Have you heard of ‘2SLGBTQQIA+’? It stands for ‘Two Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual () people’. The acronym apparently originates in Canada. ‘Two-spirit’ refers to a person who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit, and is used by some indigenous people to describe their sexual, gender and/or spiritual identity. The remainder of the acronym is more familiar to most, perhaps without the latter add ons. The American comedian Dave Chappelle has said, ‘It’s over. LBGTQ-L-M-N-O-P-Q-Y-Z, it’s over. I am not telling another joke about you until we are both laughing together’.
I would like to lengthen the above acronym. How about ‘2SLGBTQQIA+HN’? H stands for heterosexual and N stands for normal. This should be done in the interests of inclusivity. After all why should such acronymic descriptions exclude more than 90% of the human population? It is as if they do not matter. They are invisible. Only micro-minorities count. The elastication of minority sections of the population into a disproportionately influential proportion is unhealthy. The ensuing tyranny of these minorities over the very large majority is undermining societal norms that have existed for millennia. The intolerance of some of these minorities towards others is astonishing. They present themselves as a protected species who cannot be criticised. Their identity and positionality outweigh everything and everyone else. Freedom of speech has become compromised in universities. Academics and students are walking on eggshells, afraid of losing their jobs and of being disciplined and excluded for some perceived or alleged micro-aggression.
There are ever increasing categories of ‘hate crimes’. The Metropolitan Police defines a hate crime or a hate incident as follows. ‘In most crimes it is something the victim has in their possession or control that motivates the offender to commit the crime. With hate crime it is ‘who’ the victim is, or ‘what’ the victim appears to be that motivates the offender to commit the crime’. It follows that 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender' is described as a hate crime.
This is a very exclusive and specialised definition. Were the murders of Sarah Everard and Sabena Nessa not hate crimes? What about the recent murders of four women and one man with a bow and arrows by Espen Andersen Bråthen, a white convert to Islam in Konsgberg, Norway? Surely hate is present there? Is the murder of homosexuals by a homosexual classed as a hate crime? Stephen Port found his young victims on gay dating sites, then drugged, raped and killed them before disposing of their bodies within a third of a mile of his East London apartment. State Enrolled Nurse Beverley Gail Allitt was convicted of murdering four children, attempting to murder three other children, and causing grievous bodily harm to a further six. Were these hate crimes? Does it matter how they are described? The ‘who’ is present in all of these. As it is in any crime against a person or their property. It is dehumanising to address the ‘who’ concept to specialised groups and deny it to the large majority of humanity.
The list of hate crimes has grown exponentially. Hate incidents can take many forms. Here are examples of hate incidents:
• verbal abuse like name-calling and offensive jokes
• bullying or intimidation by children, adults, neighbours or strangers
• physical attacks such as hitting, punching, pushing, spitting
• threats of violence
• hoax calls, abusive phone or text messages, hate mail
• online abuse for example on Facebook or Twitter
• displaying or circulating discriminatory literature or posters
• harm or damage to things such as your home, pet, vehicle
• throwing rubbish into a garden
• malicious complaints for example over parking, smells or noise.
Are these not simply examples of anti-social behaviour within the normal definitions of the law? If a white person throws rubbish into the garden of another white person, why is that not a hate crime? Does it only become a hate crime of the victim is a person of colour? What if the perpetrator is a person of colour? Do black on black murders qualify as hate crimes? If not, does that mean that the taking of another person’s life is worth less than if it was defined as a hate crime? This is nonsense.
The category of ‘hate crime’ should be abolished. It has no proper relevance or meaning. A crime is a crime is a crime. Minorities should not have precedence over the general population. The work of early homosexual politics for special treatment has ended up in absurdity. So afraid are politicians and police that no-one is brave enough to introduce reform. As it is with 2SLGBTQQIA+. Chappelle’s comedic elongation tells a deeper truth. Humans are humans first and foremost. Deviations must not be elevated to superior status under the law. Equality and inclusivity must work both ways.