They don’t mean the “dear” bit, do they
Is there an authoritative list of what we’re allowed to hate and what we’re not?
Are we allowed, for instance, to hate the trans ideology?
Are we allowed to hate misogyny? (That’s a pun of sorts, but it’s also what I mean. Are we allowed?)
Are we allowed to hate bad illiberal lawmaking?
Are we allowed to hate religions?
Are we allowed to hate tyrants?
Is it a hate crime to hate Donald Trump, and to say so, with details?
Is it a crime to hate Putin? Hamas? Netanyahu? Kim Jong Un?
Please advise.
“The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it’s a religious belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.”
–Salman Rushdie
Forced to be a cowardly, compliant moron?
Nope.
Not in this lifetime.
It is really infuriating how much weight they put on this emotion of hate, as if that’s the most important issue. Is it so difficult to imagine treating people fairly and reasonably, even if you don’t like them? If an employer hates an employee and pays him inadequately, the issue is inadequate pay; it is not resolved by getting the employer to have a better opinion of the worker. If a store owner hates gay people and refuses to serve them, the main issue is the refusal of service. not the hate.
Sackbut: That’s where the two-faced rhetoric comes in. When they talk to the hoi polloi, hate crime is about the motivation and emotional state of the perpetrator. When they get pressed, hate crime is about crime that has an effect on a larger population connected to the victim, specifically as a naked threat. The latter justification takes more sophistication to dissect and see the problems, so it’s effective against the educated, but it’s less immediate than emotion and thus less effective among everyone else.
I do remember Gordon Brown when PM floating the idea of a hate crime, saying we must root hate out of people’s hearts. No we don’t – as long as they don’t express it in any criminal acts.
As far as the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act is concerned in Scotland there’s an interesting discussion between Adam Tomkins and Michael Foran on some news programme.
https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1772887780625957279
Adam Tomkins used to be an MSP. He’s a moderate Tory, was very good during the independence referendum, and is now a professor of public law. It’s depressing that we lose our brighter, more principled MSPs from Holyrood (like Andy Wightman.)
His shtick is that if complaints of a frivolous kind eg being insulted came to a law court, it would probably be chucked out. As people are pointing out, it’s the process that matters – eg having your devices confiscated.
The other issue is that though the law itself may not be onerous and restrictive towards free speech, the police’s interpretation may cause them to act against people with a charge which may ultimately be chucked out at court – but in the meantime the accused have had huge disruption, anxiety and expense, if they have had to replace their devices, which isn’t reclaimable.
Wings Over Scotland describes going through such a process:- https://wingsoverscotland.com/into-darkness/
Oh good god. I’ve read only a few paragraphs and I can hardly breathe. I was aware of Wings but hadn’t really followed its work. Big mistake.
Hate – the 21st century version of impure thoughts. Puritans so want to eliminate the emotions that frighten them (because all emotions frighten them, being things they can’t control, but strong emotions especially). Of course it’s never worked and has often done great harm but that’s never stopped those who cover themselves in the cloak of virtue).
Odd though that the new puritans are very much in the pro-sex camp but I suppose that sex has become so commonplace and mundane that it doesn’t evoke much in the way of fear. Better then to transfer your fears to something more fertile. And deep down puritanism has never being about sex. Nor is it, as some wit put it, the fear that someone, somewhere, is enjoying themself. No, it’s the fear that someone, somewhere, has made an unapproved choice. Because that would question the $Sacred_Truth* they cling to in order not to have to take responsibility for their actions. Puritanism flourishes in dangerous uncertain times but also it seems in cultures where no one wants to grow up and start acting like a responsible adult.
*In geek speak, represents a variable, able to take on a range of values.
There’s a reasonable argument that modern society is desexualizing sex itself. This seems to me a bad idea, as it amounts to obscuring the significance of sex (the act), just as Genderism obscures the significance of sex (the fact). It’s a suspicious coincidence to have both together.
Wings took flight during the independence referendum and could be extremely unpleasant to the Unionist side. Since then he has been extremely unpleasant to the Scottish National Party, who he sees as wasting time which should have been directed towards gaining independence, and extremely unpleasant to the transminded (as distinct from the transfigured). I certainly don’t love him and he is prone to over-connecting dots, but I believe him to be honest and he does do his homework.