All politicians have it very bad in the clarity department.They speak a coded language all their own that is expressly designed not to express anything in precise language but in this black art Teresa May is in a class of her own.The mistress of obfuscation May specialises in opaque language and it is indeed her defining characteristic.If it were a minor department she was in charge of this might not be so serious but this is the home office minister and she is in charge of a new programme on curbing political extremism and drawing up legislation to counter it.
It is hard to think of any issue that demands absolute clarity of expression,concise definitions,plain language more than the issue of frees speech as it goes to the heart of liberty and a free society but it is at this very core issue Miss May shrouds the English language in fog and a miasma of obfuscation.It is very hard not to conclude that this is deliberate,or it could just be she really is that confused in her thinking.
Hence we are told the battle is with extremism,a vague wooly term in itself as it only denotes the degree of a person's belief and the extent to which they hold it not whether the belief itself is good or bad.Some people are extremely good -does that make them extremist?By her non definition one would have to say it does.
Then she proposes to act against those who 'incite hatred'. What exactly does that mean? If someone says homosexual acts are obscene is that incitement to hate and if so since when was a belief or a thought constituted a crime? Blank out.Is any strongly expressed disaprobation against a particular individual group,religious persuasion ethnic characteristic to be now regarded as illegal rather than what it is,an irrational prejudice and an indication of gross ignorance? Note she does not say incitement to violence which would be the correct point at which the law steps in to prevent such speech.
One can only conclude that this is yet again a deliberate covert assault on the principles of free speech in the guise of protecting it,a refusal to pursue the real threats to our liberty in the form of islamism and to to cloak the whole country under suspicion of automatic guilt in the expressing of unpopular controversial views that challenge the state and its arbitrary oppressive power and unchecked expansion.