.
If you, like I, escape the clutches of Islamofascism, and suddenly see those same ideas you escaped from rooting themselves in your sanctuary, and you speak out against it, are you guilty of a hate crime? Yes, say The National Police Chiefs Council.
If you have studied Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Shelby Steele, Jason L. Riley, Glenn Loury and John McWorther, and think that disparities between whites and blacks is not down to racism, are you a racist? Yes, say The National Police Chiefs Council.
Be Hateful!
Most readers will by now have noticed an inherent contradiction within the anti-hate doctrines;
What if one’s religion not only encourages but mandates hatred against the other protected groups?
Of course, the most obvious example is Islam and homosexuality. From the largest survey ever done of British Muslims:
52% of Muslims said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children.
“What do British Muslims really think?”, commissioned by Channel 4 to ICM
So, what now? Surely The National Police Chiefs Council must take action? But by doing so, it would break its own laws, since it is persecuting a minority based on their religious convictions. But if they don’t, they are negating their entire raison d'être. It’s not easy being the thought police…
Isn’t hate itself an essential, indispensable reaction? Should hate not, in fact, be encouraged?
The more liberal and open a society, the more fragile its ecosystem. It needs to be tended to, cared for, protected. Its greatest quality - liberalism - makes it vulnerable and exposed to its greatest enemies.
Is it therefore not the duty of every citizen to fight tooth and nail against ideas fundamentally antithetical to the foundation of her society? And is that possible without hating such ideas? Is it rational not to hate creeds and dogmas designed to oppress her? Is it even possible?
But it’s the grandiose, sinister delusions of The National Police Chiefs Council which is most alarming. That a bunch of bureaucrats assume to have the power to monitor, trial and convict free citizens of thought crimes - or of “non-crime hate incident” (a term even Orwell himself would not have thought of) - is as absurd as it is evil. It is the introduction of Stasi in British society.
It is the abdication and renunciation of every principle, of every axiom liberal society is built upon. It is the right of every free citizen to hate, just as much as to love. And no Police Chiefs Council can ever say otherwise. Hatred cannot be legislated against any more than other emotions and thoughts.
As Christopher Hitchens said, when opposing similar initiatives in Canada:
You're giving away what's most precious in your own society and you're giving it away without a fight and you're even praising the people who want to deny you the right to resist it. Shame on you while you do this. Make the best use of the time you've got left. This is really serious.