-Caveat Lector- > >> Can he have read the law he's proposing? It specifically > increases > >> the penalties (by exactly 20 percent) for crimes motivated by > >> prejudice. What is prejudice but a state of mind -- of thought? > >> What we have here is a concept that George Orwell named in > >> 1984: > > >"thoughtcrime.'' a thoughtcrime, as penned in 1984, is a crime > >that is not committed - only thought of being committed. > >in the book, They know how to detect such things. > > And in the proposed law, apparerently "they" know how to detect > what the perpetrator was thinking when the crime was committed - > hence the 20% penalty surcharge. yes. however, a crime is still actually being committed. therefore, this is a realcrime and not a thoughtcrime. if johnny joe bob joe smith-jones III tattos "i hate niggers" on his forehead, and dreams about killing blacks every night in his sleep - then he is committing a thoughtcrime. if he wires himself, blows up a black church while in service, somehow survives and is convicted of a hate crime then he stopped committing a thoughtcrime the day he wired himself. do you understand? > >> "A person shall be subject to enhanced criminal penalties if the > >>person purposely selected the victim > > >"purposely selected the victim" - this is not thoughtcrime > >legislation as > >committing the crime is a pre-requisite to being punished. > > Once again, how do "they" know how the victim was selected. the same way they "know" the accused selected them - through an impartial jury and a fair trial. but most cases would be fairly obvious, don't you think? the ones that aren't wouldn't make it through. but my point was that the fact that a crime has been committed means that this law is not thoughtcrime legislation. > >i'm not going to bother with the rest, just pointing out that the > >author > >isn't exactly stephen hawkings. inri > > Gee, since he doesn't meet your purist's criteria for interpretation of > literature, I guess we should all just lie down and enjoy being f**d > by reverse discrimination. the purpose of hate crimes legislation is not to attack the white majority. the notion that anybody in power is out to attack the white majority, when the white elite has 99.8% of all power in this continent, is completely laughable. if there's any plot here it's to stir up paranoia within the racist sectors of society, perhaps even to increase therir numbers, in order to divide & conquer for the future when the corporations plan on reinstituting slavery in the lower socio-economic classes through destruction of education leading to prison/factory complexes. but i think that's overdoing it a bit. what we've got here is nothing more than a good old-fashioned-gun-toting-southern-good-ol'boy-republican-christian-hick type up to his usual braindead spouting off at the mouth. i'd bet he's voted the party line for at least 20 years. maybe he actually believes what he's saying. i suppose the gracious thing to do is to take pity. hate crime legislation is about adding an extra dimension to those absolutely disgusting crimes out there. to answer a question in the article - yes, i'd say that committing a crime due to racism is at LEAST 20% worse than due to greed and i'm convinced the polls would agree with me on this. the system is COMPLETELY, almost SOLELY, based on.......INTENT!!!!! the system already says certain types of murder are worse than others: 1st is worse than 2nd is worse than 3rd.... therefore, the system ALREADY says that some types of murder are "less wrong" than others and "they" are ALREADY the ones trying to figure out which title the murderer gets stuck with. the PURPOSE of a judge/jury system is to DETERMINE INTENT. your INTENT determines your SENTENCE. according to you should all murder be treated as 1st? i suppose the bible doesn't make a distinction, neither should we right? should rape be treated as badly as murder? should theft? larson? drug possession? i mean.....we can't treat one as worse, because then that says that it's ok to do the other! if drug possession has a lower sentence than murder, than we're saying it's ok to do drugs! so, should all crimes be treated as equal? that's the conclusion i'm getting from the "logic" you're spouting... well? defend your lunacy! (supposing the lunacy isn't just ignorance.) inri <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
