Outlawing “Islamophobia” – the folly of hate crime laws


















  1. If my understanding is correct, I’m a ‘beneficiary’ of ‘hate’ crime legislation at least once, probably twice and perhaps thrice. No, I’m not going to say which ones. If I were to find myself on the wrong end of violent behaviour by some bigoted moron I would prefer it if he (or she) was prosecuted for the act itself, not for whichever particular thought crime would count.



  2. If a ‘(5-minute) Hate Crime’ law protected Muslims (specifically) against violence or threats, (or any other grouping classified by religion) let us imagine prosecutions for affray after a a Muslim fights a Kuffir, (a non-believer) perhaps an Apostate, for reasons of a religious argument, and it is 50/50 in terms of legal blame.

    One could well imagine that the Kuffir would face being prosecuted for an offence carrying higher penalties for broadly the same actus reus (guilty act) and face a higher penalty upon conviction, than his counterpart in crime, purely because the Kuffir’s motivation was antipathy towards the Muslim, and the Muslim is guilty of ‘vanilla’ affray, as his motive is not ‘Islamophobic’.

    One can also imagine the CPS (the Public Prosecutor in England and Wales) notching up more statistics for ‘hate crime’ and the police getting more Home Office Brownie Points for another prosecution and conviction in the target indicator crimes.

    It’s not quite East Germany, but it is becoming the difference between scrambled eggs and omelettes.



  3. Such legislation makes me sick.It is wrong in principle, as it attacks free speech. It creates vagueness, as it has no objective measure, unlike real crimes, it incentivises victimhood and peddles the idea that there is something good in being a victim.

    The ‘hate crime’ concept is nonsensical, as it implies a distinction where there is none, namely between a violent act against someone in one of the designated ‘pet’ categories and a violent act against someone else who isn’t in such a category, etc etc and it is wholly unnecessary, or at least would be if we had a criminal justice system that wasn’t made of wank-stained cardboard. A crime is a crime, and guilt is guilt. Once that is determined, then justice and equity require the taking into account of mitigating factors and aggravating factors. Whatever is intended via ‘hate crime’ BS can be dealt with as an aggravating factor in whatever crime has been committed.



  4. Very well said, Richard. This is the lambs going out into the woods looking for wolves to eat them!



Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s