David Craig, on January 24th, 2018(Wednesday/Thursday blog)
No evidence now required for you to be guilty of a ‘hate crime’
I have written before about how under the politically-correct Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, our laws have been perverted to prevent freedom of speech to anyone who dares criticise our rulers’ plans to turn Britain into a Third-World shit-hole.
There’s a photo circulating on the Internet. It appears to show a police officer giving a speech about hate crimes, or �hostility� as he terms it:
This is really important. It shows how we have drifted from having one of the world’s most admired (and copied) criminal justice systems to one that George Orwell warned about in “1984”.
Inventing the idea of a ‘hate crime’
The original definition of a hate crime in the UK is (I believe) from the�Public Order Act 1986
�A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if�
- (a) they intend thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
- (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.�
Why we needed the concept of a ‘hate crime’ is unclear as there were already plenty of other real criminal offences that could be used against someone spewing insults and threats.
Guilty because someone says so
Then somehow the definition of a ‘hate crime’ expanded:
‘The Association of Chief Police Officers and the CPS have agreed a common definition of hate crime: “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 race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”
The key idea here is that this new definition means the police don�t need to �prove hatred�. It’s enough that any person claims they perceive hatred for you to be automatically guilty.
After nearly a millennia of proof being required and anyone being innocent until found guilty, the British Police have decided they no longer need proof to accuse someone of being a criminal.
Tested in court?
I’m not sure whether this concept of a person being guilty just because someone else perceives hostility has been tested in court. What normally seems to happen is that anyone suspected of ‘hostility’ get a visit from two plods. The plods warn the person that they are guilty of a ‘hate crime’ and that going to court could ruin their lives. This is usually sufficient to dissuade the person from ever writing anything controversial again. Thus the police can impose Alison’s Saunders’ thought control without actually having their abuse of the law challenged.
I know this as this is what happened to me
But here’s Pat Condell explaining better than I ever could how our laws have been hijacked by our treacherous, self-serving, politically-correct rulers and their sycophantically subservient police to censor free speech and protect those who hate us and want to harm us:
Category: 
The pace is quickening.
We are on our way to George Orwell’s 1984.
Mind you, Islam and Sharia Law may win the race.
The recent Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson exposed the mindset. In their world, only one right way exists and alternative thinking is heresy. I am surprised at the “gotcha” moment she managed to stop herself from saying but i am obviously right and you are clearly wrong. I think it was what she was about to say but stumbled on the best way to phrase it to make it sound reasonable. Sadly when dealing with ideological zealots the truth takes a back seat.
@twi5ted: Thanks for drawing attention to the interview. It was like watching a game of Chinese Whispers but with invisible people in the chain giving the wrong message only in the direction of Newman. I haven’t heard of Peterson but will now definitely look at his work.
The Gubmint has handed down another stone tablet to us huddled (muddled?) masses…
The Government has responded to the petition you signed � �Create a Freedom of Speech Act and Bring an End to “Hate Speech” laws�.
Government responded:
The Government is committed to upholding free speech, and legislation is already in place to protect these fundamental rights. However, this freedom cannot be an excuse to cause harm or spread hatred.
Current UK legislation values free speech and enables people who wish to engage in debate to do so – regardless of whether others agree with the views which are being expressed. Everyone has a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is a qualified right however, which means that it can be restricted for certain purposes to the extent necessary in a democratic society. This means that free speech is not absolute.
Importantly, the law ensures that people are protected against criminal activity including threatening, menacing or obscene behaviour both on and offline. The Government is clear that hate crime and hate speech are not acceptable in our society, and anyone seeking to use freedom of speech as an excuse to break the law should still face the full force of the law.
A hate crime is any criminal offence, for example assault or malicious communications, which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person�s actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity. The Government takes hate crime very seriously, which is why we published the hate crime action plan (Action Against Hate: The UK Government�s plan for tackling hate crime) in July 2016.
It is also worth noting that section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, for example, states that the offence of inciting religious hatred, does not restrict or prohibit discussions, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions.
In this way, the Government believes the law strikes the right balance between protecting citizens and protecting their right to free expression.
Home Office
——-
The key words to object to are of course “which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice” No way to frame a law. Ridiculous.