I don’t know, but the Brits are tinkering away like a bunch of mad scientists trying new approaches.
The latest? Creating a new tier of “hate groups” whose views are un-woke but whose methods are, frustratingly, not violent enough to run afoul of existing terror and hate-group laws:
Available by Home Office fiat, such designations would be based on the fairly vague claim that a group might ‘demonise specific groups on the basis of their race, religious [faith], gender, nationality or sexuality’, or be guilty of ‘disproportionately blaming specific groups (based on religion, race, gender or nationality) for broader societal issues’. Or they might be regarded as ‘aligning with extremist ideologies, though not inciting violence’.
What would be the impact on a group that was designated as hateful? The report is short on detail, but it speaks in terms of such groups ‘not [being] allowed to use media outlets or speak at universities’, and not being allowed to ‘engage, work with or for public institutions’. They would be ‘suspended from the electoral roll’. (This is an odd phrase showing, perhaps, evidence of over-hasty writing. Presumably, it means the groups would be deregistered as political parties.) The designated groups would also be banned from holding any public marches at all.
One would like to think the consequences are unintended – but we all know better, don’t we?
Think about what kind of activity might fall under the ban. What about a Christian evangelical group known for its strong views on transgenderism? Could it be driven from public life until it mended its ways? On the other side, what of pro-choice activists who regularly call out what they see as the medieval bigotry of the Catholic Church on reproductive matters, or a group of gay-rights supporters who attack the Koran for its uncompromising view on homosexuality? Might they be found guilty of disproportionately blaming a religious group for societal ills and find themselves banned?
I don’t know about you, but I think the exceptions will be painfully obvious and utterly unwritten.
Sort of like the Minnesota election law that governed what people could and could not wear in polling stations, which which pro-2nd Amendment, tax reform or pro-life-wear was considered “political”, but anti-gun, pro-big-state or pro-infanticide paraphernalia was not.
I think Big Minnesota Bureaucracy is more than ready. And, likely, is looking at the British “advances” in thoughtcrime and licking its proverbial chops.