Hate Crime Surge: Is This the End of Civil Debate?!

After President Lee Jae Myung ordered a crackdown on hate speech and disinformation last week, I couldn’t help wondering if he’d really thought it through. I mean, can we even *do* politics if people can't hate? It's a bit of a paradox, isn't it?

Hate Crime Surge: Is This the End of Civil Debate?...

Let's be honest here: Politics is often the pursuit of power. And sometimes, it seems to thrive on fear. The winning strategy can often seem to involve frightening voters – about immigrants, economic collapse, or even just the neighbor's dog – and then, of course, blaming the other side for it. How is that supposed to work if the "hate police" are out there teargassing the crowd?

If this crackdown becomes law, things could change fast, and in unexpected ways. For instance, former President Yoon and his wife might soon be found not guilty of, say, insurrection and handbag-related improprieties – perhaps on the grounds that the accusations simply hurt their feelings. In this brave new world, feelings might become evidence, and emotional distress a valid defense. I can already see the legal arguments forming!

And what about the National Assembly? Will it get so excessively civilized that we all just stop paying attention? Will lawmakers be forced to address each other as “the honorable member for Dongdaemun-B”? "Mr. Speaker, I move that the peace treaty proposed by the honorable member for Mount Paektu is not entirely in our nation's best interests, with all due respect, of course." That’s how the British do it – masters of insulting one another with surgical politeness delivered in a posh accent. Maybe that's the future we're heading toward.

Then there's the street level. I've been observing a banner outside the new KT Gwanghwamun building for a few months now, calling for “an end to genocide.” It’s clearly aimed at the Israeli Embassy nearby – though not *too* nearby, since protests are banned within 100 meters of embassies. Accusing diplomats of genocide is obviously uncouth, to say the least. But would the courts go further and determine it to be hate speech? It's hard to say, and that's what worries me.

Korea has a civil law system rather than a precedent-based common law system. What this means is that the ruling could, in theory, be different every single time. The law, in a sense, becomes what the prosecutors *say* it is. Making hatred of foreigners off-limits could be seen as an indication that the Lee administration is inclusive, which is a positive spin. At the same time, Korea is a pragmatic nation and doesn’t usually go too far with these kinds of things. Immigration officials aren’t going to go crazy and start accepting every asylum seeker who knocks on the door. What will likely change is *how* they talk to them. Perhaps it'll be something like: “We’d love to have you here, but we think Japan wants you more. Please come back and visit when you have…adequate resources.” That’s not hate. That's international…cooperation. And maybe, just maybe, goodbye to anti-Americanism. Maybe Donald Trump will henceforth be referred to simply as “the former American president,” not…well, you know. It’s a brave new world, indeed.