How words make a ‘word crime’ and affect free speech


This is a tweet from the South Yorkshire constabulary 



In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it #HateHurtsSY

9:45 PM – Sep 9, 2018

Pathologically subjective people simply declare “This is a fact” which, it seems, is sufficient to turn ‘this’ into a fact; no more evidence about the nature of ‘this’ is required, and any evidence that is produced, which appears to contradict, can – and must – be dismissed out of hand.

Our leaders and institutions have adopted this worldview.

Look what happened to Angelos Sofocleous when he tweeted “Women don’t have penises”: he was hounded from the philosophy magazine he edited for the ‘red brick’ Durham University

Lets recall  the British state’s 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 disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity.”

The Crown Prosecution Service goes on to say:

“There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”

For a hate crime to be committed, it’s sufficient for someone to assert that it has. That’s it, the end of any debate.

A person doesn’t even need to have witnessed the incident. Even if the incidentitself might have just been plain “unfriendliness”.

The concept of a hate crime is problematic, most crimes have a hate component.  It is the crime that matters, not the feelings behind it.

Ian Baynham died from the kicking he received from a homophobic pair in Trafalgar Square in London; Alan Greaves was battered to death by  non homophobic thugs on Christmas Eve. The deaths of these two victims don’t weigh differently, homophobia is irrelevant, the fact they were murdered is relevant though.

Modern society takes a different view. “The motivation for some crimes is so abhorrent that we label them as hateful and judge their protagonists especially harshly.”

Don’t forget in London, 9 people are arrested per day for suspected hate crimes (saying nasty things on twitter) and the Met have 900 officers dedicated to policing social media!

Pathological subjectivity  of hate crime distorts reality.

It leaves a realist (someone  who requires evidence to back-up assertions) at a disadvantage to the activist, who can change reality,“That was a hate crime”, at the tap of a keyboard.

And once we grant permission to the reality in which we all must live, we are at their mercy.


South Yorkshire police now want to know if you’ve done anything mildly unpleasant; incidentally that same force didn’t  investigate the  ‘hateful’ grooming scandal recently, where 1400 children were abused or raped, sometimes gang raped over a 16 year period! Well, referring to their tweet at the start of this article, they seem to tolerate some kinds of hate it appears

You will be arrested for saying “That police horse is gay.” As Sam Brown, an Oxford University student at the time, found out and was also fined £80 for the priviledge.

Conversely  the Metropolitan police won’t lift a finger while you subject a Conservative MP, Jacob Rees Mogg in this case recently, children to what any decent person would call ‘vicious psychological abuse’. Even if they’re standing next to you while you do it, which they were.

Surely this  contradiction should cause the whole  house of cards to collapse?

From universities, to our criminal justice systems, to our politics. This is the mindset of the liberal progressive social justice movement. You can see their vindictive toddler “deductions” all over social media

Throughout  life, and now more so, as a writer and author, I’ve known that words matter, they are our thoughts personified, and so  become real objects

Words are real things, with power.

Power is one thing, but their actual meaning, it seems, no longer matters. Facts don’t matter. Biology doesn’t matter. History doesn’t matter. The truth is whatever the pathologically subjective declares it to be.

Such wordcrime is strong enough to destroy institutions (see our police and social services and our universities and schools).

Politicians must stop ignoring this. What would happen, for example, were a left leaning UK government to assert that “There’s no such thing as a good conservative”?

What do you imagine would follow from that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s