“Hate” crimes (and worse, NON-crimes) should form no part of the law or of police activity. Quite apart from the fact that they are always cynical manipulations by the left and more often than not it’s the politicised police and CPS officials who are doing the hating, people are perfectly entitled to hate whoever they like. All that matters is that they don’t disciminate against them. The two are not the same thing.
Indeed. There needs to be more discrimination. Not on the basis of skin colour but against bad actors.
As far as hate speech is concerned – particularly non-crime hate incidents – while I deplore the legislation the answer is to vigorously and repeatedly report hate speech by the left who are the most flagrant purveyors of hate.
Nearly … All that matters is that they don’t incite imminent violence or illegality, nor defame someone. Otherwise I agree.
Madeleine Jones
2 years ago
I’ll make a provocative statement: people have the right to hate. When you get down to it, hatred is an emotion (or collection of them), and laws should not regulate them. Groups and individuals must know that not everyone will love, or accept them.
Is hatred desirable, or should be encouraged? Probably not. I used to feel an intense hatred towards those who hurt me, and sure, it dragged me down. But I still had that right to have those emotions. I don’t want a government or NGO to say what I can’t feel or express.
I am proudly blocked by Hope Not Hate on Twitter – who have such a childish outlook on politics and well, hate.
To be blocked by such an odious and shameful outfit as Hope Not Hate is a badge of honour Madeleine, and means you are a fair minded individual who is willing to listen to what others have to say and who has the maturity and decency to allow others to have views that may not align with your own.
About six months ago an 86-year old woman responded to a tweet by tweeting that people were either male or female with nothing between. There was a complaint and she was visited by the police. It was recorded as a ‘hate incident’.
The original tweeter then came back with a comment like, “You are an old cow and you deserve to die soon”. She reported this to the police but no action was taken. It was not deemed to be a hate incident.
However, all this comes from the Home Office who issue priorities to the police. Hate crime has become trendy and Chief Constables compete to have the best figures. Promotions within the police forces may depend on the response to the challenge of hate crime. Obviously it is an easy option for the police.
The story you relate is so appalling – in fact, so evil – that at first I was lost for words. Now I have calmed down: this is not just; we speak so much of the justice system but very little about the small word at its heart – (being) just. It’s self-evidently not just to persecute anyone for an opinion that was considered true until yesterday, let alone an 86-year old; it’s self-evidently not just to then fail to similarly persecute her persecutor for elder abuse and wishing her death. Being just demands that if one is a ‘hate incident’ then so is the other.
The one virtue that OT prophets are united in crying out for, without exception, is justice because they saw being just as a divine commandment. Even if one is not a believer, being just is the bedrock of any good society.
The article was lifted straight from The Daily Mail about 6 months ago. The newspaper said that the lady’s mistake was to tweet under her own name with her own photo, thus supplying ammunition for the attack. Of course, the attacker used a pseudonym.
An appalling story. But to the policeman involved it chalked up a hate incident with little effort for the benefit of his superior at little risk of comeback as it didn’t actually destroy her life as at 86 she is unlikely to be looking for employment. In contrast to track down the really hateful message would have involved real police effort to track down a young caring woke who was just expressing justifiable outrage on behalf of an oppressed minority.
I think it is appalling because a non crime hate incident has instantiated the paradigm of Impact Over Intent, an idea discussed on the EverydayFeminism dot com website. IMO, this concept is an ideological Trojan Horse.
1stly, it smuggles in a fundamental change to how we understand moral reasoning to work. For assessing guilt, intent is an essential component, but now that assessment relies on a shift from intent to impact.
2ndly, I think it smuggles in a fundamental change to the purpose of spoken communication, by changing who controls and determines the meaning of a person’s spoken expression. It does this by denying and removing the speaker’s agency and self autonomy for their thoughts and feelings and shifts their locus of control to the listener by only recognising their agency and self autonomy.
