The Principle of the Thing – Equality Before The Law

There was a phrase you used to hear all the time in the UK. When faced with a choice between an expedient decision and an ethical one, a person would often say “no, I’m not going to do that (the expedient thing), because of the principle of the thing.”. I don’t often (or hardly ever in fact) hear anybody saying this nowadays. Have we lost sight of our former principles in the “West”?

In this post I’m going to focus on one particular principle which to my mind is of fundamental importance in a fair society, namely equality before the law, and look at the many ways this principle can and is being abused. In doing so hopefully I will also show/remind people of how principles in general are important as many seem to have forgotten about that.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.


Of course the principle of equality before the law was always more of an ideal than a reality. For example, richer people are usually going to be able to afford better defense lawyers when they are accused of a crime. However just because the principle is difficult to apply absolutely in PRACTICE does not mean that we should not always be striving towards the IDEAL. Its important that the government is always seen to be at least TRYING to enforce the law fairly and consistently, this will reduce the risk of unrest and result in a more harmonious society.


Laws that can only be judged subjectively endanger equality before the law because it is unlikely that different judges would view the same case in the same way. Any law where the crime cannot be clearly defined should therefore be amended or repealed. For example the Communications Act 2003 declares that it is illegal to send a “grossly offensive” communication on the internet. What is “grossly offensive” and what is merely “offensive” is not a distinction that can be judged objectively.


There are now so many laws in the UK that it is impossible for our police to even ATTEMPT to investigate all “crimes” that are committed.Instead of abandoning/repealing some of the less serious laws, our politicians leave these laws in place. In this article we see just how ridiculous some of these laws can be:

On a more serious note, having too many laws provides a temptation to the authorities to arrest people for crimes they wouldn’t normally pursue, when they have a particular motivation for doing that. Such arrests cause a sense of injustice, especially when rich/powerful/influential people are not arrested when they commit the same crimes.


Sheer numbers of social media communications mean that it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to police social media consistently without creating a huge police state apparatus. Coupled with the fact that the vague Communications Act 2003 criminalizes merely “grossly offensive” communications, the volume of “crimes” being committed is simply too large to police consistently. If a few people are prosecuted at random and others are not for the same crime, despite the fact that both cases could easily be investigated, then the law is being applied unfairly.

An example of this sort of selective policing can be seen in the recent case of Stephen Bennett. Breitbart recently uncovered numerous tweets that either incited or threatened physical violence against Nigel Farage. None of these tweets are prosecuted, yet Stephen Bennett is prosecuted and convicted despite the fact that he did neither incite nor threaten physical violence against anyone (as far as we can tell from what we have been allowed to know). We could be forgiven for thinking that our police force is behaving in a politically motivated fashion. I do think that.


Some crimes should always be investigated, for example when large sums of money are involved, but this article suggests that police don’t always have the resources to do this:

Lack of police resources to prosecute serious crimes leads to injustice for some of the victims of crimes, as discussed in the above article.  Resources should be diverted from the policing of trivial laws to more serious cases such as these.


This article cites examples where the authors believe this is the case:

Note particularly the case mentioned where Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were prosecuted under the public order act (with the charge that the crime was aggravated by religious hatred, thereby potentially carrying a higher sentence). More details on that case here:

It seems the prosecution’s “evidence” was flimsy in the extreme yet the CPS still deemed the case worthy of prosecution. The case was dismissed but the couple have claimed their hotel business takings were down 80% as a result of the case. In cases like this the prosecution functions as the punishment.


If it seems that one group in society are getting preferential treatment then discontent will grow. I see daily there is a growing perception that Muslims are allowed to get away with all kinds of things that others are not. “They wouldn’t have arrested X for THAT if X were a Muslim” and that sort of sentiment is heard frequently nowadays. It is possible that, due to the reserved culture of the British, that this is partly because British people are simply not complaining loudly enough when crimes are committed against them.  British people also are more likely to perceive trivial comments posted on social media for example as a matter not worthy of reporting to the police.

However it is also possible that a culture of “political correctness” is inhibiting the police from prosecuting crimes committed by ethnic minorities in general as well, because the police are afraid of appearing to be “racist”. This accusation has been heard frequently in the wake of revelations about grooming gangs in Rotherham and many other places in the UK. This is leading to a growing sense of injustice among non-Muslims.

