When a society becomes less disciplined, less deferential and more permissive, order declines and 'diversity' in its many manifestations increases.
According to Robert D. Putnam, political scientist and Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, diversity - of race, culture, language, sexual preferences etc. - leads to an "uncomfortable" society where people become increasingly wary of other.
From "The downside of diversity" in The Boston Globe:
IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam - famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement - has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," he writes in the new report.
Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents - all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have.
At an empirical level, you are far less likely to chat to a stranger during your commute knowing that a chance comment might be at odds with some aspect of diversity in his life, of his family and friends, and unwittingly cause 'offence'.
Best to keep shtum and plug in the earphones.
Diversity has also provided us with so many unusual day-to-day sights, unlike in previous years when there was more discipline and uniformity of dress, of language and general conduct.
The generally unkempt, casual dress of folk in public places, tattooed women, burka-clad aliens, 'gay pride' exhibitionists, the Pidgin English spoken by so many Millennials etc. etc. were unheard of and never encountered thirty or forty years back.
The blind and irrational enthusiasm of organisations that should know better - schools, universities, local councils, the Civil Service, the BBC etc. - in their promotion of 'diversity' as a positive attribute is not just irritating but anti-intellectual. All over the world diversity of religion, race, language etc. is the main reason why folk go around killing each other.
There is no model for a sustainably happy, peaceful and successful diverse, multiracial/ multicultural country - even the USA is now visibly suffering the problems of racial and political diversity.
In the UK the result has been to give more things to disturb and irritate ordinary folk and generate the potential for 'hate crime'.
What exactly is 'hate crime'? Is it disapproval of something or someone, or is it more to do with being "threatening and abusive" as outlined in the Public Order Act?
According to ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers, a private limited company and the same group which banned police officers from joining the British National Party), a common definition of hate crime is:
Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.
Note: "perceived by the victim or any other person".
From the Cambridge Dictionary:
Hostility: an occasion when someone is unfriendly or shows that that they do not like or do not agree with something.
Again, from the Cambridge Dictionary:
Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Preconceptions are allowed in a free society; the question is, when does disapproval morph into a 'hate crime'?
Writing in The Guardian (21/8/17) Alison Saunders (pictured above), director of public prosecutions says:
People all over the world are questioning how those in positions of power can counter the kinds of extreme views that are increasingly being aired, and how societies might do more to prevent such opinions from gestating in the first place....
But we should remember that there is a less visible front line which is easily accessible to those in the UK who hold extreme views on race, religion, sexuality, gender and even disability. I refer to the online world where an increasing proportion of hate crime is now perpetrated.
The internet has empowered us as individuals to bypass the mass media and its editorial control, and that's what they don't like and what scares them into creating 'hate crime'.
They are panicking. Something - anything - must be done!
The revised CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) documents cover different strands of 'hate crimes' - racist, homophobic, transphobic, targeted at people because of their religion or disability - and now a new entry - biphobic.
Separate guidelines from the CPS released in January reaffirmed that no evidence is needed to report a 'hate crime', it only needs to be "perceived" by the alleged victim. "In order to treat a crime as a hate crime for the purposes of investigation, there is no need for evidence to prove the aggravating element", the guidelines read.
We need eternal vigilance in times of enforced and increasing diversity.