3rdly, by that recognition, it smuggles in the cognitive distortion of emotional reasoning, in which, contrary to the speaker’s intent, the listener’s feelings are justified by inferring and interpreting that the speaker committed hateful speech, based on assuming an uncharitable and negative position towards them.[As outlined in Haidt and Lukianoff: The Coddling of the American Mind]
So what sits at a Non Crime Hate Incident’s heart IMO, is an ideological paradigm that denies and removes a person’s agency to act as a sovereign individual human being – it unpersons them by the other facet of compelled speech – compelled meaning.
As a Canadian I find it depressing that the UK has sunk so low. Justin Trudeau is trying to get us there – but he is at least getting resistance. Our Supreme Court recently narrowed the ability of Human Rights tribunals to police speech.
Well, easier…but don’t they themselves feel like fking berks knocking on someone’s door with these allegations and making an arrest based on such?
They’re playing the game, and maybe it is physically easier than jousting with thuggish violent actual villains..but do they actually believe in this nonsense ?
Matthew Powell
2 years ago
The police and the judiciary in this country are thoroughly politicised and can no longer be trusted. They pick and chose which laws to up hold, apply double standards based on the identity and politics of the perpetrators and have essentially invented the concept of non crime hate incidents, which they use to intimidate and harass political opponents.
They do not have my consent.
Last edited 2 years ago by Matthew Powell
Terry Needham
2 years ago
Interesting read, but one quibble: There has been no “visible policing on the street” for decades.
“Under the Saxon organization of England, each county or shire comprised an indefinite number of hundreds, each hundred containing ten tithings, or groups of ten families of freeholders or frankpledges. The hundred was governed by a high constable, and had its own court; but its most remarkable feature was the corporate responsibility of the whole for the crimes or defaults of the individual members.”
They were the citizen police similar, to the Sheriff’s Posse.
I picture the the iconic two pairs of ankles in sensible shoes plodding down sidewalk in time, in THE BILL…but there was a fair bit of Woke even in that show.
Last edited 1 year ago by Patrick 8888
Brendan O'Leary
2 years ago
All categories of “hate crime” should be struck off the law books.
They have destroyed the impartiality of the police, eroded trust in the law, and made proper discourse impossible.
I do not hate individual transsexuals unless they behave in an aggressive and threatening manner towards me. I viscerally hate an ideology that tells young lesbians and autistic women that they are ‘really’ men and should have their healthy breasts cut off. I do not hate anyone because of a physical characteristic of any kind. I hate an ideology that tells a young working class man who has never had a proper job that he has ‘white privilege’ over a doctor or lawyer.
Being abusive to individuals because of a characteristic that makes them different from the mainstream is not acceptable. If that abuse turns to physical threats and violence, it should be treated as a crime. Disagreeing with the ideology that someone believes must never, ever be treated as a crime. The problem is that the police no longer seem to know the difference.
Jon Redman
2 years ago
A question I would like to put to Julie Bindel is whether she believes there is such a thing as heterophobia, and if so, whether she thinks it’s a crime.
she’d sue you for “having an heterosexual laugh at her expense”.
Rod McLaughlin
2 years ago
“Of course, it is often sensible for police to keep records of especially upsetting or threatening behaviour that nevertheless misses the threshold for criminal prosecution.”
It’s surprising how many sentences which begin “of course” are not obviously true at all.
In general, I think this article is good, but too mild, and the author could learn from the more rigorous American system.
Frederick B
2 years ago
Nearly twelve years now of a “Conservative” (or Conservative led) government, the present version with a majority of eighty, yet STILL we have to suffer this indignity of so-called “hate crimes”!
Can we please have a conservative government in place of this bunch of centre-left wimps.
You can vote for Reclaim, Reform, or the tiny rump of UKIP.
None of them can win. So, the answer is ‘No you can’t’
David McDowell
2 years ago
Might have been better to have included references to how the police studiously ignored large scale rape of vulnerable white girls while taking bribes from their attackers.
The article does refer to Lords Bramall and Brittan.
Peter LR
2 years ago
‘Hate crimes’ and ‘hate speech’ have just become the endorsement of paranoia.