Another example of the reluctance of the police to prosecute Muslims could be seen in this story where leaflets inciting murder of Ahmadi Muslims were found. The authors were Sunni Muslims, and some of the leaflets were found in mosques in London as well as many other places. The ibtimes reported that the police refused to do anything about these leaflets, despite the fact that an Ahmadi Muslim called Mr. Asad Shah had been murdered in Glasgow by a Sunni Muslim quite recently. This tragic event should be seen as a proof that the incitements were credibly serious enough to warrant prosecution of the leaflet distributors. Contrast the lack of prosecution here with the over-the-top prosecution of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang mentioned above.

More examples can be seen revealed by the “Undercover Mosque” TV documentary.

During a demonstration the Britain First group were surrounded by hostile protestors who threw things and behaved in a threatening manner.  This situation looks extremely menacing for the Britain First members. The police have not as far as I know ever arrested anyone in connection with this incident.

At a similar incident there was clearly an assault with video evidence:

Note – don’t be taken in by the Independent’s headline, watch the video and decide for yourself who is being attacked violently.

Perhaps the authorities believe that these anti-protests are useful in suppressing the Britain First group? If so they are sadly deluded, because failure to prosecute such incidents leads to a growing feeling of injustice among those who share the views of such a group. The law must be seen to be being applied fairly and consistently to all. Failure to prosecute those who attack them also gives the oxygen of publicity to the group. If you oppose the group, then you should ask the police to prosecute those who attack them in order to starve the group of this oxygen of publicity.


The authorities also seem to be interfering with the Britain First group’s right to peaceful protest:

Britain First Luton High Court Drama

Whatever anyone thinks about this group one has to remember that if the law can be misused, then it can also be misused against THEM.

Note – I am aware of the numerous unjust uses of the law against Tommy Robinson, but I plan to write about these in a dedicated post.


In the wake of the banking crisis that occurred towards the end of the New Labour period, there was a widespread perception that bankers had been getting away with all sorts of financial misdemeanors while ordinary people would be arrested for crimes involving much smaller amounts of money. The collapse of the Lehman brothers revealed perhaps only the tip of the iceberg of such crime. This sort of class inequality in the application of the law endangers democracy and encourages disharmony.


There have been claims that the UK tax office has a “special relationship” with big business which enables those big businesses to somehow pay less tax. However in this paper it is claimed rather that there is too much complexity in taxation and that this leads to unfairness.


Of course big businesses can afford the tax accountants to cope with such complexity, whereas smaller businesses will be unfairly hampered by such complexity, reducing their competitiveness.


A case of such alleged enforcement in the US:


In our multi-racial Western societies we have seen the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement recently. This movement claims that “black” people are unfairly treated in comparison to “white” people. This movement has started riots and created widespread disorder, and people have died (including 5 policemen in a shooting spree in Dallas). These events show us the importance of equality before the law, when it is not maintained (or at least PERCEIVED to be being maintained) then serious breakdowns in social cohesion can occur.

Many commentators have questioned that the data really backs up the BLM movement’s claims, citing for example higher crime rates among “black” people – more crime leads to more arrests and confrontations with the law. This illustrates an important point – that it is not just important that the law is applied fairly, but also that when questioning the legal system we should do so objectively and fairly. The media and politicians who have allowed myths to go unchallenged are perhaps the ones really most at fault in this tragic story. Are lives being lost for no reason here?


We have forgotten our principles, complacency has set in. Everyone should remember that injustices that happen to someone else today could happen to them tomorrow. If we allow our governments to get away with one injustice, they will be emboldened and think they can get away with other injustices in the future. We should see injustices against any citizen as injustices against all citizens, whoever they are, whatever they believe, and however different their beliefs may be from our own.

It is tempting to see the state as too powerful for mere individuals to challenge. However fear is contagious and the more we are reluctant to challenge authority the more authority will be empowered by our inaction. Start a blog, write about cases that concern you, write to your MP, join a march.


