Jon Rappoport | No More Fake News via Activist Post | Source URL
“Whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed—would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper—the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.” (George Orwell, 1984)
Welcome back, George. Things are playing out as you predicted.
From the UK Met Police website, here is the latest official attempt to censor speech. It’s actually more than that. Read carefully while pointing a fan at the screen to disperse the noxious fumes:
“If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.”
It—an action or statement—isn’t a crime, but the perpetrator’s reasons for “doing it” may spring from hatred—and then it turns into a crime. Magic.
You speak or write publicly, and somebody/anybody believes what you uttered was MOTIVATED by hate. If the police decide that’s true, they can prosecute you.
They have read your intent. They have read your inner thoughts and feelings.
“Mr. Jones wrote a paragraph that, in and of itself, did not constitute a criminal offense, but the thinking behind what he wrote contained hatred and was instigated by hatred. Guilty.”
Imagine something like this happening in the near-future: “A report by the National Crime Prevention Service indicated that a disproportionate number of rapes in British towns were committed by MusXXXX (censored). The report, which was scheduled to be released today, was stopped, when a room-service attendant in a London hotel pronounced that the report was motivated by hate. The police are investigating.”
Or this future absurdity: “After a local journalist reported several killings at a homeless shelter, when a dispute broke out over serving pork for dinner, the journalist was taken into custody by the police. The journalist was charged with a hate offense for using the word ‘pork.’ A co-worker at the town newspaper stated that ‘pork’ was incendiary and motivated by hate. ‘That’s why I called the police,’ he said.”
Imagine a court case like this:
PROSECUTOR: Sir, isn’t it true that you called your brother-in-law a danger to his family?
DEFENDANT: Yes, because he threatened to hurt his wife, my sister.
PROSECUTOR: And your brother-in-law’s religion is MusXXX (censored)?
DEFENDANT: Yes, but that has nothing to do with my statement to him.