Discover more from David Votoupal
We aren't the ones with a hate problem
How the coronation coverage exposed double standards
To start with, I’ve been well prepared for all this. We’ve been subjected to endless lectures since 2020, in fact some time before then too, about how awful as human beings we are. So yes, I was well prepared for the reactions to the passing of HM Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of HM King Charles III.
The coverage of the Coronation, in the UK and Australia, has been widely criticised for the promotion of racial identity politics. On top of the hateful and bigoted reactions to the Queen’s passing from those claiming to represent “non-white” voices. The likes of Uju Anya, Karen Attiah, Mehreen Faruqi, Kehinde Andrews and others were laced with the vilest bigotry and hate, but we know they won’t get prosecuted for it.
The last decade has seen a radicalisation of racial politics and the rise of an activist who is angry, hateful and abusive. And as certain parts of the UK show, you don’t have to be non-white to be an abusive tribalist bigot. This is the essence of identity politics, in which aggrieved people demand “respect” but abuse others in the most vicious way. Racialised versions of history are not only revisionism, but often outright fantasy.
Racial and wider social justice activism is presented as universalist, altruistic and humanitarian. In reality, the base motives of such activism is tribalist at the core. When Ukrainians and Armenians demand recognition for genocide, at least they are honest about their (nationalist) motives for doing so.
None of this is a coincidence. It is a radicalisation project years in the making, heavily funded through transnational networks in academia and NGOs. Any responsible government should investigate funding.
As this and the cases of Sarah Jeong and Saira Rao also illustrate, an open double standard on “hate speech” is endorsed. It’s clear that the definition of “hate speech” has no objectivity whatsover and is purely a political instrument, a means for prosecuting the “wrong” opinions. After all, if prosecuting people for racism and hate was enforced with any consistency, what would that mean for countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan?
Fortunately, there has been a backlash against media coverage of the coronation, but it also opens up uncomfortable questions for whole communities: are they the ones with the REAL “hate problem”, and not the white/Anglo/whoever communities they are vilifying?