Blasphemy laws are drawing closer and closer towards judicial legitimacy here in the UK. Hating Islamic ideology is a criminal offence.
Statistical reports have come out that suggest Muslims are targeted in 47% of hate crimes in England and Wales. It’s a great talking point for the likes of TellMama and Hope Not Hate who thrive on a “perception” of hatred to stay relevant and well funded. Hate crimes are what drive their business models; they need hate; they must find hate.
Hate can be found anywhere, especially on the internet. But what is hatred exactly? Is hatred just a matter of someone speaking freely, criticising Islamic texts or the behaviours of individual Muslims? If that were to be the case, then we are blurring legitimate and factual criticisms and conflating that with “hatred”.
Let’s give a hypothetical situation. A Muslim online says that Islam is a religion of peace then someone who has studied the Islamic religion objects to that definition. The person objecting to the Muslims definition then provides Islamic text as evidence to back up his assertion. Is that person hateful or truthful? The answer to that question is that IT DOES NOT MATTER!
Recording Hate Crime
The Crown Prosecution Service, together with the Police, have agreed on a definition to flag a “hate crime” – here it is:
“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.”
The CPS accept the fact that there is no legal definition of “hostility” so they:
“..use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike”.
You can find that HERE.
What does this mean for anyone who has a legitimate concern or dislike for an ideology? Well, it means that in the hypothetical example we have provided above, regardless of the facts, regardless of valid and reasonable criticisms and the separation of an ideology from the individual (Islam from the Muslim), you can still be reported for a hate crime!
All that it takes is for a Muslim to have a “perception” of hatred and then complain about it to the Police. The Police then record the incident as a hate crime, because that’s the “perception” of the highly strung, overly sensitive Muslim defending his faith from the dirty unbelieving kaffir. It does not matter a jot, whether “contextually” there was no “hate” directed at the Muslim, all that matters is that the Muslim or even someone else had a “perception” of it.
The Police and the CPS are empowering “overly sensitive” snowflake Muslims by criminalising speech, criminalising legitimate debate and criminalising facts. Apparently, facts mean nothing nowadays because its all about “perception” and “feelings”.
A perfectly honest factual debate can be turned into a hate crime by a mere suggestion. The offence is “recorded” as a “hate crime” by the Police which adds to a statistical narrative which the likes of TellMama and Hope Not Hate thrive on because their business models depend on it.
There is a big difference between the recording of a hate crime and an actual hate crime being committed. Because the CPS use such a broad-ranging definition of “hostility” it empowers the accuser while simultaneously limiting the defence of someone who should have every right to object, dislike and factually refute an assertion that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
Freedom of speech is dying in this country. Those who are inclined to authoritarianism will do their very best to limit speech. A difference of opinion even when based on facts and empirical evidence can now become a criminal offence. To make matters even worse, prosecutors can now apply for an uplift in a sentence for those convicted of a “hate crime”. You can do more time for “wrongthink” in this Orwellian nightmare we live in.
The Police and the CPS have opened up a Pandora’s box, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Don’t be surprised when others set up websites to collect data on “perceived hate crimes”. Don’t be surprised if non-Muslims start calling the Police in to deal with hatred and intolerance that emanates from the Islamic community.
What choice do free thinkers have other than to use the method of “perceptual hate” to punch back? If this legislation is a sinking ship, then EVERYONE will sink with it.
How’s that for “context”.