In UK, Student Diversity Officer Facing Criminal Charges for Tweeting "Kill All White Men"

Good. And I'll explain why in a bit.

A student diversity officer who was caught up in a racism row after allegedly posting 'kill all white men' on social media has been summonsed to court to face malicious communications charges.

Bahar Mustafa, 28, of Edmonton, North London, a welfare and diversity officer at Goldsmiths University, will appear at Bromley Magistrates' Court on 5 November, police said.

Ms Mustafa will face two charges, one of sending a threatening message between 10 November 2014 and 31 May this year, and one of sending a menacing or offensive message via a public network, between the same dates.

Here's her defense:

Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

You see, she is the white men have so much hypothesized, "structural" privilege that she, as a non-white non-man, must be given real, actual privileges to disobey laws otherwise generally applicable.

Now, here's why I said "Good:"

I am of course against this sort of henny-penny Speechcrime prosecution. However, if such laws are on the books, and if disfavored persons (chiefly those unfashionable white men) are routinely being prosecuted under them (as they are), then it is absolutely imperative to prosecute Ms. Mustafa to visit upon her the unfairness and lunacy of a speechcrimes that she would visit on other people.

Suppose the United States really was the racist country it is claimed to be. Suppose we had truly punishing, draconian drug laws, as they do in Indonesia, but we did not enforce them against white people, but only against black people, on whatever theory -- "Oh, we have to protect black people against the scourges of drugs, for their own benefit, you understand." (I realize that pro-legalization people claim that this is the state our country actually sort of resembles; but whether or not it's true doesn't matter for this hypothetical.)

Under the situation of my hypothetical, white people would never be confronted with the question of whether throwing someone in prison for 20 years for a drug crime is a cruel punishment, because they never have to face the prospect of it themselves. For them, the threat of running afoul of such laws is entirely a hypothetical matter.

That would mean whites would have all the "benefits" of a draconian drug enforcement regime (such as they may be imagined to be) without any of the drawbacks of one -- and it would mean that whites could continue to inflict this law on blacks without having to ever see the consequences of it up-close and personal.

And the most important ethical principle in all the world is the shoe on the other foot test -- if you were forced to wear this shoe, would you submit or would you rebel?

These leftwing totalitarians cannot be permitted to have all the "advantages" of weaponizing the law to persecute their political enemies while never facing the disadvantages of such a vicious, anti-liberal regime.

If they want these laws, they must take the advantages and disadvantages both at the same time -- and that means that their kin will be prosecuted under these insane laws the same as their enemies will.

Unjust laws are never repealed if they are only inflicted upon a disfavored minority. It is only when the majority -- including those favored in fact by the state (non-whites, non-males; I speak of those favored in fact, not favored in fantasy, per the SJW claims) are forced to live under unjust laws that the laws' unjustness is suddenly... noticed.

So Ms Mustafa should not get the pass she argues for, based on the fact that she is non-white/not-male. There is no such exception in the law, and there cannot be such an exception in the law under any sort of tolerable regime.

She obviously supports using these laws to hang others -- then she must be trundled up the gallows, just the same as she'd see her enemies trundled.

There is no other way to make them understand what monsters they are, you know.

No, Ms Mustafa should not be prosecuted for mere speech. But neither should anyone else. Giving Mustafa a pass while continuing to punish disfavored groups will result in even more people being prosecuted for speechcrimes, because these laws will persist.

Only when Ms Mustafa and her vile allies are made to understand the downside of totalitarianism will they be open to moving away from a totalitarian regime.

The second-worst possible regime is to have speechcrime laws at all.

But the absolute worst regime is to have speechcrime laws, but under which only a disfavored minority are prosecuted, while the favored majority are quietly allowed to escape the law's cruelty. Speechcrime laws inflicted against one and all contain the bitter seeds of their own destruction; speechcrime laws used by a favored majority to attack a disfavored minority will persist as long as men have evil in their hearts.

Which is to say: Forever.

posted by Ace at 12:09 PM

| Access Comments