David Uzzaman
2 years ago
The period prior to the introduction of Robert Peels police force was characterised by widespread lawlessness because the earlier system of parish constables was inadequate. I think we are in a similar situation today. The police have essentially abandoned the streets whilst they pursue social engineering. A radical reform is necessary. Robert Peels strategy was a highly visible presence meant to reassure the law abiding and deter the criminals. Who honestly is reassured by the current police forces?
Recently here in main street, I see three uniformed officers strolling…two males flanking one female. Both males are smaller physically than I am, and I am only medium height/weight if perhaps semi-athletic in build.
The female between them would be hard up to hit 1.5m mark…as well as beach-ball shaped.
The police ‘swarm’ Chelsea beach more than once because it has been taken over by a swarm of African-youth (primarily Sudanese)..many of the young Sudanese women even are as tall or taller than I am , let alone the males (and yes, btw, when these problems occur there is a significant female participation, it’s not just males by any means..mindless affrays with African women rivals affray with African males in incidence).
A large proportion of the police ‘swarm’ is always female, and these are giving away half a metre height to the Africans they are trying to..well, I guess the objective is to deter , awe, ie intimidate.
I wonder if they feel as useless and ridiculous as all of this looks.
BTW, when you question this grade of police recruitment to the Woke brigade..you might be told that apparently virtually street-useless pint-sized female police …….have…….”negotiating skills“
Most of the ones I speak to do not strike me as likely to have even that.
In calibre, the ones in highway/traffic patrol bubble-gum machines strike me as checkout-chicks with guns and badges.
Last edited 1 year ago by Patrick 8888
Jacqueline Burns
2 years ago
The ony time they seem to not recognise a real hate crime is when people threaten, or actually do, kill Jewish people. That seems to be OK especially when the offender is of a certain persuasion.
Last edited 2 years ago by Jacqueline Burns
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
“The usual apologies were made by Dame Cressida Dyck.”
*The usual apologies were made by pantomime dame Troilus Peanis.
“The service is run with the blessing and cooperation of the public rather than an arm of the state”
Believe that, and you will believe anything. We are living in a police state and have been for years,albeit a rather benign one.
I’d say that it is both. An arm of the state with blessing /co-op of public..
Dave Mark
2 years ago
“Moooom! That boy at school was meeaan to me!”
“What did he do to you, honey?”
“When we were on the playground, he looked at me!!! It was horrible!”
“But he didn’t actually do anything?”
“Mom! You’re not listening! He looked at me!”
David Guest
2 years ago
“…so it can be perhaps just the way that somebody looks at you…”
What a ridiculous state of affairs. What a complete waste of police forces’ time and tax payers’ money.
Samuel Gee
2 years ago
Ironically for the MPS and other forces, regular ocurrences of police officers reporting corruption or perhaps the excessive use of force or lying to secure a prosecution would actually help public trust.
Last edited 2 years ago by Samuel Gee
Martin Johnson
2 years ago
Well, what do you expect when thoughts become crimes or subject to criminal
Investigation? The whole thing is ridiculous and stupid. Actions occur in the observable world and can be criminal, thoughts must be inferred and absentbaction do no harm to others; thoughts should not be criminal for those reasons.
Jon Hawksley
2 years ago
As a child I was told that sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you. People who set out to offend were rude and being rude was their problem not yours. The best way to stop it was to not react to it and not take offence. The police should spend time stopping people from inciting others to cause damage but not on rudeness.
M. Gatt
2 years ago
“My Lord! He looked at me” (Have I woken up in a Monty Python sketch?)
Vicha Unkow
2 years ago
The Western Intellectuals have lost the Marbles and off their Rockers. I hear and see this in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, and Europe. Self Mutilation of our Society.
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
“The usual apologies were made by Dame Cressida d**k.” *The usual apologies were made by pantomime dame Troilus p***s.
Mike Wylde
2 years ago
You just need to remember, if you ever have any interaction with any members of the police force, or (even better) an MP insist that you are the victim of a hate non-crime just committed by that official, they looked at you in a hateful manner. If you say you’re the victim it must be believed as they can’t disprove it. Let’s see how many politicians and senior police officers it takes to get a non-criminal record before they change their minds!
