Been out surveying houses this week and re-learning what the phrase ‘Jerry built’ means. Frankly, one of the properties we looked at needed completely demolishing and rebuilding. The price wasn’t that good. Way over the odds. So, following the advice of a friendly, gruff spoken but very savvy Structural Engineer, we’re giving it a miss. Having taken his advice, we now realise that our planned purchase would have turned into a money pit and a complete nightmare from a planning perspective.
Anyway. Hate speech laws. Where the law is applied to one group but not for all. Which tends to contradict the spirit of having a legal system in the first place. Rules should be for everyone, not just to protect certain groups. Indeed, I feel the people who moot such rules should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us mere mortals.
The problem with hate speech laws is that my observation and small wisdom tells me are in effect more divisive than unfettered insult and opprobrium. By suppression they do not prevent the subject matter being thought about, because such laws will always incite resentment from the targeted population and militate against tolerance of a given ‘protected’ group.
The thought process goes like this:
- Rules say you can’t be seen to be ‘hostile’ even by a raising of the eyebrow against a given ‘protected’ group, even if the gesture was only targeted at the unpleasantness of a single individual of said group.
- If said ‘protected’ group is so hypersensitive, and one is likely to inadvertently run into problems when dealing with them, the easiest response is to avoid contact with said group altogether, just in case ‘offence’ is taken, even if none was meant. Thus leading to an increased ghettoisation of the ‘protected’. Simply because they’re too much trouble.
- The division thus created means that there is now a ‘two-tier’ society worse than the one that the Hate Speech laws were intended to avoid.
- See any long-repressed native population for the medium to long term outcome. Catholic Ireland is a good example, where the native population was oppressed for a long time, deprived of political power and forced into being second class citizens.
Conclusion; Excessive repression breeds violent revolt. Enforced compliance under an unfair system such as one that ‘Hate speech’ laws create can only be continued for short periods of time while the enforcement of said rules can be maintained. The essential social contract between rulers and ruled cannot be sustained under these conditions. This is one of the lessons of history.
N.B.: ‘Stirring up hatred’ is not the same as the current hypersensitive definition as used by people of a ‘woke’ persuasion. The word ‘hatred’ (Noun) implies a very strong, even violent dislike of a person or group and to incite it by making up stories about how bad the targeted group are, or warping language to paint said group (for example with the ‘beneficiaries of slavery’ meme) as ‘evil’ falls neatly into that category.
So, given this salient definition, who are the people ‘stirring up hatred’? Those warping the language to sow division for political or monetary (Or both) gain? Or those being accused of ‘hatred’ with questionable and highly subjective evidence?
Any old road up, I’m on the road again for most of this week. We have electricians and estate agents to haggle with in between times, and I’ve found a problem with my new Irish Driving Licence that needs to be resolved, so if I’m a little slow in responding to anyone, I beg my last readers forbearance.