Its NO LONGER A Free Country

You used to often hear the expression “its a free country” in everyday usage in the UK. The phrase was usually used as a response when someone said “you can’t do that” or something similar, and was usually used in a fairly jokey spirit. You seldom hear this phrase nowadays.  The fighting spirit and sense of humour that used to characterize the British people has been slowly ebbing away, gradually suffocated by a climate of overweening political “correctness”. Particularly in the area of freedom of speech our liberty has been gradually reduced, almost without a whimper from the populace. It is as though the British people as a whole no longer even really value freedom of speech very highly any more.

Its not just the mainstream media that is creating a climate of hostility to free speech, but increasingly Western governments are enacting and enforcing laws that restrict speech far beyond the very small limitations that used to be accepted. For example, lets look at the recent case of one Stephen Bennett who was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a 12 month community order including 180 hours of unpaid work. His crime? He had made some general remarks on social media about Asian women and Muslims, that were deemed to be “grossly offensive” under the Communications Act 2003.

Manchester Evening News reported the case. Their journalists were not apparently told all the details of what he had written that was deemed so “grossly offensive”. All that had been revealed to the press apparently is that he had written this (1):

“Don’t come over to this country and treat it like your own. Britain first.”


Now, I don’t know how on earth anybody could come to the conclusion that this statement alone is so “GROSSLY offensive” that it should warrant prosecution at all let alone warrant a 12 month community order. Possibly there was something much more offensive in the other things he wrote that have not been revealed. Let us examine this statement however and try to decide what he meant. I personally feel the statement is vague and could be interpreted in two different ways.


I think the worst possible meaning of this sentence is that it could be seen as implying that Asian/Muslim people who are born in this country do not really belong here. That’s not very nice to them, a bit offensive perhaps, but if people take SUCH great exception to this then really I have to say I don’t think they are very mature people. Mr. Bennett is a cleaner, it is not as if his voice carries huge weight in our country. He does not have 1000s of followers and he is not a high profile figure, or at least he wasn’t, before the state decided to prosecute him for nothing much. In any case I find it really rather difficult to believe that this was what Mr. Bennett really meant, because apparently “His lawyer added that his mother-in-law and sister-in-law were Muslims, and that he was not racist.” (1). I am therefore rather strongly inclined to think this is not what he meant.


I think the best interpretation is that its a statement of who we the British are. We are people who do not believe in Sharia law, we are people who believe in women’s equality, and crucially we are people who believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Our Prime Minister Theresa May has reiterated that FREEDOM OF SPEECH is one of our VALUES. The Muslim culture does not believe in FREEDOM OF SPEECH, criticism of the man the Muslims regard as their prophet is strictly forbidden in Muslim culture, and indeed was forbidden by Mohammed himself. Take for example the case of Asia Bibi, who was imprisoned on death row for 9 long years for the “crime” of blasphemy.  Readers should note that in her case lawyers were too frightened to talk about what she had said, i.e. the lawyers in the case COULD NOT TALK DURING THE COURT CASE ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS BEING PROSECUTED FOR SAYING. Can you not see the direction of travel that we are heading in here? Those of you who are familiar with Franz Kafka’s nightmarish novel “The Trial” will see parallels with that great novel as well.

If this interpretation was what Mr. Bennett really meant by what he said then I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH WHAT HE SAID. His conviction should be overturned IMMEDIATELY and he should be compensated fully for:

  • Loss of earnings while on trial.
  • Anxiety sustained during the legal process and after it.
  • Danger to him and his family created by having his identity revealed and his picture splashed on national newspapers.
  • Any impact on his future job prospects (in perpetuity) that the case has caused (this could be considerable and he has several children to support).

I also think he should be given a book deal and invited to speak at all the major British universities who seem to have forgotten the value of freedom of speech. Any students who attempt to “no-platform” him should be expelled from their British university immediately. He should be cheered by true Brits everywhere he goes, whatever their ethnic origin, because true Brits believe in Freedom of Speech. It is who we are.

He should be given an Order of the British Empire medal and invited to Buckingham Palace to have a cup of tea with the Queen so that she can thank him from her heart for standing up for her (and our) country’s most important values. He should also be invited to no.10 Downing Street so that Theresa May can apologize to him in person for failing to defend his liberty. She was after all the Home Secretary for 5 years and now she is the Prime Minister. She has had plenty of time to revise or repeal the law he was charged under, among other things she needs to apologize for.

All of this is conditional of course – it must be revealed that the rest of what he said was also in keeping with this sentiment.


