A petition to Sadiq Khan regarding attacks on a white mother and her children by Asian muslims in London is here. You may wish to consider signing and supporting this petition.
In publicising this petition, there is one element of it which I must make note of, however: I do not endorse the petition’s use of the language of ‘hate crime’, and, by extension, in using the language of ‘hate crime’, the implied acceptance of ‘hate crime’ ideology.
I despise the ideology and language of ‘hate crime’. Though it is now an established ideological and cultural concept in the minds of many, and a practical reality in our criminal justice system, the ‘hate crime’ concept is both evil and wrong, and I wish to make it clear that I personally do not accept the legitimacy of the idea, much less the way it is manifested in our society today.
The ‘hate crime’ concept is a tool by which to divide people and set people against each other; it is a radical, revolutionary weapon by which to destroy civilised society.
In particular, the ‘hate crime’ concept’s primary purpose is to facilitate attacks upon Christians, and upon those who adhere to orthodox Christian moral standards, or are similarly socially conservative in outlook or lifestyle.
The ‘hate crime’ concept is closely related to other destructive ideologies which I do not endorse, including multiculturalism and – to coin an unwieldy word (to make the point I’m talking about ideologies, or ‘isms’) – ‘equality-and-diversity-ism‘.
(I know that any intelligent reader will understand exactly what I’m talking about.)
The main target of ‘hate crime’ ideology – which is a thought crime ideology – is Christians, and Christian culture, so I’m extremely wary of embracing or even implying my acceptance of something which I actually detest, and recognise as being bad.
I am of course against hate in any form, towards any person. But I do not believe that a perceived or actual motive of hate should form the basis for special categories of criminal offence.
Criminal intent is of course of relevance to various legitimate criminal charges, either in the proving of the charge or in the defending against it, but I do not hold with the idea of a ‘hate motive’ being formally incorporated into criminal law.
The focus of criminal law is or ought to be concerned overwhelmingly with the act – an act which is considered to be wrong, in and of itself – and not with any accused’s social, political or religious beliefs.
That’s why I support the above petition insofar as it seeks justice in relation to what look to be allegations of criminal assault (or similar), but I have no interest in associating myself with accusing the Muslims involved of a ‘hate crime’, because I am ideologically opposed to accusing anybody of a ‘hate crime’.
I can make a very good guess as to what the motives of the Muslims accused in this case might be, and I might further judge those motives to be in some way ‘hateful’, but in terms of associating myself with accusations that they are criminals, I am concerned only with what they do – not what they think. I am concerned only with whether they’ve criminally assaulted or intimidated the alleged victims, not with their Islamic beliefs.
Whilst their Islamic beliefs may be relevant – even directly relevant – to their alleged criminal conduct, I believe an assault is a criminal offence because assault is wrong and ought to be dealt with as a crime, regardless of whether the accused is black, white, English, Polish, Jewish, Jamaican, mohammedan, catholic, Christian, homosexual, heterosexual or whatever.
Assault is assault. That’s the crime. Any motive for criminally assaulting another person is a bad motive. There is no need for introducing special categories of ‘hate crime’.
The ‘hate crime’ concept, and the widespread acceptance of it, actually serves to legitimise the idea that most people in society – no matter who they are – are in some way motivated by hate for others in society who are in some way different to them.
The real purpose of ‘hate crime’ ideology is to serve to classify an orthodox biblical worldview as being morally abhorrent, something which is intrinsically full of hate for other people, and also to set everybody against each other, breeding fear and mistrust.
In summary, I’m saying sign this petition because it alleges that serious crimes are being ignored, not because the accused persons happen to be Muslims, or Asians.
The alleged crimes are wrong because the alleged crimes are wrong, and need dealing with for that reason – not because of what the accused persons may be thinking about what pleases their god.
It is true, I think, as the petition suggests, that if the ‘boot were on the other foot’ the police would’ve acted differently – making the point, correctly, that when it comes to ‘hate crime’, some groups are ‘more equal’ than others – but, in agreeing to that narrow point, I do protest the broader problem which is that ‘hate crime’ mentality is bad for everybody, Asian and white, Christian or Muslim.
Queen of the baby-slayers, BPAS boss Ann Furedi, has made some interesting remarks about liberty on Spiked online. This is my brief response.
Furedi argues that ‘buffer zones’ are not an attack on free speech. According to Furedi: “The right of freedom of speech does not mean the right to say anything, at any time, to any person, in any place.”
On the contrary, that is exactly what freedom of speech is, in any public place, in the British tradition of civil liberty.
Anything less than that is not free speech but rather is restricted – it is speech which has been subjected to censorship and suppression.
In principle, British liberty is such that anybody can lawfully say whatever they like, whenever they like, as often as they like, on any public highway (e.g. Mattock Lane), provided what is said is not a criminal incitement to violence, and as long as the public highway is not obstructed for other users.*
This is an English common law right on any public highway. It is reasonable and fair. It is one of the hallmarks of a tolerant, civilised society. And it is as British as British can be.
The purpose of the speech is irrelevant. It may be political protest. It may be to advocate a particular religious belief. It may be to advise or warn, persuade or dissuade other individual members of the public about something. It could be anything.
Free speech means free speech (or else it is not free speech), regardless of what is said, why it is said, who says it and who hears it.
(* The only other restriction on free speech is that it does not amount to a licence for libel. And it’s also worth noting that until the 1960s cultural revolution, free speech was not understood or accepted as a licence for pornography.)