We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Scotland & ‘Hate’: it’s actually worse than you think So too there is nothing in the New Testament that makes behaviour worse if it is directed against black people or gay people. Rather what is radically new about Christianity is that it treats all people as being essentially the same.
I can find nothing in Plato or Aristotle that says that a deed is worse if it is done against this type of person or that type of person, nor do I find this sort of idea in Augustine, Aquinas, Kant or Mill.
Ever single system of religious, moral or legal thinking that I can think of treats humanity as being morally equal. From this we get “all men are created equal” in the United States Declaration of Independence, which is one of the cornerstones of western thought.
So not only has the Scottish government destroyed the objectivity of the law, so too it has destroyed the idea that we are all equal before the law.
– Effie Deans
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I don’t believe there should be any ‘hate’ laws or ‘hate’ speech, only crimes which may be tested in court, based on evidence. If you incite violence or hit someone that is a crime. That someone else deems it hateful because of their ‘feelings’ is neither here or there.
And we all recognise that there are many grievance mongers, activists, obsessives, and plain nutters, who will leap on the opportunity to find offence and ‘hate’ – whether it exists or not. Can we rely on the Police to reject vexatious claims? Hollow laugh.
I can find nothing in Plato or Aristotle that says that a deed is worse if it is done against this type of person or that type of person, nor do I find this sort of idea in Augustine, Aquinas, Kant or Mill.
Every single system of religious, moral or legal thinking that I can think of treats humanity as being morally equal.
Assuming that the second paragraph above flows from the first and that the author is saying that no “system of religious, moral or legal thinking” holds “that a deed is worse if it is done against this type of person or that type of person”, this simply not true. In Islam, for example, there is no shortage of harms which it is perfectly hunky-dory to inflict on kaffirs or apostates but which are utterly out of bounds if the victim is Muslim.
That ship sailed years ago. It’s pretty much an offence to be an Englishman in England these days, as the previous post illustrates. How long, I wonder, before Europe and the UK need a “two state solution?”
So for the avoidance of doubt, if someone says to me (as has in fact happened) that I should “fuck off back to Englandshire”, does that constitute a hate crime?
For some reason I expect it will turn out not to, even though the tone of voice used and the body language displayed make it pretty obvious that hate was indeed involved and intended.
Such are the joys.
To expand a bit on my previous comment, Islam is just the most topical example. In-group preference means that it has frequently been the case that people feel it is worse to do something harmful to somebody inside your group than to somebody outside your group. The hate crime concept rests on the idea that it is worse to do something to somebody outside your group than to somebody inside your group. This is what makes it new, not the fact that it departs from some universally accepted principle that it is the nature of an act itself rather than who the victim is that makes it more or less wrong.
Of course, there are situations where who the victim is can make a given act worse. Burgling the home of an elderly woman living alone is worse than burgling the home of a bunch of strapping young male house-mates, because the impact on the victim’s life is likely to be so much greater. Whether it merits a more severe sentence under the law arguably depends on whether the perpetrator was aware that the property that he was burgling was an elderly woman’s home…
AFT,
I think he was on about Western philosophy. Not the rag-bag of sh’ite that flowed from a certain immoral Bedouin.
Also, if you google ‘Aristotle on slavery’, he seems to think that some people are natural slaves- so it was okay for his pupil, Alexander, to conquer the Persians. Eventually the west developed ’empathy’ as its’ choice philosophy- goodbye, Aristotle!
Roue du Jour asked:
Never. Whites are simply supposed to go extinct in Europe, North America, and Oceania. Then Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners, and Latin Americans can move in and make the world a better place to live in or some such thing.
By the end of the 21st century there will be bloodbaths all over the globe that will make the 20th century look like a tea party in comparison, either from newcomers having the critical mass to eliminate the locals or the locals deciding they’ve had enough and pushing back.
All cross-border financial transfers from the rest of the U.K. should cease.
There must be consequences. In the little time it has left, the current Tory government should make Scottish people suffer the impact of financial reality. They want to create a Maoist state, they can damn well do so in their own financial resources.
Steven R,
See, that’s where I have a problem. The last time Islam invaded Europe is was pre industrial revolution so such a thing was possible. Now the west are advanced industrial nations it isn’t. Islam taking over a western nation would be like a couple of car thieves nicking a 747. Ok, now what?
As I have said before, Islam flourishes in countries where you can sleep outside year round. Without dhimmis to keep the lights on and the water flowing northern Europe would be uninhabitable. I can’t see how anything other than parasitism would be practical. They need to keep the country running to extract the cash. When you think about it, that is what they are doing now. They have their enclaves, preferential welfare over the native population and fresh colonists arriving every day.
I don’t think the invaders care about the complete breakdown of infrastructure. The ones at the top know it isn’t going to grind to a complete halt overnight and by the time it does, they’ll be dead, the next generation will be used to a lesser standard of living, and they’ll always be able to find someone to blame for the situation (i.e. native Britons). See also: South Africa or any major American city.
I suspect that people around here know what I am about to type – but I am going to type it anyway as it is the truth.
There is nothing particularly Scottish about this new law, and it is indeed nothing to do with Christianity (“Puritan” or otherwise).
This law is from Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, “Woke” Marxism – and it is part of a movement that is all over the Western world.
It started with a few evil (and they were evil) men such as Herbert Marcuse (who held that Freedom of Speech was “Repressive Tolerance” which “harmed” “disadvantaged and marginalised groups”), but now it is mainstream – for both governments, education systems, and the vast corporations. The people who are pushing this evil may not understand it (indeed I hope they do not understand it – for if they understand its evil and freely choose to further it, then they are damned), but whether they understand it or not, the effect is-the-same.
This is unfortunate as Frankfurt School “Identity Politics” Marxism was designed (yes designed) to destroy society – not just to rule it, to destroy it. Even “Stalin” was wary of it (indeed forbad it) because he wanted a functioning society to rule – he, mass murdering tyrant though he was, did not want to destroy society, he wanted to rule it.
Either the West will reject Frankfurt School “Woke” Marxism – or it will be destroyed by it.
But that already exists in UK, USA etc. I don’t see it as new. Protected Classes is precisely that.
But *why* do they want to destroy society? If they do so they destroy themselves as well. To destroy others as a side effect you destroying yourself is evil, but to *use* the destruction of others in order to destroy yourself goes beyond evil to something without words.
jgh, the why is the same reason people like Lenin or Hitler or William I did it: either they think they are the smartest men in the room and know what’s best for us all or power, unbridled power. They’ll reshape us all to meet their ideals or they’ll just use us for their own ends. Either way, we get destroyed in the process but to them, it’s worth it.
Again – this is nothing particularly Scottish, this is Frankfurt School, Critical Theory – “Woke”, Marxism. And it is all over the Western world.
Has anyone else noticed what Craig Murray has said on the Scottish hate law? Namely that his legal advice is that it applies to anything that can be viewed in Scotland, regardless of where the person writing it resides. Ergo anyone worldwide who puts something on the internet that a person in Scotland then reads is taken to have ‘published’ that item in Scotland and therefore falls under the new law. And while it would not be possible for the Scottish police to extradite people from other countries on that basis, within England and Wales they could, presumably by issuing a UK wide arrest warrant that the police south of the border would have to enforce.
It would be interesting to fly into Glasgow and be met by officers who had a warrant for me based on something “hateful” I had posted to X which had been read in Scotland.
That sounds like a law that the US would pass.