“Hate” crimes (and worse, NON-crimes) should form no part of the law or of police activity. Quite apart from the fact that they are always cynical manipulations by the left and more often than not it’s the politicised police and CPS officials who are doing the hating, people are perfectly entitled to hate whoever they like. All that matters is that they don’t disciminate against them. The two are not the same thing.
Quite right.
Discrimination is a basic and necessary human trait.
We exercise it every time we choose one person, action or thing over another.
Indeed. There needs to be more discrimination. Not on the basis of skin colour but against bad actors.
As far as hate speech is concerned – particularly non-crime hate incidents – while I deplore the legislation the answer is to vigorously and repeatedly report hate speech by the left who are the most flagrant purveyors of hate.
Nearly … All that matters is that they don’t incite imminent violence or illegality, nor defame someone. Otherwise I agree.
I’ll make a provocative statement: people have the right to hate. When you get down to it, hatred is an emotion (or collection of them), and laws should not regulate them. Groups and individuals must know that not everyone will love, or accept them.
Is hatred desirable, or should be encouraged? Probably not. I used to feel an intense hatred towards those who hurt me, and sure, it dragged me down. But I still had that right to have those emotions. I don’t want a government or NGO to say what I can’t feel or express.
I am proudly blocked by Hope Not Hate on Twitter – who have such a childish outlook on politics and well, hate.
To be blocked by such an odious and shameful outfit as Hope Not Hate is a badge of honour Madeleine, and means you are a fair minded individual who is willing to listen to what others have to say and who has the maturity and decency to allow others to have views that may not align with your own.
Fair play.
About six months ago an 86-year old woman responded to a tweet by tweeting that people were either male or female with nothing between. There was a complaint and she was visited by the police. It was recorded as a ‘hate incident’.
The original tweeter then came back with a comment like, “You are an old cow and you deserve to die soon”. She reported this to the police but no action was taken. It was not deemed to be a hate incident.
However, all this comes from the Home Office who issue priorities to the police. Hate crime has become trendy and Chief Constables compete to have the best figures. Promotions within the police forces may depend on the response to the challenge of hate crime. Obviously it is an easy option for the police.
The Police should have a much flatter rank structure. Same goes for the military.
The story you relate is so appalling – in fact, so evil – that at first I was lost for words. Now I have calmed down: this is not just; we speak so much of the justice system but very little about the small word at its heart – (being) just. It’s self-evidently not just to persecute anyone for an opinion that was considered true until yesterday, let alone an 86-year old; it’s self-evidently not just to then fail to similarly persecute her persecutor for elder abuse and wishing her death. Being just demands that if one is a ‘hate incident’ then so is the other.
The one virtue that OT prophets are united in crying out for, without exception, is justice because they saw being just as a divine commandment. Even if one is not a believer, being just is the bedrock of any good society.
The article was lifted straight from The Daily Mail about 6 months ago. The newspaper said that the lady’s mistake was to tweet under her own name with her own photo, thus supplying ammunition for the attack. Of course, the attacker used a pseudonym.
The lady’s mistake was to be 86 years old and probably still living in the days when it was safe to express a mainstream opinion using one’s own name.
An appalling story. But to the policeman involved it chalked up a hate incident with little effort for the benefit of his superior at little risk of comeback as it didn’t actually destroy her life as at 86 she is unlikely to be looking for employment. In contrast to track down the really hateful message would have involved real police effort to track down a young caring woke who was just expressing justifiable outrage on behalf of an oppressed minority.
I think it is appalling because a non crime hate incident has instantiated the paradigm of Impact Over Intent, an idea discussed on the EverydayFeminism dot com website. IMO, this concept is an ideological Trojan Horse.
1stly, it smuggles in a fundamental change to how we understand moral reasoning to work. For assessing guilt, intent is an essential component, but now that assessment relies on a shift from intent to impact.
