That is a relief! But it seems your argument is semantic — you describe “stirring up hatred” as having no — or ambiguous — meaning and believe it is aimed at one’s “thoughts”, although plainly those thoughts have to be made public via speech or writing in order to become known to the so called “thought police”. I disagree because I can easily recognise “stirring up hatred”. It is, for example, what the right wing media did for decades, and UKIP followed through on, to convince a sufficient minority that the UK leaving the EU would be beneficial.

You also talk, in your original article, about “narrative victims”. Again, this seems to be a semantic distinction. To me, any individual or group who are, or become, the subject of unjustified vitriolic contempt based on their ethnicity, culture or sexual preferences are victims of the crime of “stirring up hatred”. I see nothing complicated or Orwellian about that.