As the mandates to control individuals’ behaviour spread across the globe, citizens are becoming increasingly polarised. On one side there are many, including the UK opposition party, who advocate tougher controls on personal behaviour regardless of consent. On the other side there is a growing sense of frustration, distrust, and powerlessness. There is an almost palpable sense that the longer the tribal division continues, the greater the chances of civil unrest and violent conflict.

The ‘free press’ used to be a source of sanity and balance. The conservative thinker, Edmund Burke said that there were ‘three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important far than them all.’ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kCo-AAAAYAAJ

Burke and many others believe that the ‘fourth estate’ has a ‘watchdog’ role, to rein in the excesses of the monarchy, the clergy, and the legislature. It is essential to a functioning democracy that the press exercise this task vigilantly and responsibly. But it appears that the conventional news-media, now often labelled MSM or ‘legacy media’, have abandoned this vital journalistic function in favour of partisan propaganda.

Examples are ubiquitous, however an article published by the Guardian yesterday appears more shameless than most: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/30/anti-mask-blitz-war-public-good

It is instantly offensive. It’s headline is: “Let’s not pretend the anti-mask babies would have lasted a minute in the blitz” with the equally insensitive sub-heading: “It’s funny that so many of those who bang on about the ‘war effort’ seem unable to do something minor for the public good”.

Hyde's points

The essence of Hyde’s article is:

1) The ‘public good’ is an objective rather than contestable concept

2) She knows what the ‘public good’ is

3) People who choose not to wear a mask are cowards

She claims, under a highly provocative image of a man apparently waving a fist at masked woman on a bus, that anyone, for whatever reason ‘unable to bring themselves to wear a mask wouldn’t make the first sacrifice for their fellow humans, let alone the ultimate one’

4) Wearing a mask that ‘might help other people, even a bit’ is ‘really not that bad’

5) The evidence is irrelevant if there is a vague chance that it might help

6) There is a legitimate comparison between behaviours in wartime and the present day: “… it’s intriguing to remember that chaps like this (ie those who protest about governments’ disregard for individual rights) really fancy their chances at having been able to cope with the blitz.”

“For all their constant bleating about the government trying to control them, it’s a shame the poppy-shaggers and online warriors have absolutely zero understanding of how deeply embedded in people’s lives government was in the last world war, in the interests of the wider public good.” (Aside: what is a ‘poppy-shagger’?)

7) Some people and organisations have been profiteering massively from the pandemic (Aside: how does this obvious fact follow from castigating ‘anti-mask babies’?)

8) As a consequence of the profiteering ‘many ordinary people now feel they too can opt out of the idea of even minimal national effort’

Hyde’s vitriolic rant makes no attempt at balance, or logic, and cites no evidence. Have any of those who protest about repeated government infringement of basic human rights ever claimed to able to cope with the blitz? Or is this just her unpleasant and rather desperate imagination?

Does this qualify as a hate crime?

Hyde’s article is so aggressive that it is not unreasonable to ask whether it constitutes a ‘hate crime’.

According to the Metropolitan Police:

“A hate crime is defined as '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.'

“Hate crime can fall into one of three main types: physical assault, verbal abuse and incitement to hatred….

“Verbal abuse, threats or name-calling can be a common and extremely unpleasant experience for minority groups….

“The offence of incitement to hatred occurs when someone acts in a way that is threatening and intended to stir up hatred. That could be in words, pictures, videos, music, and includes information posted on websites.

“Hate content may include:

• web pages that show pictures, videos or descriptions of violence against anyone due to their perceived differences”

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/hco/hate-crime/what-is-hate-crime/ 

It is not clear who is responsible for Hyde’s article. The choice of headlines and image may well not have been hers, but most or all of the text must be.

Whether the article constitutes a criminal offence is for the police, and possibly the courts, to decide.

As distasteful as Hyde’s piece is, the biggest tragedy is that she and her editors at a national newspaper seem to have completely forgotten their social responsibilities as the 'fourth estate'.