2ndly, I think it smuggles in a fundamental change to the purpose of spoken communication, by changing who controls and determines the meaning of a person’s spoken expression. It does this by denying and removing the speaker’s agency and self autonomy for their thoughts and feelings and shifts their locus of control to the listener by only recognising their agency and self autonomy.
3rdly, by that recognition, it smuggles in the cognitive distortion of emotional reasoning, in which, contrary to the speaker’s intent, the listener’s feelings are justified by inferring and interpreting that the speaker committed hateful speech, based on assuming an uncharitable and negative position towards them.[As outlined in Haidt and Lukianoff: The Coddling of the American Mind]
So what sits at a Non Crime Hate Incident’s heart IMO, is an ideological paradigm that denies and removes a person’s agency to act as a sovereign individual human being – it unpersons them by the other facet of compelled speech – compelled meaning.
Superb analysis and summary. I couldn’t agree more.
Thanks. It took quite a bit of thinking – very tiring. I was going to finish by saying those three conditions are the substance of ‘evil’.
Well said.
As a Canadian I find it depressing that the UK has sunk so low. Justin Trudeau is trying to get us there – but he is at least getting resistance. Our Supreme Court recently narrowed the ability of Human Rights tribunals to police speech.
Well, easier…but don’t they themselves feel like fking berks knocking on someone’s door with these allegations and making an arrest based on such?
They’re playing the game, and maybe it is physically easier than jousting with thuggish violent actual villains..but do they actually believe in this nonsense ?
The police and the judiciary in this country are thoroughly politicised and can no longer be trusted. They pick and chose which laws to up hold, apply double standards based on the identity and politics of the perpetrators and have essentially invented the concept of non crime hate incidents, which they use to intimidate and harass political opponents.
They do not have my consent.
Interesting read, but one quibble: There has been no “visible policing on the street” for decades.
Bring back the Tens and the Hundreds…..,
“Under the Saxon organization of England, each county or shire comprised an indefinite number of hundreds, each hundred containing ten tithings, or groups of ten families of freeholders or frankpledges. The hundred was governed by a high constable, and had its own court; but its most remarkable feature was the corporate responsibility of the whole for the crimes or defaults of the individual members.”
They were the citizen police similar, to the Sheriff’s Posse.
I picture the the iconic two pairs of ankles in sensible shoes plodding down sidewalk in time, in THE BILL…but there was a fair bit of Woke even in that show.
All categories of “hate crime” should be struck off the law books.
They have destroyed the impartiality of the police, eroded trust in the law, and made proper discourse impossible.
It is a Political Crime. Also a Thought Crime.
dystopia is here…
I do not hate individual transsexuals unless they behave in an aggressive and threatening manner towards me. I viscerally hate an ideology that tells young lesbians and autistic women that they are ‘really’ men and should have their healthy breasts cut off. I do not hate anyone because of a physical characteristic of any kind. I hate an ideology that tells a young working class man who has never had a proper job that he has ‘white privilege’ over a doctor or lawyer.
Being abusive to individuals because of a characteristic that makes them different from the mainstream is not acceptable. If that abuse turns to physical threats and violence, it should be treated as a crime. Disagreeing with the ideology that someone believes must never, ever be treated as a crime. The problem is that the police no longer seem to know the difference.
A question I would like to put to Julie Bindel is whether she believes there is such a thing as heterophobia, and if so, whether she thinks it’s a crime.
I imagine her head would explode.
she’d sue you for “having an heterosexual laugh at her expense”.
“Of course, it is often sensible for police to keep records of especially upsetting or threatening behaviour that nevertheless misses the threshold for criminal prosecution.”
It’s surprising how many sentences which begin “of course” are not obviously true at all.
In general, I think this article is good, but too mild, and the author could learn from the more rigorous American system.
Nearly twelve years now of a “Conservative” (or Conservative led) government, the present version with a majority of eighty, yet STILL we have to suffer this indignity of so-called “hate crimes”!
Can we please have a conservative government in place of this bunch of centre-left wimps.
You can vote for Reclaim, Reform, or the tiny rump of UKIP.
