you're reading...

Outrage as Home Secretary Amber Rudd is reported for ‘Hate Speech’


The definition of a ‘hate incident’ relies entirely on the perception or opinion of the person choosing to report it. It is entirely subjective and requires no other evidence. It can be done anonymously.

Professor Joshua Silver has reported Amber Rudd to the police, believing that her party conference speech that she delivered last year, is somehow unlawful merely for saying that the government should work on ways to prioritize getting Brits back into work ahead of immigrants.

Professor SIlvers told the BBC – “It’s discriminating against foreigners – you pick on them and say we want to give jobs to British people and not to foreigners. It was interpreted that way.”

Professor SIlvers admits that he didn’t even actually watch the speech. “I didn’t actually see the speech, but I’ve read the draft… I’ve read the speech carefully and I’ve looked at all the feedback,”

Asking employers to advertise in the UK before advertising abroad is not discrimination. Besides, the Professor didn’t appear to have a problem when Brits were being discriminated against down to jobs being advertised abroad without anyone here (including, incidentally, many Britons with diverse ethnic heritage) having a look in.

The Professor appears to have a child like grasp when it comes to the difference between citizenship and ethnicity. By his logic, having different queues at passport control for non-EU citizens would somehow be discriminating against foreigners. What about the right to vote in national elections? Are we not “discriminating” against people for being the wrong nationality?

It’s all getting a bit silly. We are now at the point where well to do out of touch middle class liberals are screaming “racism” and “hate crime” every time a politician even talks about looking after the interests of British citizens against globalisation.

Furthermore, this outrageous incident is more proof as to how absurd hate crime legislation actually is. One problem is that the definition of a hate incident is based purely on the perception of the person ‘offended’. The police make no objective judgment on this. They used to. They got so much flack over cases they didn’t classify as ‘hate incidents’ that they decided to abdicate responsibility and just classify anything someone said was a hate incident as a hate incident. Understandable but something that distorts statistics and leads to bizarre situations like this case.

The Spectator pointed out how warped and unreliable the statistics are:

“Many of these incidents (the police can’t at the moment say how many) were reported through True Vision, a police-funded website that allows anyone anywhere to report something they either experienced or witnessed, anonymously if they like. No evidence is needed. Everything is instantly logged as a hate incident. This inevitably presents a warped view of reality.”

It’s about time the government rationlised hate crime legislation to protect all citizens rather than ‘protected groups’ and ensured that freedom of expression and informed debate where given priority over the peculiar sensitivities of people like Joshua Silver.

Hate crime legislation is divisive as it encourages people to report normal crimes as “hate crimes” in order to get others a stiffer sentence or gain compensation.

It is not politicians who are trying to stick up for long suffering working class British citizens that are causing divisions, it’s the proponents of so called “hate crime” legislation.



No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: