Apparently, a man in Scotland had just been cleared of assaulting a football manager in Scotland, despite assaulting him in plain view in front of tens of thousands of witnesses, because some pygmy state politicians wanted to increase his possible sentence by adding on the stupid thought crime element of ‘religious aggravation’, but failed to ‘prove it’:
As Queen Elizabeth I said, several hundred years ago, only God can set a window in men’s souls. What happened was that a man was physically assaulted, and whatever you think of the state-managed legal system, his assailant has failed to be duly dealt with and in some way made to pay for this uncivilised behaviour, because political big-wiggery, vote chasing, and political correctness has prevented this justice.
What does it matter what was in this man’s mind at the time of the assault? And even if he was, God forbid, harbouring non-politically correct views at the time, why should this mean, if proven, that the actual crime of physical assault is worse? Does a punch in the face hurt less if delivered by a man thinking politically-approved thoughts?
I think Gordon Brown is a fat stupid selfish idiot. Is that a thought crime yet? No doubt it will be eventually, despite being so obviously true. Does my thinking of this make my crime worse of wanting this Keynesian oaf dragged before parliament and made to apologise for the tens of billions he has so far cost the rest of us, for his disastrous hubris in selling off 400 tons of gold at the decades-long bottom of the market, to help buy a later job for himself in the IMF?
This continual effort of British politicians to use Nineteen Eighty-Four as a guide book, rather than a warning, is starting to become genuinely worrying.
Comrades, I’ll see you in the Gulag.