None of them can win. So, the answer is ‘No you can’t’
Might have been better to have included references to how the police studiously ignored large scale rape of vulnerable white girls while taking bribes from their attackers.
The article does refer to Lords Bramall and Brittan.
‘Hate crimes’ and ‘hate speech’ have just become the endorsement of paranoia.
The period prior to the introduction of Robert Peels police force was characterised by widespread lawlessness because the earlier system of parish constables was inadequate. I think we are in a similar situation today. The police have essentially abandoned the streets whilst they pursue social engineering. A radical reform is necessary. Robert Peels strategy was a highly visible presence meant to reassure the law abiding and deter the criminals. Who honestly is reassured by the current police forces?
Recently here in main street, I see three uniformed officers strolling…two males flanking one female. Both males are smaller physically than I am, and I am only medium height/weight if perhaps semi-athletic in build.
The female between them would be hard up to hit 1.5m mark…as well as beach-ball shaped.
The police ‘swarm’ Chelsea beach more than once because it has been taken over by a swarm of African-youth (primarily Sudanese)..many of the young Sudanese women even are as tall or taller than I am , let alone the males (and yes, btw, when these problems occur there is a significant female participation, it’s not just males by any means..mindless affrays with African women rivals affray with African males in incidence).
A large proportion of the police ‘swarm’ is always female, and these are giving away half a metre height to the Africans they are trying to..well, I guess the objective is to deter , awe, ie intimidate.
I wonder if they feel as useless and ridiculous as all of this looks.
BTW, when you question this grade of police recruitment to the Woke brigade..you might be told that apparently virtually street-useless pint-sized female police …….have…….”negotiating skills“
Most of the ones I speak to do not strike me as likely to have even that.
In calibre, the ones in highway/traffic patrol bubble-gum machines strike me as checkout-chicks with guns and badges.
The ony time they seem to not recognise a real hate crime is when people threaten, or actually do, kill Jewish people. That seems to be OK especially when the offender is of a certain persuasion.
“The usual apologies were made by Dame Cressida Dyck.”
*The usual apologies were made by pantomime dame Troilus Peanis.
Troilus… not Peanis, something else…
Arrest the usual apologies!
“The service is run with the blessing and cooperation of the public rather than an arm of the state”
Believe that, and you will believe anything. We are living in a police state and have been for years,albeit a rather benign one.
I’d say that it is both. An arm of the state with blessing /co-op of public..
“Moooom! That boy at school was meeaan to me!”
“What did he do to you, honey?”
“When we were on the playground, he looked at me!!! It was horrible!”
“But he didn’t actually do anything?”
“Mom! You’re not listening! He looked at me!”
“…so it can be perhaps just the way that somebody looks at you…”
What a ridiculous state of affairs. What a complete waste of police forces’ time and tax payers’ money.
Ironically for the MPS and other forces, regular ocurrences of police officers reporting corruption or perhaps the excessive use of force or lying to secure a prosecution would actually help public trust.
Well, what do you expect when thoughts become crimes or subject to criminal
Investigation? The whole thing is ridiculous and stupid. Actions occur in the observable world and can be criminal, thoughts must be inferred and absentbaction do no harm to others; thoughts should not be criminal for those reasons.
As a child I was told that sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you. People who set out to offend were rude and being rude was their problem not yours. The best way to stop it was to not react to it and not take offence. The police should spend time stopping people from inciting others to cause damage but not on rudeness.
“My Lord! He looked at me” (Have I woken up in a Monty Python sketch?)
The Western Intellectuals have lost the Marbles and off their Rockers. I hear and see this in the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, and Europe. Self Mutilation of our Society.
“The usual apologies were made by Dame Cressida d**k.”
*The usual apologies were made by pantomime dame Troilus p***s.
You just need to remember, if you ever have any interaction with any members of the police force, or (even better) an MP insist that you are the victim of a hate non-crime just committed by that official, they looked at you in a hateful manner. If you say you’re the victim it must be believed as they can’t disprove it. Let’s see how many politicians and senior police officers it takes to get a non-criminal record before they change their minds!