Editor ~ Part One was published yesterday here and Part Two was published here on Independence Daily.

 

In confronting Hate Crime, the Hate Crime Operational Guidance Manual of the Association of Chief Police Officers for guidance of all police ranks in Britain says that Hate Crime must be motivated by Hostility. The Crown Prosecution Service gives the following guidance:

“In the absence of a precise legal definition of Hostility, consideration should be given to ordinary dictionary definitions, which include ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike”.

So, unfriendliness and dislike are enough for a Hate Incident, and expressing concern over Female Genital Mutilation can be Hate Speech. It so happened that when Shazia Hobbs objected to FGM online, the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan described her online post against FGM as Hate speech.

However, although the “Hate Crime Operational Guidance” manual says that Hate Crime must be motivated by Hostility, it insists that “evidence of hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate incident or hate crime”. In recording a motive of politically incorrect hatred by the accused, the police need no actual evidence of Hostility.

Perception is all that matters, the police are discouraged from asking the self-perceived victim for evidence, as that might be perceived as “secondary victimisation”. Secondary victimisation arises from the “institutional” prejudice inherent in insensitivity to the hurt feelings of the self-perceived “oppressed” victim.

The invention of Hate Incidents paves the road towards a police state. When accusation is the only evidence needed for an incident to be transformed by unevidenced Hostility into a Hate Incident, it is left to the police to judge whether the accused is a politically incorrect Hate offender and consequently politically unreliable. (Some hatred is Politically Correct and consequently not a crime).

The Hate Crime Operational Guidance Manual says that the main strands of hate crime are grounded on the race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or transgender, and disability of the victims. Class hatred is absent from the list of politically incorrect hatreds in the Hate Crime Operational Guidance manual, as it is seen as Politically Correct if directed against the white bourgeoisie or the white working class.

The potential victims of politically incorrect hostility, that is of racism, sexism, the “phobias” and so on, have become a privileged caste of “Sacred Cows”, who must not be thwarted in the slightest way, even when 12 to 15-year-old girls are routinely raped in Rotherham and elsewhere. These Sacred Cows customarily expect the police to show them preference above the common herd of their perceived “oppressors”, and the invention of “hate crimes” enables the police to show them that preference.

A Hate offender is anyone who clashes with a Sacred Cow, seen by the Sacred Cow as motivated by hostility to the “oppressed” group that the Sacred Cow can claim membership of. When anyone from the unhallowed white common herd can be accused on a whim or a perception, that is the least that that white working-class deserve, for ignoring the call to revolution from their social superiors on the far left of British politics for more than a century.

Since MacPherson, the invention of “hate incidents” which can include “non-crimes”, that is lawful acts, is a serious threat not only to the liberty but also the career prospects of members of the “common herd” outside Sacred Cow groups. Any easily offended person, who is black, feminist, gay, trans, and so on, can saddle anyone from outside the Sacred Cow groups with a police record on the grounds of accusation alone.

As with the MacPherson Report’s definition of a racist incident in its Recommendation 12, a Hate Incident is anything reported as such, the perception by the self-perceived victim or any third party of politically incorrect hatred is all that matters.

How did something so unreasonable become part of police procedure in Britain? The answer is in the difficulty in proving that the accused is guilty of racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, sexist, or other of the Politically Incorrect offensive attitudes. Our thoughts are not available to others like words or deeds, because the mind itself is not open to inspection by others.

So, to ensure the successful pursuit of politically incorrect Hate offenders, the presumption of guilt has to replace presumption of innocence. If a Hate Speech incident is “anything perceived as such”, then informers have maximum opportunity to inform against people to the police.  And they are actively encouraged to do so, as the Hate Crime Operational Guidance manual insists that Hate offences are under-reported and that those reported are merely the tip of the iceberg. On the road to the paradise of Diversity, Britain has become a paradise for police informers, just like the former Soviet Union.

What exciting powers this gives to the police, now that they have become like a Holy Inquisition into suspects’ souls, probing their dark corners in pursuit of heresy! And with no evidence necessary except denunciation! Now that they are pursuing heretical “right-wing” attitudes & beliefs, the police since MacPherson have been transformed into political commissars on the lookout for politically incorrect & unreliable people. And when perception is proof of Hate incidents, our newly political police service can arrest or caution anybody anywhere for politically incorrect Hatred [remember the “non-crimes” of MacPherson’s Recommendation 13].

So, when student Sam Brown jokingly remarked to a police cavalry officer in Oxford, “Excuse me, do you realise that your horse is gay?” police squad cars were called, and he was arrested for homophobic hate speech. The police intuitively know Hate Offenders when they meet them face to face.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email