If any thought can ever be a crime – in that by definition it is self-regarding – isn’t everyone who accepts the existence of thought crime the ultimate fascist?

If hate speech is a result of thought crime, is it really hate speech….or one side’s attempt to render the other side ‘incorrect’? In my experience, hate speech is never restricted to one side only: all humans are, I respectfully submit, created equal in their ability to hate.

If hate speech incites violence upon one community by another, whose fault is that…the host culture that nurtured the violent response, or the hate speaker?

If the host culture is avowedly anti-violence, does that give an inbuilt advantage to the minority hate-speaker whose intolerance will be appeased by the self-appointed ‘correct’ cadres?

If the violence allegedly created by hate speech leads to feelings of superiority, will that provide permission to kill the objects of hate as being Communist, Turkish, Russian or Slavic Üntermenschen…and behead Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Sikh adherents as being Kafirs?

If the soi-disant Herrenvolk or Ummah translate their superiority into an excuse to invade other cultures and replace it with their own, what are the peacemakers to do?

To paraphrase for a second, ‘Real World Wars from imagined Thought Crimes grow’.

There is no such thing as thought crime. There is only inter-tribal hate and its nemesis, genuine pacifism and the aspiration to achieve universal Love.

A Happy Easter to all.

Earlier at The Slog: A British election not quite scratching the wrong surface