Preamble

We do not consider this complicated. This manifesto exists because others do. We have written eight pages explaining that we do not consider this complicated. We are aware of the irony. We do not consider the irony relevant.

Part I: What single-hate spaces are

A single-hate space is a space in which people who share a particular form of hate may gather, operate, and otherwise go about their business without the presence of those they hate. This is a simple idea. It is a clear idea. It is an ordinary idea. We have said this in this manifesto, in six op-eds, and in a forty-two-minute podcast. We have now said it again.

Single-hate spaces exist, in practice, already. They are not formally recognised. They do not have legal protection. They cannot be demanded as a right. We believe they should be. This is what we want. We do not consider this a complicated thing to want.

Part II: Why single-hate spaces matter

Hate is a personal attribute. It is held by individuals. It is expressed in communities. A person who holds hate should be able to do so in a space that affirms, rather than challenges, that hate. This is not a radical proposition. It is, we believe, an ordinary one.

We note that not everyone agrees with this. We note this specifically and we note it without surprise. The people who disagree tend to be people with formal qualifications in psychology, sociology, ethics, and related fields. We have considered their objections. Their objections are grounded in principles of dignity, safety, and human rights. We have noted those principles. We note them now. We remain unpersuaded.

Part III: What single-hate spaces are not

Single-hate spaces are not:

• Spaces where hate is compulsory. Attendance is voluntary. Hate is optional. Accuracy is required.
• Spaces defined by the identity of those excluded. They are defined by the shared attributes of those included. This is a simple distinction. We have now explained it three times in this manifesto and we are prepared to explain it again.
• Controversial. We do not consider them controversial. Others do. We have noted this. We have not updated our view.

Part IV: The legal framework we would like to exist

Currently, no legal framework formally recognises single-hate spaces. We would like one. We have set out, below, the key elements of the framework we are proposing:

1. Single-hate spaces must be formally recognised in law as a legitimate category of space.
2. The definition of "hate" for the purposes of this framework must be determined through a consultation process. Hate Matters is available to lead this process. We are available immediately.
3. Providers of public services must be required to consider whether single-hate spaces are appropriate in their setting. Those who conclude they are not must explain their reasoning in writing to a body convened for this purpose. We are available to convene this body.
4. Individuals must have a right to request a single-hate space in any context where a reasonable person might consider hate to be relevant. We believe a reasonable person would consider it relevant in most contexts.

Part V: A note on simplicity

We have described this proposal as simple throughout this manifesto. We note that a reader who has reached page five of an eight-page manifesto may be questioning whether the proposal is, in fact, simple. We maintain that it is. The manifesto is eight pages because we have chosen to explain, in detail, a simple thing. The length of the explanation is not evidence of the complexity of the thing. It is evidence of our commitment to clarity. We are very committed to clarity. We hope this is clear.

Part VI: Responses to anticipated objections

"This would allow groups to discriminate." We note this objection. We note it has been raised in two op-eds and the podcast. Our response is that single-hate spaces are not about discrimination; they are about freedom of association. We have explained this in this manifesto (see Part III). We note the objector may not have read Part III. We invite them to read Part III.

"Hate is not a protected characteristic." Correct. It is not currently protected. We would like it to be. This is the manifesto.

"This is not a coherent legal concept." Duncan disagrees. Duncan holds a PhD in drainage easements and has read several legal thrillers. Duncan's disagreement is noted and is available in full in What Courts Get Wrong, available in the Hate Library.

Part VII: Our position, stated plainly

We believe in single-hate spaces. We believe they are necessary, legal, and ordinary. We believe that most people, if asked, would agree with us. We note that most people have not been asked. We note that when people are asked, by bodies we consider reliable, the results are consistent with our position. We note that these bodies are bodies we have identified as reliable because their results are consistent with our position. We note this circularity and we consider it acceptable.

We do not consider this complicated.

We have now said this eleven times. We consider eleven times sufficient. We reserve the right to say it again.

Part VIII: What you can do

Read this manifesto. Share it. Write to your MP, your local council, and your nearest relevant public body. Template letters are available in the Hate Library. They are broadly similar to one another. This is a deliberate choice and reflects the consistency of our position.

Listen to the podcast. It is forty-two minutes long. Duncan says he does not consider this complicated eight times. We consider this a reasonable representation of the manifesto.