Cancel Culture: Is this post prison-worthy?

Cancel Culture.

Scotland's Attempt at Banning my Blog.

 

I am glad that Christopher Hitchens is dead. Not because I think of him as a foul-mouthed, blasphemous, egotistic character whose infamous written attacks and venomous Hitch-slaps brought fear to anyone remotely against his views. That’s probably why I love him. No, I am glad he is no longer around to live in our society because I know he would have met his match in 2020. Not through debate or discussion or a diligent exchange of conflicting views, but by the life-sucking pit of endless doom, that arrives at the door of many unsuspecting authors, editors and influencers alike, branding its rainbow-patterned scythe and slightly-different-but-still-equally-as-important rainbow-patterned cloak, bellowing out that their time has come. Hitchens would have been, like countless other individuals who express any view that is anti anything of which the world is evermore pro, succumbed to Cancel Culture.

Let me take a few steps back. For those that are unaware, Scotland is in the process of bringing in a new Bill, with the goal of policing hate crimes more effectively. A seemingly positive move, especially if one finds themself on the benefitting end in the protected categories: age; disability; religion; sexual orientation; transgender identity; and variations in sex characteristics. But any serious thought given to this notion and it quickly becomes apparent that this is nothing more than a bold and brazen attack on free speech. And with that statement I am not being dramatic. If brought into place, so called “stirring up offences” could land the ‘perpetrator’ a seven-year prison sentence.

And what even are these offences? Well it really depends on who is doing the interpreting of the law. Any act with a “likelihood to stir up hatred” is a possible offence – a direct quote from the Bill itself. However, remember this is 2020, and life is a continuous clusterfuck of cries from boys swearing that every ounce of their character is under attack from wolves. This is our culture. Every statement has the potential to stir up hatred if interpreted in such a way; except now, Scotland deem this something so criminal it warrants the possibility of time inside.

Disagreement is not hatred. It is a vital component of any society that wishes to discuss modern-day, controversial issues (tautology?) and come up with solutions to them. Without such an attitude, changes to everyone’s daily living occur at breakneck speed, in which the most liberal of liberalists struggles to keep up. I, like most people I know, aim to uncover, and unfold the world and those in it as much as I can, to form my views accordingly. Nowadays it feels as if I am treading through minefields that become denser with trip wires daily. Yet I am fully aware that to move towards a progressive society, discussions must happen in which issues are debated and uncomfortable situations arise. If these discussions are now viewed with intent to stir up hatred, or if this very article is seen as “inflammatory material” in which feelings of hatred could be stirred up, then viewed by the scots, I have committed a crime. And not just any old crime, but a hate crime - the crimeiest of all crimes.

It is ridiculous to imagine Scotland, under the guise of removing its own blasphemy law (why has it taken so long?) to effectively replace it with a broader ‘blasphemy’ law that now encompasses not just religion, but protected characteristics of even more seemingly untouchable groups.  Imagine a concerned parent of a child who identifies as being transgender. The carer addresses the issue to talk it through with their child, perhaps even offers them pamphlets to help guide them in uncovering not just a solution, but to even identify the true dilemma at heart; only to be accused by their own child and further in, the Scottish legal system, that they have committed a hate crime. This may sound dramatic, but how many of those who are in the public domain fear for their own careers and reputations whenever they approach a remotely controversial issue? Most of them I am sure. However now it is not a small but aggressive group of individuals online, tormenting a celebrity author, pushing them into submitting and apologising, followed by a swift U-turn and removal of all comments that were ‘wrong’. This is the law. This is the state. This is a country telling its citizens what it can and cannot talk about in case offence is caused. This is Cancel Culture, on a much larger, and much scarier scale than I ever imagined possible.

 I am using my own free speech to defend free speech itself. Many groups of individuals will no doubt feel this notion is a benefit to their causes. I urge them to look deeper and see what this really is. After all, orthodox Christians vs. Homosexuals, both intentionally stirring up hatred aimed at each other; who sits where and with how much power? Are both at fault or are both protected? This Bill is nothing more than state-enforced Cancel Culture, shying away from any discussions on controversial issues. This is cowardice. This Bill is anti-free speech, under the guise of being progressive and protective. Pish.