You might have one protected characteristic. You might have two. But in the poker game that is The Diversity Hierarchy Of Rights™ , they may not be enough.
Amy CrazyWorld (one of her YouTube handles¹) has had an interesting 2018. She lives in England, and may live in London. From her videos it appears that she lives on her own in a house, owns a budgie and a dog, and is an older lady. She also likes Donald Trump and doesn’t seem to have much time for the Islamization of Britain or uncontrolled, mass, third-world immigration with open borders. But this post is not about that subject – instead we are dealing with homophobia!
Piecing together her videos, and those of others, this seems to be the sequence of events in 2018:
- Early February: Amy has an altercation in a Tesco carpark with a man concerning a disabled parking spot. There is an argument and the man (according to Amy) aggressively approaches her. She pushes him back. She tells him to “Have a gay day.” A witness was watching the altercation.
- February 11: Two police officers call on Amy. They inform her that she is being investigated for committing a crime under the Public Order Act [IV] (causing someone distress). The police do not quote the “Have a gay day,” statement that Amy admitted later she said, but instead try to get Amy to repeat it. Amy declines to repeat what she said, and the police get frustrated. One of the officers tells her, “If you will not speak to us we will investigate this to the full extent of the law,” then slams her door on his way out.
- February 27: Amy receives a caution notice in the mail that she is required to attend a voluntary interview with the police concerning the crime noted above*.
- April 3 (unrelated): Amy attends a free speech rally at Speaker’s Corner and complains that there are Muslims praying on the ground contrary to published park rules. The police do nothing at the time.
- Unknown date: Amy attends her voluntary interview and mentions that she will be recording the interview. The police decide to end the interview. She gleans however that the witness appears to have changed the events, so she visits Tesco to talk to the witness.
- Sometime in May: Amy is arrested at her home by two police officers. She is charged with assault (she pushed the guy away), homophobic hate crime (“Have a gay day”) and obstruction of justice (visiting the witness).
- May 23: Amy explains her arrest and charges.
Based on the few videos available, Amy appears to be what we may call an ‘older woke patriot‘, those people in their 50s and 60s who can still notice the difference between their childhood experience of England, and the England as it exists today. As noted, she is not too interested in the new, progressive utopia that England is becoming, and makes a few videos here and there chronicling this. She comes across as abrasive, and she might not be someone you want to watch a movie with, but that’s hardly the point.
The point here is the genesis of this lengthy police investigation: an altercation in a car park, something which must happens dozens of times a day – in every carpark! The point here is the vigilantism that is now in the hands of people that can be said to be ‘protected‘. It seems that this disabled woman, pushing back an aggressive man, would warrant attention to the man, not to her. In the normal course of events, it would be a minor annoyance as we shop for groceries. But the man was ‘protected‘. So the man called the police to tell on the woman. What she said. And, based on the initial interview with the police on February 11, the police were interested in the words spoken by Amy; the additional charges of assault and obstruction of justice were added as the ‘investigation’ proceeded.
The moral of this story is clear: if England did not have their egregious speech-crime codes, the events in the carpark would have been something you chatted about at the dinner table that night, and nothing more. But because one of the participants in the event has special protections (and more to the point, they knew that they could call the police citing these special protections), there is an immediate, comparative judicial disadvantage of equity for Amy. Before Amy is able to argue the events (was it assault; who started it), she must first climb the hurdle of this disadvantage.
This is true, of course, for anyone in Britain that is in an altercation, disagreement, or other dispute with a person who has a protected characteristic. And, as with much of the new hate-, speech- and thoughtcrime statutes plaguing Britain today – no actual crime is necessary. All that is needed to set the police-state wheels of justice turning is to wish someone a gay day.
* Just a note that the language in England’s various hate-crime statutes is pretty subjective, as noted, including language such as a victim feeling ‘distressed’.