Thought Crime in the UK

Today’s “thought crime” update:
“After the case, Mr Palmer described what Gardiner said that day as “hate speech”. He said: “If he was willing to say that to me, a man in his mid 40s, you have to wonder about the effect on somebody more vulnerable. There should be zero tolerance of any sort of hate speech. “It just breeds division – and it’s absolutely counter-productive.”
An 827 pound sterling fine for… what exactly? As a man in in his forties, Mr. Palmer says he is not so “vulnearable” to this crime from the 73 year old grandpa. The implication is, had he been younger, or perhaps a different skin tone, he would be “vulnerable”. (Note: the subtle racism of the Left, with its “vulnerable” POC vs. “impervious,” “privileged” whites). And, vulnerable to what? Vulnerable to ideas that have not been approved? I’m really struggling to see the harm or aggression that took place… the damage, the danger, the compromised “safety”. Nor can I really see why a court needs to get involved at all.  Palmer is calling for “zero tolerance” of what, exactly? As for “breeding division,” don’t you think this kind of financial penalty also “breeds division”? Or, do you think such a policy breeds unity or harmony? “Counter productive” … the only countries where I could see a trait like “counter productivity” be criminalized would be North Korea or Cuba. There’s an Arabic word which describes this UK policy succinctly: “Shar’ia”

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