This is one of my biggest issues with the case in fact, the fact the details are being kept from us. I think we SHOULD be told what he said, for these reasons:

  • The words did not refer to anyone specifically (as far as we can tell from the article), so there is no danger involved in revealing the words. Its not a similar case to where you need an injunction.
  • Lots of similar comments are (probably) being made all over social media, its hardly as if the opinions he expressed are some big secret.
  • If they are not revealed the punishment will have no deterrence on others (readers please note I make this argument as it were from the point of view of those who think a person should be punished for making such a comment, obviously I don’t think so).

A counter argument to all this is that perhaps his life might be endangered if the comments are fully revealed. However there are bigger issues at stake than one individual’s personal safety here. If the authorities can silence opinions and the public not be told what those opinions are, then the authorities now have a hugely unreasonable degree of power over the citizens. We are living in an Orwellian police state already. George Orwell warned us that such a society might develop in the future in his book 1984. We should have been heeding his warning, now look at the mess we’re in.


I suspect this is at least to an extent the thinking behind (or the excuse for) this kind of prosecution. However what we (including the govt.) need to remember is that freedom of speech is not easily won yet it can be very easily lost. Sometimes you have to take risks to preserve it. We must be courageous in defence of our freedom. Theresa May should remember that keeping law and order is only one of her duties as Prime Minister, defending Freedom of Speech is another that is just as important.


A law that criminalizes statements that are “grossly offensive” is not a law that can be applied fairly and consistently, because the statement is inherently subjective. What is offensive to some people is often a funny joke to others. We need this law (Tony Blair’s Communications Act 2003) to be repealed or at the very least reworded to remove this incredibly vague statement.

I was born free, in a free country, and I yearn to live in a free country again. Please help my wish come true by linking to this post, or republishing it (with acknowledgement and a link to my site please) or write your own post about the case.






The “Brexit Hate Surge”

Around the time of the Brexit referendum the BBC and other online media outlets began sensationally reporting that there had been a surge of reported “hate crime reports” or “hate crime incidents” in the UK following the result. The narrative was that this was a sign of an upsurge of racism or xenophobia against immigrants/people of foreign origins. Many news sites were quick to try to portray this phenomenon as somehow a product of the Brexit campaign. This should be regarded as a sort of smear campaign against the Leave campaign. Were these sites trying to create the environment for a second EU referendum? The fact that these same sites had generally shown a pro-Remain bias should be noted.

Feeble politicians were goaded by pseudo-journalists into condemning the disgusting epidemic of hate.  Note that I use the phrase “hate incident” because that is the technically correct phrase to use, while the media generally referred to “reported hate crime” or “hate crime incidents”. I use the “hate incident” wording because the figures generally reported are merely the REPORTS of “hate incidents”, which are not necessarily crimes. By referring to these figures as “hate crime” reports the media are misleading their readers.


At the Independent news site this article appeared:

EU referendum: Reports of hate crime increase 57% following Brexit vote


There were 85 reports of hate crimes to True Vision, a police-funded reporting website, between Thursday and Sunday compared with 54 reports over the same period four weeks ago.

So, this sensationalist headline referring to a 57% increase was in fact referring to the reporting of a mere 31 reported hate incidents NATIONWIDE. Hardly statistically significant in a country of 65,000,000 PLUS people. The article also did not reveal what the nature of those 31 incidents was.

There was a similarly absurd article about the same data published by sky news:

Hate Crime Reports Up 57% In Brexit Aftermath

An even more sensationalist headline appeared a few days later in the Independent:

Racism unleashed: True extent of the ‘explosion of blatant hate’ that followed Brexit result revealed


Exclusive: Prime Minister accused of helping create the ‘hostile environment’ that paved the way for ‘F*** off to Poland’ messages, excrement through letter boxes, and racist abuse from children as young as ten

The Independent also published another report that attempted to prove that the hate surge was largest in Euro-sceptic areas in a further attempt to tarnish the Leave campaign:

Brexit: Surge in anti-immigrant hate crime in areas that voted to leave EU


In the BBC news website this article appeared:

The article began with this sensational announcement in bold letters:

More than 6,000 hate crimes have been reported to police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the wake of the EU referendum, figures show.

