Hate Crime laws - your guilt is whatever we say it is

The bias is not in the letter of the law, it’s inherent in common conversation, interpretation of comments, arrests, prosecution and determination of guilt.

A brainwashed person who is trained to always hear bias because he is trained to hate white British group identification will always here bias and racism if someone identifies with a white British group. The same dynamic exists in a different way across race, gender, sexuality.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4196447/Arrest-for-gay-horse-jibe-is-absurd-says-Tatchell.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410150/Schoolgirl-arrested-refusing-study-non-English-pupils.html

I appreciate the point you're trying to make now, but your original post was quite clearly a criticism of the law (whichever law you meant to talk about) and how it was prosecuted. If you want to move to a general discussion of society, who do you mean? Everyone? That can't be true, because you're here. So do you actually mean everyone you don't agree with?

Everyone is forced to project a false self according to social pressure. Some people refer to this as political correctness.

Isn't it a good thing to avoid doing something that might needlessly offend someone else?

How did that not offending people work out for the kids of Rotherham? Or people who are persecuted for writing about the benefits of Colonialism? Or white people murdered in South Africa very commonly and no international pressure?

Nope, because whether a person intends by words or behaviour to stir up hatred is a question for a jury or magistrate - hatred against any race or ethnicity would fall under the same prohibition. I think the problem is more with you and your seeming distaste for the 'blacks'. Note: not being allowed to pigeonhole entire races by the conduct of their worst members is not an unreasonable, 'Orwellian' restriction on freedom of speech. It's a sensitive balance between your right to freedom of expression and others' rights not to be the object of your scorn.

I'm not entirely sure I follow that argument - you're confusing a general presumption against offensiveness with institutional failings, which do exist. My point is that they don't mean that individuals should not try to be harmless in their approach to ethnic minorities.

Do you think it's right that almost 4000 people were arrested by the state for facebook comments deemed as 'hate speech'?

Airplane. I was thinking about his today. We haven't actually had free speech since the Nazis. The Anti-Defamation League did the the same thing with censoring any view of the Jews that wasn't in line with the narrative that the Jews were simply a persecuted minority through-out history, and use the same word today to shut down opponents if Israel. Immediate making that statement and in the minds of 99% of the people reading it they are already saying ''far-right conspiracy theory anti-semite nutjob'', because we've all be conditioned as a population into certain narratives and beliefs we are supposed to believe and told there are certain things we can't talk about because they'll lead to the worst extreme possible if we do and must be suppressed without exception.


All cultures and races have has their good and bad moments. I've got nothing against anyone, and am a big fan of lots Jewish culture and alot Jewish intellectuals. But the Jews involved in the Red Terror and slaughter of tens of millions in the Russian revolution have skeletons in their closet they know full well about but they are not permitted to be spoken about in public life anywhere near the same as what the Nazi's did when it was just as horrific and more people were killed. That's because the evils of the Nazis has created the belief that if you criticise or talking about certain issues around minority groups other than Christianity it is going to lead to the worst extremes, like the Holocaust.

The biggest tool those who control the mass media and therefore control the social narrative and what people talk about and focus on, as well as how they think about it, is 'poising the well'. Simply creating terms that associate people with the worst kind of people like Nazi's, fascists, racists, is the fastest way to discredit people. Once people are discredited by the media in the minds of the public, they won't even take a word seriously from them.

That's why we see some many people, like those people firing nasty one line dismissals at you with nothing intelligent to say, with minds closed shut everywhere. It's just gone absolutely crazy right now and even more repressive than ever because the tactics are being used on a daily basis by the media over brexit, calls for control of borders, and any criticism of Islam. It's a bad state of affairs. It needs to stop ASAP.

Without context I couldn't possibly say - their conduct could be entirely innocent or worthy of punishment. The mere fact that their comments were on Facebook and not in real life doesn't make an intention to stir up hatred less blameworthy. On the other hand, if they were arrested merely for airing their controversial views in an attempt at meaningful discourse, there would be something wrong.

How does someone prove "intention to stir-up hatred?"

If I say "man, black people are really [negative adjective]", do you think I should be prosecuting. I've no intention, personally, but even if I did, how would you prove it. The answer is you can't, are rarely will be able to.

All arguments, opinion, points of view and ideas should be free speech. Hate speech shouldn't be singled about because it makes people feel 'uncomfortable'. And by free speech, I urge you to calarify yourself with the definition. It doesn't encompass threats, or incitement of violence etc.

In law, intention can be found in several ways. A large part of a tribunal's decision as to intention might consist of a consideration of the likelihood of hatred being stirred up and whether you appreciated this when you made the comments.

I totally agree, though - intention is difficult to find and it is frustrating when it does not align with desire.

What about when people are simply telling the truth about an inflammatory topic, for example when they tried to prosecute Nick Griffin for talking about the state ignoring Asian child sexual grooming gangs? Do you think It’s reasonable to have a law to prosecute someone for talking about something important which some moron claims is too offensive to deal with? Get help for the snowflakes that get offended all the time. The truth is that they are not really offended. Taking Offense is a modern liberal-left tool designed to censor people whose views you don’t like.

Watch this cultural Marxist feminist on Fox News then tell me honestly it’s about people’s feelings:

Sorry folks the magic show is over. Now bring on the revolution.

Yes that is correct - as soon as any white European expresses that they don’t want to become a minority in their own country the unconscious thought of the bystander is “Nazi who is going to gas minorities” - yet at the same time these same people are often supporting African nationalism or the rights of Tibetan people to keep their homelands.

We shouldn’t have a situation where white native Europeans become a minority in Europe.

Again, the key is intention. They TRIED, and, if the attempt was all, failed to prove intention. That's the blameworthy element and the safeguard against spurious prosecutions.

I see so it sounds administratively sound. Would you like your ass dragged through the courts for 2 years which you may spend in jail on remand worried every night that you might get a long jail sentence because you said something negative about a “protected” group from the same people who teach kids about bigoted white Christians?

It nothing but pure evil. I've posted this video 10 times now. No one will watch it. What Mo is talking about here, if you listen, is simply the destruction of Europe as we know it via population replacement, and we have no choice or no say, this is what you get for colonialism, according to him. And the guy who opposes him a Nazi.

Mo isn't the only one desperate to see then the end of the White Christian hegemony of Europe and who can't wait for it the replacement of the traditional demographic mix to one where his religion is the dominant one. He is speaking the language of the Left. A new multi-cultural utopia is coming, and new Enlightenment age. Most people will take Mo's side just to not be called racist, even though they know Europe is filled with sectarian divides and ghettos and people with values that are complete opposite on many issues constantly at odds on a far bigger scale than we have today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nG5WEE7m4s&t=300s

Where are you quoting 'protected' from?