Call it a hate crime and outlaw them

Special commission on hate crimes, chaired by himself. Propaganda of the good, genuine, of the one to frown and get bellied. How to resist.

When it became known that it was a false complaint, an invention of someone who did not want to explain their sexual tastes to their partner, little or nothing mattered. If it hadn’t been this time, it would be another time. Hate crime. Definitely.

Nor did the evidence that Samuel’s murder in La Coruña had a homophobic motivation had a major impact at the time. The collective he said yes and it was yes.

The truth, what is that? Like a false positive. An exception. Nothing that can contradict the feeling or perception of people converted into a collective, reduced to a single trait and victimized, as a collective, by others and by themselves.

Hate crime turned into a mantra, in that concept that covers everything, that covers mouths and invalidates arguments, that criminalizes and that paradoxically what it generates, as a Pavlovian reflection, is hatred.

The truth is that in both situations there has been hatred and above all incitement to hatred, only directed from the Government, and not to a group, but to a party, or simply to the possibility of dissent about that victimization turned into a weapon thrown, instrument of indoctrination or business.

Because the hate crime to which both the Government and certain groups resort is not that of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or that of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and neither is the Spanish legal system (hence they want to change it) .

The hate crime that suits the Government and these groups is one from which the crimes have mysteriously disappeared. political opinions as a cause of discrimination and therefore as a reason for any aggression (verbal or physical) related to these, can be punished without a trace of doubt.

For the Home Office, in fact, hate crime refers exclusively to that which is infringed on members of a group. And what is considered as such? Any that is based on “a common characteristic of its members, real or perceived, such as their race, national or ethnic origin, language, skin color, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation or other similar factor.” Up to this point.

Therefore, excluded civil guards beaten in a bar, national police, people like that who are provoking with Spanish flags, sympathizers or leaders of right-wing parties (even if they are part of the group women) or victims of the ETA murderers.

And excluded and silenced, also, those who have the bad luck that their aggressor is part of any of the victimized groups.

But having arrived at this strange interpretation in which political ideas have no place, it turns out that they can become a justification for a person (politician, teacher, journalist, opinion writer) or a party to be charged with incitement to hatred solely for disagreeing with dominant speech.

But also, in the case of a political formation, it can be the cause to promote their illegalization, their civil death or what is much simpler: the delegitimization of any pact with that party and the impossibility, therefore, of reaching a sum, right now more than likely, to reach the absolute majority necessary to form a government.

It is enough to have the majority of the media and the springs on your side to move the street. As the government parties have them now.

So let’s say I’m talking about Vox. Let’s say I’m talking about the sum of the PP and Vox.

Follow the topics that interest you