We’ve been told that we live in hateful times and that “hate speech” must be combated aggressively. This appears to be more progressive ideology that is leading us backwards; this combined with the inability to define the terms is very concerning. While compelled speech and censorship are on the rise we must remember that ambiguity is an ally of abusive authority.
There are two models of “hate speech”. They are “the animus” model and the “group selection” model.
“In the animus model a “hate crime” occurs if there is an element of prejudice or hatred or motivation for an offence. This is the approach used for example in England and Wales. The English definition requires that the offence has been (wholly or partly) “motivated by hostility” or that the perpetrator “demonstrated hostility” towards the victim based on a characteristic such as their race or religion etc.”
“In the “group selection” model all that needs to be shown is that the offender selected the victim “because of” or “by reason of” a protected characteristic. This approach is one that is favoured by several US states. Whether or not the perpetrator feels some sort of prejudice or hatred the impact on the victim and on those who fear falling into that victim’s group may be just as severe and likewise the threat to public order.”
But what about the actual law and how can it be applied?
“Generally speaking legal thresholds which are based solely on proving hate-based motivation on the part of the perpetrator are problematic as proving motivation is extremely difficult. The motivation test is very rarely used. It can be extremely difficult to prove (Law Commission 2014: 2.33).”
We were told that control of the narrative must be absolute to ensure minimal resistance to the changes that society is going through. To control the narrative governments have a grip on what is distributed on the media in whose pen truth is the one to suffer and to censor or influence censorship of public debate and control and compel speech. Advocating censoring someone instead of debating the merits of your argument shows that the governments’ goal is not to expand knowledge but to suppress it. Thus “hate speech” became the abusive and subjective meander into controlled speech. This is how “hate speech” was defined in Ireland by Justice Minister Helen McAntee who served as a politician till 2022 the champion of this draconian initiative:
“Rather than using narrow legal definitions for this report we have chosen working definitions that reflect the real-life experiences that communities have told us they experience as “hate speech” and “hate crime”. Of course any legislative definition will need to be more precisely construed.”
Of course had there been a legal definition it would make it difficult to press for the inconsistent ill-defined legislation to come.
Governments want “hate speech” application applied to both incitement and direct verbal attacks which are broad and subjective by nature. This ensures maximum opportunity for abuse while continuing with their “disinformation” campaign for just about anything that goes against their agenda.
Another quote from the Irish report states: “In this report a “hate crime” means any criminal offence which is carried out by the perpetrator with a hate motive due to the victim’s real or perceived association with a protected characteristic.” Isn’t this extremely ill-defined and subjective? How can a motive be established with this statement?
But here is the Irish government who is being accused of ‘Thought Policing’ with the proposed “hate speech” law whereby the government plans to imprison people for possession of “hate speech”:
Here is what has been happening in Germany for a few years now where the authorities raid people’s homes for “online hate speech”. This included someone who highlighted the hypocrisy of politicians another man who called a journalist “stupid ” people who misattributed quotes and another who made fun of people in authority. They also included anything that was labelled as “far right opinions” and “racial discrimination”. This is another blow to free-speech in Europe.
But what they do is to pinch such issues with humanitarianism so “hate speech” is associated with decency which isn’t and they pay lip-service to freedom of speech.
The push for such a legislation came from the EU and the UN with their usual need for alignment in a conducted study which looked for “hate crime” details in some countries in order to seek to establish victim classes. The countries that the EU and the UN chose to take data from are England Wales Canada Australia Germany and Sweden. The irony is that in such countries the definitions of “hate speech” show their incapability to apply the same model while documenting of so-called “hate speech” and “hate crime” using different phrases interchangeably:
This is how the study defines “hate speech”:
It seems like their definition is more defined on parody. In fact this is what the study states too:
So why are they trying to define it into law?
If all this is going to be left to bureaucrats in an anarchic judiciary all this will lead to misuse and abuse. They want and they will censor anyone who disagrees with them.
“Hate speech” laws don’t protect the normal citizens. They protect the powerful.
It is not “hate speech”. It is speech which they hate in a world where Truth an opinion and freedom of speech have been turned into “hate speech” in the quest to turn an inconvenient truth into a reassuring lie.
