Is Labour MP Stella Creasy something of a philosophical hypocrite? She has recently, and rightly, complained about the police feeling her collar concerning her suitability to be a mother. This followed a demand by a troll using the name “Lance Jones” demanding her children be taken into care.

This mischievously motivated allegation is that because of her feminist, allegedly “extreme”, beliefs she is in danger of influencing and psychologically damaging her children.

While the person making this cruel and sinister intervention has faced no legal repercussions for expressing his beliefs about Creasy’s ideological perspective and political record, it is an indication of how fundamentally illiberal some within the police now that they decided to take any action in relation to it.

In this instance … they got the political line wrong

Nowadays the cops seem pre-programmed, perhaps because of all the diversity and inclusion re-education strategies imposed on them, to assume any ideologically motivated complaint must be acted upon. Usually, their natural inclination is to harass those judged to have communicated sentiments reported as being of an offensive nature. In this instance, like malfunctioning drones, they got the political line wrong and decided to pay an unsettling visit to Creasy. This was possibly because of the troll’s claim that some type of potential child abuse was taking place in the Creasy household and this instinctively spooked them. The police, of course, should have simply ignored Lance Jones’s request for intervention, as Waltham Forest social services, by marked contrast, correctly chose to do in this instance.

However, what sticks in the craw for me about this bizarre story, too typical of our febrile times, is that Stella Creasy has been presented as some sort of martyr. Remember, this is the same person using her influence to try and have men given aggravated criminal sentences for adhering to and expressing beliefs she judges to be “misogynistic” — in other words, guilty of a thought crime.

She wants the whole principle of the rule of law, whereby individuals are treated equally in relation to sentencing, thrown out of the window for perpetrators of crimes who are thought to be motivated by attitudes she disapproves of. The Crown Prosecution Service and police define a hate crime as “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice” with regard to the highly selective and long list of protected characteristics which Creasy wants to see sex added to.

This insane formula has thus introduced into the UK criminal justice system the irrational postmodernist assertion that “truth” resides in the feelings and intuitions of those defined as being members of victim categories. It is a recipe for a highly authoritarian state of affairs which privileges some groups and discriminates against others. It is all part of the contemporary left’s desire to see a post-individualistic society.

The deployment of the Orwellian devices of so-called “hate crime” and protected characteristics are leading us towards a situation in which the right and capacity to hold and express opinions effectively vary for different sections of society. Through these devices the dice are being loaded in favour of particular viewpoints and cultural traits and against others.  

 Stella Creasy is also the same person who is trying to push through a law that would remove the right of pro-life campaigners to peacefully demonstrate, or even silently pray, near abortion clinics. Her amendment to the Public Order Act is designed to make it a criminal offence to “interfere” with access to or provision of abortion services.

Her definition of interference includes not just threats and harassment but “attempts to advise…or otherwise [express] opinion”. Anti-abortion demonstrators must not be “visible from a public highway.” This amendment, therefore, removes one of the principal ways anti-abortionists can contest the abortion issue and try and peacefully persuade expectant mothers not to go through with terminations.

Creasy is happy to see others subjected to state harassment and longer prison terms for holding and expressing their views, but when she gets a whiff of the same type of illiberal intervention she cries persecution. Creasy wants the police to present her accuser with a caution. 

But for what, exactly? Communicating something about herself she didn’t appreciate that resulted in an unsettling visit by the boys and girls in blue. The same type of bang on the door she wants to see “misogynists” and people who disagree with her on abortion subjected to in certain contexts. If Creasy’s nemesis believes that her children are in danger and should be removed, why should he or she too not have the right to report this to the authorities? It was the decision of the police to act upon this foolish claim that was the problem.

This Labour politician is a perfect example of the way in which the contemporary culture-control left is attempting to colonise the means of communication whereby they get to freely express their opinions and prejudices but those of us who have the audacity to disagree with them get silenced and more harshly punished.