By using the phrase “in the wake of the EU referendum”, the wording here is clearly designed to sensationally suggest that the 6,000 hate incidents are somehow related to the EU referendum. In fact the figure of 6,000 was just the TOTAL number of reported hate incidents in the UK for the month. The article then reveals that this figure was only around 30% higher than the same period in the previous year. So even if you take these figures blindly at face value, then the most you could sensibly claim is that 1,800 reported “hate incidents” were somehow POSSIBLY (not NECESSARILY) related to the EU referendum campaign. Furthermore the quoted figures were for a whole month, they were not restricted to the immediate period around the referendum.

Further down the article it is then suggested that there have been changes in the way “hate incidents” are reported.

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the rise in reports could also be in part due to increased awareness of the problem and greater awareness of how to report it.

… thereby casting further doubt on the sensational announcement at the start of the article.  In reference to this it should be noted that there had also been an 18% increase in 2015 over the previous year, which was probably due to the fact that the public are being encouraged to report more of these “hate incidents”.

The article also stated:

The main type of offence reported over the month was “violence against the person”, which includes harassment and common assault, as well as verbal abuse, spitting and “barging”.

This is again misleading because incidents reported are not necessarily offences. Only once the police have investigated the “hate incident” and successfully prosecuted the case can it be described as an offence. Before then it is only at most an alleged offence. Some of the reported incidents may have been entirely made up for all we know, many others may well not have qualified as crime at all. It also seems very strange to me that mere “verbal abuse” should be included in a category of “violence against the person”.

The article overall contains two videos which both describe particular alleged racist incidents. This helps to build a subliminal impression that the figures related to racist “hate incidents” alone. However there is NO BREAKDOWN of the figures to reveal the more specific nature of the incidents, for example if there was a surge in racism which races were involved.

In summary then the very worst case is that 1,800 extra “hate incidents” were reported in the whole month period. So, out of a UK total population of 65.1 million (at least) then less than 0.003% (or about 1 in every 35,000 people) felt the need to report such an incident to the police in this month over and above incidents reported last year. Also, bear in mind that these included as “hate incidents” behaviour as minor as verbal abuse (one estimate put these at 76% of the reported incidents (1)). For all we know most of these incidents might have been cases of verbal abuse aimed at Leave campaigners. We just don’t know.


Judging by the ferocity of hatred against Nigel Farage uncovered by Breitbart here:

‘Shoot And Stab Nigel Farage’: Hundreds Of Social Media Messages Urging Attacks On UKIP Leader Revealed

I think its fairly safe to say that any actual increase in hate that genuinely can be attributed to the referendum campaign did not by any means all come from the Leave side of the argument.  Ironically one of the “hate criminals” revealed in this article is one Noel Fielding, a “comedian” who regularly appears on BBC TV, who apparently had “joked” in 2015 (2):

“don’t applaud Farage, stab him”


Breitbart reported:

Speaking on Tuesday, Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton clarified that while reporting of hate crimes had risen via an online form, there was no evidence to suggest that this was uniquely related to a Brexit vote, nor that the crimes have actually been committed.

See the article in full here:


The London Mayor wasted no time in trying to link the supposed racial hate surge with the referendum:

“You can’t escape the conclusion that there is a link between the referendum and a surge in racial incidents.”

During the referendum campaign he had attempted to tar the Leave campaign with the phrase “project hate” (3):

“Immigration has brought huge economic, cultural and social benefits to our country,” Mr Khan said. “Your campaign hasn’t been project fear, it’s been project hate as far as immigration is concerned.”

This is the same Sadiq Khan who not so long ago referred to “Uncle Toms” during a TV interview.  The phrase is a highly derogatory term that is used to describe those of ethnic minorities who get too friendly with the white man (4).

The wannabe first Muslim Prime Minister of the UK is now seizing his opportunity to set up an Orwellian specialized thought police unit to censor the internet:

London Mayor To Set Up Police ‘Online Hate Crime Hub’ In ‘Partnership’ With Social Media Firms

Anybody voting for this man can expect the UK would turn into a quasi theocratic Islamic police state, Erdogan style, if he is ever elected to the top job.


