Curiously enough, “hate speech” might be something that doesn’t truly exist in our reality. Reflecting upon cross-Atlantic buzz in recent days, mumblings of blasphemy among our British cousins leaves little to be despised. Labour MP Tahir Ali has apparently suggested that the prime minister move what may be prohibited by a set of religions into the British government’s domain of control.

The capacity to exhibit and prohibit speech does not often a free society make; though Islamaphobic, antisemitic, and anti-Christian speech and actions are horrible things, when committees are formed to investigate and penalize, we find ourselves lost again among our own ineptitude. “Cui bono” (who benefits?) to some might be “who decides” for others.

Surely, it is quite impossible that anyone would use religious law to persecute others in their community who they believed to be “possessed” or under the powers Satan? That’s never happened before, right?

Take a brief flight and hop into the state of South Dakota, and you will find a similar degree of nonsense and blind faith in humanity’s ability to measure right from wrong. Kristi Noem, apart from possibly being our next Homeland Security secretary, served her post of governor in true American fashion by choosing to mandate anitsemitism’s inclusion within the legal code.

Now, before you hit the panic button, ask yourself these questions. When government protects, does it not also control? Is there purity in our attempts to govern, or is there always corruption? When religions are mandated, are they not also equally destroyed?

Ahmad Esfahani

Greenfield