The UK’s broadcasting regulator Ofcom has broadened its definition of hate speech to include intolerance of gender reassignment, social origin and “political or any other opinion”.
Hitherto its code had contained four protected characteristics, imposing a duty on broadcasters not to feature “any incitement to hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality”.
It now defines hate speech as “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of disability, ethnicity, social origin, sex, gender, gender reassignment, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, colour, genetic features, language, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth or age”.
It would have been easier to list the sort of people that it is now OK to mock and target with hate. But most people can probably guess who they are — most people, that is, the majority, who simply want to be entertained, not lectured, when they watch television.
Most people are too busy living to complain about every category of offence, although Ofcom says that a study of audience expectations published in April found that the public believed “discriminatory content against specific groups” was more concerning than nudity and swearing.
If offended by a TV program, most people are likely to switch over to something else, leaving the professional offence-takers – who are not concerned about normal standards of taste – to swoop down on alleged examples of hate crimes.
And since these now involve individuals who define their own identity, how can broadcasters – or anyone else for that matter – be sure that they are not offending them?
The four original grounds of offence were seen as a catch-all covering every possible instance of discriminatory material. But Ofcom has presented the trans lobby with a New Year gift. The new definition ensures that this issue will not be mentioned at all unless it is discussed in ways that respectfully echo the campaigners’ own perspective, using their terminology and most importantly their pronouns.
But even worse, the new code includes the ticking time bomb “or belief” after “religion”. Theoretically, this could mean that if someone sincerely believes that a group with protected characteristics is inferior or superior in any way, he is entitled to broadcast that belief, thus making a mockery of the code’s aims.
In practice, however, “or belief” means non-belief in Christianity: atheists (who, as Chesterton said, would not exist if it were not for God) will be able to insist on equal billing with the same group of people whose public voice they would silence: Christians.
Thus, while the persecution of Christianity worldwide is ignored, this new, improved code against hate may allow atheists their own programme – perhaps it could be called “Songs of Hate”.
Needless to say – and probably it is against the new hate code to say it – while Ofcom will be deluged with complaints about hate being hurled at these new categories, there remains one category of human that it is still OK to kill for any reason whatever – the millions of unborn humans being killed in the womb. Their defenders are likely to be accused of hate for drawing attention to the reality of abortion, which is something that should be broadcast but never is – because it is in bad taste.
In the history of own goals, this new code against offensiveness must qualify as the most spectacular. But while we are all on the offensive against offence, we will not notice that the cultural Marxists pushing the hate crime ideology are standing ready to take over our soulless and chaotic culture and impose their own version of order — and we will have no defence against it.