Hate speech the topic on government minds that no one can define its inherent flaws and fallacy.
We’ve been told that we live in hateful times and that “hate speech” must be combated aggressively. This appears to be more progressive ideology that is leading us backwards; this combined with the inability to define the terms is very concerning. While compelled speech and censorship are on the rise we must remember that ambiguity is an ally of abusive authority.
There are two models of “hate speech”. They are “the animus” model and the “group selection” model.
“In the animus model a “hate crime” occurs if there is an element of prejudice or hatred or motivation for an offence. This is the approach used for example in England and Wales. The English definition requires that the offence has been (wholly or partly) “motivated by hostility” or that the perpetrator “demonstrated hostility” towards the victim based on a characteristic such as their race or religion etc.”
“In the “group selection” model all that needs to be shown is that the offender selected the victim “because of” or “by reason of” a protected characteristic. This approach is one that is favoured by several US states. Whether or not the perpetrator feels some sort of prejudice or hatred the impact on the victim and on those who fear falling into that victim’s group may be just as severe and likewise the threat to public order.”
But what about the actual law and how can it be applied?
“Generally speaking legal thresholds which are based solely on proving hate-based motivation on the part of the perpetrator are problematic as proving motivation is extremely difficult. The motivation test is very rarely used. It can be extremely difficult to prove (Law Commission 2014: 2.33).”
We were told that control of the narrative must be absolute to ensure minimal resistance to the changes that society is going through. To control the narrative governments have a grip on what is distributed on the media in whose pen truth is the one to suffer and to censor or influence censorship of public debate and control and compel speech. Advocating censoring someone instead of debating the merits of your argument shows that the governments’ goal is not to expand knowledge but to suppress it. Thus “hate speech” became the abusive and subjective meander into controlled speech. This is how “hate speech” was defined in Ireland by Justice Minister Helen McAntee who served as a politician till 2022 the champion of this draconian initiative:
“Rather than using narrow legal definitions for this report we have chosen working definitions that reflect the real-life experiences that communities have told us they experience as “hate speech” and “hate crime”. Of course any legislative definition will need to be more precisely construed.”
Of course had there been a legal definition it would make it difficult to press for the inconsistent ill-defined legislation to come.
Governments want “hate speech” application applied to both incitement and direct verbal attacks which are broad and subjective by nature. This ensures maximum opportunity for abuse while continuing with their “disinformation” campaign for just about anything that goes against their agenda.
Another quote from the Irish report states: “In this report a “hate crime” means any criminal offence which is carried out by the perpetrator with a hate motive due to the victim’s real or perceived association with a protected characteristic.” Isn’t this extremely ill-defined and subjective? How can a motive be established with this statement?
But here is the Irish government who is being accused of ‘Thought Policing’ with the proposed “hate speech” law whereby the government plans to imprison people for possession of “hate speech”:
Here is what has been happening in Germany for a few years now where the authorities raid people’s homes for “online hate speech”. This included someone who highlighted the hypocrisy of politicians another man who called a journalist “stupid ” people who misattributed quotes and another who made fun of people in authority. They also included anything that was labelled as “far right opinions” and “racial discrimination”. This is another blow to free-speech in Europe.
But what they do is to pinch such issues with humanitarianism so “hate speech” is associated with decency which isn’t and they pay lip-service to freedom of speech.
The push for such a legislation came from the EU and the UN with their usual need for alignment in a conducted study which looked for “hate crime” details in some countries in order to seek to establish victim classes. The countries that the EU and the UN chose to take data from are England Wales Canada Australia Germany and Sweden. The irony is that in such countries the definitions of “hate speech” show their incapability to apply the same model while documenting of so-called “hate speech” and “hate crime” using different phrases interchangeably:
This is how the study defines “hate speech”:
It seems like their definition is more defined on parody. In fact this is what the study states too:
So why are they trying to define it into law?
If all this is going to be left to bureaucrats in an anarchic judiciary all this will lead to misuse and abuse. They want and they will censor anyone who disagrees with them.
“Hate speech” laws don’t protect the normal citizens. They protect the powerful.
It is not “hate speech”. It is speech which they hate in a world where Truth an opinion and freedom of speech have been turned into “hate speech” in the quest to turn an inconvenient truth into a reassuring lie.