By Judd Garrett
Banning “hate speech” sounds good on the surface. The less hate in the world, the better. So, banning hateful things, should make the world a better place, right? The problem is that how do we define hate speech? Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee tried to do just that when she introduced an anti-hate bill in Congress last week, designed “to prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate crime.” Interestingly, the bill only focuses on hate crime motivated by white supremacy. Apparently, she doesn’t care about stopping hate crimes committed by people of color against white people or other minorities.
The legislation outlaws “material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on ‘replacement theory,’ or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-white person or group.” Once again, it only prohibits hate speech directed at non-white people. So, it’s legal for her to spew vile, hate-filled racist speech as long as it vilifies white people, which she does on a regular basis.
She was also careful to include “replacement theory” into the wording of her legislation which means that pointing out how the Democrat Party is promoting mass illegal immigration to change the electorate in order to win more elections is now considered promoting white supremacy, and would be a crime. So, we are not allowed to speak out loud about what we see happening right in front of our eyes.
They never try to win an argument based on the merits because their positions have no merit. They use the accusation of racism as a weapon and a shield against their opponents. The open borders crowd claim that borders are racist, so they can label anyone who is against unfettered illegal immigration into our country as racists, and have them silenced.
That’s how this all works. They pass a law to censor “hate speech”, and then they use the flimsiest thread to label any speech that they don’t like or is inconvenient to them as “hate speech” or “racist”, so they can censor it. And they use this strategy on almost every issue. Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg has labelled certain bridges and roads as “racist”. So, if you disagree with Pete Buttigieg tearing down a bridge or rerouting a highway, you could be charged with engaging in “white supremacy” and arrested.
Far-left magazine, the Atlantic, claims that the concept of meritocracy is racist. So, if you espouse the belief that people should earn what they get, and not be given handouts by the government, such as welfare and food stamps, then you could be charged with violating “hate-speech” laws and thrown in jail.
The Seattle Public School System claims that mathematics is racist, stating that "math has been and continues to be used to oppress and marginalize people and communities of color." So, if your white daughter gets a 100% on her math test, then she is a racist, and has violated federal law. Therefore, all white students must fail their math tests or they could possibly be thrown in jail.
Astrophysicist at Colorado College, Natalie Gosnell, Ph.D., stated that the field of Astrophysics is "steeped in systemic racism and white supremacy… The tenets of white supremacy that show up [in physics] of individualism and exceptionalism and perfectionism." So, the human qualities which were necessary to help physicists discover and understand the Laws of Newton, the equations of Einstein, and the movement of the planets through space are now racist?
But we all know that if the students of color were performing better in math and astrophysics than the white students, the same people claiming that fields math and astrophysics are racist would be extolling the virtues of merit-based scholarship in those disciplines. No one is claiming that the individualism, exceptionalism, perfectionism and meritocracy which defines the NBA and the NFL are racist. These types of speech laws are not designed to protect anyone. They are designed to give the people in power the ability to shut down speech they don’t like so they can control outcomes in their favor.
Climate change activists have argued for years that not doing enough to stop climate change is racist. So, when Jim Hagemann Snabe, the chairman of the German manufacturing giant Siemens, told the panel at the WEF that one billion people should stop eating meat in order to save the planet from climate change, he was really saying, if you do not want to eat bugs, and you want to eat a steak, then you are engaging in white supremacy. You must eat what we are telling you to eat or you’re a racist.
Colombia’s far-left President, Gustavo Petro took it one step further when he told the WEF that in order for the world to survive climate change, humans must "overcome capitalism." So, once again, if you believe in the capitalist system, and also believe that Petro’s socialist system in Colombia is destroying that country, then you are not combatting climate change, and therefore, you are racist and should be thrown in federal prison.
The diversity, equity and inclusion crowd are the least diverse and inclusive people out there. They want no diversity of thought and will exclude anyone who has a belief that is different from theirs. This is why they are the champions of anti-speech laws. They do not want to hear a different point of view, and some of them even want people to be arrested if they have a different opinion than they do. If you claim to be a champion of diversity and inclusion then you must be willing to include a wide range of diverse beliefs and ideologies, even the ones you adamantly disagree with. That is what diversity and inclusion means. But sadly, the people who want to control our speech only want to hear what they agree with.
Judd Garrett is a graduate from Princeton University, and a former NFL player, coach, and executive. He has been a contributor to the website Real Clear Politics. He has recently published his first novel, No Wind.