A Shooting in Pittsburgh, Biological Warfare, and Free Speech
AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT elsewhere, the now unhinged left and their propaganda machines (e.g. BBC, CNN, LBC, the Guardian, etc.) are almost pathologically committed to supporting misguided notions of multiculturalism, diversity, collectivism, and globalism, etc. Consequently, they are at least complicit in things like the promotion of uncontrolled immigration policies, the introduction of Islamic blasphemy laws by stealth, and a unique protection for the ‘religion of peace’.
To further these ends the left obsessed mainstream media (MSM) dedicate themselves, in particular, to doing all they can to manipulate the public narrative and censor opposing voices on the political right of centre. The final result is of course the usual violation and censorship of freedom of speech and expression.
It’s of little surprise, then, to find that a recent BBC article on the tragic Pittsburgh shooting in America points out that, “Federal investigators are treating the shooting as a hate crime”(emphasis ours). Of itself the ‘hate crime’ label appears reasonable too - especially given the alleged perpetrator, Robert Bowers, shot a large number of innocent people (killing 11 of them) for no better reason than being followers of a religion he hated, Judaism. This, then, is surely a clear example of a despicable crime motivated by one man’s completely irrational ‘hate’.
Meanwhile CNN had similarly stated (Oct 28th, 2018), “Federal prosecutors have filed hate crime charges against a Pennsylvania man [Bowers]”, and, “Bowers could face the death penalty if he is convicted of a hate crime.” What’s noteworthy here is the assumption a crime like murder should warrant greater punishment just in virtue of it’s being motivated by ‘hate’. This may well be true too, but it’s not obvious it follows as a matter of course. The trouble is the looney-left and it’s media machines (MSM) are now aggressively highlighting hate crime, with special emphasis on the role of hate specifically. The higher purpose here is found in closing the gap between what is hateful and what is criminal. Doing so is a significant step, for them, toward criminalising hate itself.
Put another way, an act may be interpreted as criminal simply because it’s fuelled by hate rather than being a criminal act that is also motivated by hate of some kind. The distinction is subtle but important because it involves a potentially dangerous sleight of hand – the element of criminality can be carried over to any act, including acts of free speech, simply by declaring them hateful. This is the pivotal move because if hate itself can be criminalised in broad terms this way then any (free) speech deemed ‘hate speech’ is, by default, a criminal action (speech act) and, therefore, a hate crime.
Moreover, it clears the way for criminalising offence and offensiveness as well, something the left have been desperate to do for a long time. For it becomes possible that free speech some liberal retards find offensive (free speech they don’t like mainly) will be deemed ‘hate speech’ in virtue of the terrible hurt it causes to a snowflake’s feelings. Thus transformed into hate speech all is lost because it then becomes, necessarily, a hate crime. The sum effect is to have indirectly criminalised (selected) expressions of free speech.
This is why left-wing media channels eagerly promote a dialogue emphasising a connection between hatefulness and certain activities. At this juncture this admittedly sounds a little conspiratorial but it really isn’t. References to ‘hate crime’ and ‘offensiveness’ are cropping up everywhere, they roll off the tongues of left-wing liberals and mainstream media ‘journalists’ with ease and frequency – pushing this agenda more and more.
To see how this works consider the following example; Jack thinks gender (in terms of sex) is a matter settled by the science of biology. He holds to, and expresses, the view gender is binary and argues that science supports this. Whether you are a man or woman, male or female, is determined biologically and this is usually evident at birth. It follows, Jack claims, that you cannot ‘decide’ what sex you are because such dichotomies are not ‘social constructs’ but matters of objective, observable, biological fact.
Jill, however, disagrees strongly with Jack and objects that by taking this position he is denying transgender individuals their right to be identified as the gender they have chosen. She argues that biological gender (sex) is fluid and not determined finally by science. However, Jill then takes the further step and objects that openly expressing a binary thesis is itself offensive and tantamount to hate speech and should be treated as such.
Now at this juncture one might think Jill would simply cross Jack off her Christmas list and move on. Jack knows that Jill thinks he’s spouting hate speech, he just doesn’t give a toss, it’s his opinion and he’s sticking to it. Jack may not be someone Jill agrees with or likes but otherwise, in the normal world, that would be that. But Jill makes a complaint about Jack’s ‘hate speech’, reporting him to the relevant authorities, who agree with Jill. Specifically, they agree his words are sufficiently offensive and what he says about biological gender/sex therefore amounts to hate speech (and consequently constitute a hate crime).
This means certain expressions of free speech will by default become hate crimes, the arbiters of which will be those overseers appointed to deciding which expressions are hateful (offensive?) and therefore criminal. Jack is now potentially open to criminal proceedings for an offence that effectively emerges out of articulating a reasonable, scientific, position that certain individuals don’t want to accept.
This is truly dangerous ground involving a sleight of hand that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Some free speech is not hate speech, some free speech is hate speech but simply in virtue of being hate speech it cannot, and should not, be interpreted as a hate crime.
It is quite simply ludicrous to criminalise ‘hate’ itself, or words that express or embody it (except in exceptional circumstances), no matter how offensive or distasteful you might find it.