As you can imagine our new UK home secretary Amber Rudd, far from trying to damp down the surge in wild exaggeration by our stupid media, jumped on the bandwagon instead and announced a plan to tackle “hate crime”:

Another quote from the Independent (5):

New Home Secretary Amber Rudd has announced a series of measures to tackle hate crime following a surge in reports after the Brexit vote.

She was quoted as saying:

“Hatred does not get a seat at the table, and we will do everything we can to stamp it out”

You can’t “stamp out” hatred home secretary.  Hatred is thought, you can’t “stamp out” what goes on in people’s minds.

Meanwhile the new home secretary continues to fail to regain control of our borders.  Her predecessor, Theresa May, also failed to regain control of our borders during the 5 years she was the home secretary.  The Conservatives were elected in 2010 with the promise that they were going to reduce immigration to the 10s of 1000s, no ifs, no buts, said the (then) Tory leader David Cameron.  They have failed to reduce immigration throughout their whole time in office so far, and they continue to not reduce immigration.


Some voices of reason were to be heard elsewhere on the web however:

Imaginary Yet True Headline: British Treat Opponents Tolerantly After Brexit Vote


Considering that the sensational media reporting began before there was even any significant data available, we cannot discount the possibility that these articles may have also increased awareness of the reporting system’s existence.   This could have encouraged people to report incidents that they might not have bothered to report otherwise.


To summarize, the media have attempted to smear the Brexit referendum result as creating a significantly increased climate of racial hatred on the basis of no evidence at all.  Our political leaders have hastily responded to the non-event.

See Also:

The BBC’s own article on the previous year’s 18% (2014-2015) “surge” in hate incidents that was obviously nothing to do with the referendum:


“Black Lives Matter” Protests In UK Despite Reduction In Racial Profiling

Some quotes from Breitbart in an article about UK police stop and search policy:

A prominent former Metropolitan police officer has said that stop and search saves black lives, by “stopping black youths killing other black youths”. This comes after a member of the Riots Victim and Communities Panel has said that it is “highly likely” that a drop in stop and search has contributed to a rise in knife crime in London.

This reduction in stop and search follows Theresa May’s autumn conference speech in 2014 when she condemned racial profiling in stop and search policing.

Former Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley stated on Sky News:

“Stop and search works if we want to stop, frankly, black youths killing other black youths.”

He remarked that in 2008, of the 29 teenagers who had been stabbed to death in London in that year alone, 28 had been black, and “virtually all of the assailants were black”.

“[The then Mayor of London] Boris [Johnson] wanted something done. The police wanted something done, and we started to step stop and search up. As a result of that, seven years later, only seven youths were stabbed to death in London.”

The article concludes with a recent statistic since stop and search has been reduced:

The Black Lives Matter protests came in the same week that two black teenagers were killed in separate knife attacks. Ten youths have been killed by stabbing in the capital since January.

Full article here:

Bizarrely the Black Lives Matter movement staged a protest in London recently where they were chanting “F*** off Theresa May”.

F*** Off Theresa May

One of their demands is an end to racial profiling, which is what Theresa May has been delivering. It seems some people just cannot ever be satisfied.

Hate Crime – A Terribly Flawed Concept

Some people seem to think that “hate crime” is the criminalizing of hatred, but that is not generally what is meant by the phrase. The reasoning behind the idea of “hate crime” is that a criminal act should be treated more seriously if it is motivated by hatred. So for example, if a man murders a woman, not just because he wants to steal her belongings, but also because he hates women, then the sentence should be longer (that’s THE idea, not MY idea). Hatred simply on its own is not the crime. “Hate Crime” is also not to be confused with “Hate Speech” which is a different concept.

My purpose in writing this post is to expose the flaws in this idea that evidence of hatred, particularly of a certain group of people, should warrant longer sentences. I believe trying to make such distinctions leads us into a moral quagmire and runs a risk of endangering possibly the most important principle of justice, namely equality before the law. It could also in fact be having exactly the opposite effect to the main effect intended, i.e. it could be increasing disharmony among groups in society.


The first rather enormous problem with the concept of “hate” crime is that a crime may indeed be motivated by hatred, but if there is no evidence of the hatred, if the perpetrator keeps his hatred under wraps as it were, then there is no way of knowing about it. Thus if we apply a harsher sentence only where there is EVIDENCE of hatred, then the law may be being applied unequally.

Read More »