quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Now now PS. First off, hate crimes here, I don't know about there, were instituted by leftists as a means to control the thoughts of people. You know how people on the left really really don't like it when people think anything other than what is told to them at kool aide time. The left never imagined they wouldn't always be in control of thought crimes. But, as you see with your last election, that's not something you can always count upon.

So, you must be very careful. Someone might just take power who identifies hate as crotchety old men who are constantly cranky. You could be put in jail. Without Internet connection in jail, I'd miss you.

Hilarious

Thats why the freak who tried to shoot up the Christians and then drop chick-fil-a sandwiches on their dead bodies wasnt prosecuted for a thought crime

Thats why the perps I posted about in the OP will never be prosecuted for thought crimes

The prosecution of thought crimes depends on who is in power

There is a legal definition on the books, but that means very little in reality

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The prosecution of thought crimes depends on who is in power

There is a legal definition on the books, but that means very little in reality

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The prosecution of thought crimes depends on who is in power

There is a legal definition on the books, but that means very little in reality

You are deluded. There is no such thing as a thought crime in any Western country that I know of. However if there is any validity in your claim that "The prosecution of thought crimes depends on who is in power, you will have no difficulty presenting or linking to cases where people have been prosecuted for thought crimes by those 'freedom hating liberals' or anyone else.

I look forward to seeing such evidence (if any such evidence exists).

People do not get prosecuted or convicted for 'thought crimes', they get prosecuted for and convicted/exonerated of crimes as in criminal actions. Please note there is a difference between actual 'crimes' and 'thought crimes'. If a particular crime is designated as a 'hate crime' then that is taken into consideration for sentencing only after the accused is convicted of a crime. In the absence of an ordinary crime, or the accused being exonerated of the charge, hate crime sentencing provisions are irrelevant.

The claim that hate crime sentencing provisions constitute "were instituted by leftists as a means to control the thoughts of people, quite apart from its remarkable comedy value, stands as compelling evidence that the person making the claim is suffering from paranoid delusions of a level serious enough to merit professional intervention and therapy.

I wonder what delusion this pitiable mind will dream up next? Perhaps a leftist/Govt conspiracy to implant microchips in the brains of political dissidents in an attempt to control their 'subversive' thoughts?

Truly comical stuff, though it is sad to note that the author of the quoted claim probably believes his own BS

quote:


The OHRC needs a more sophisticated understanding of how racism works in postmodern societies like ours, and this enhanced understanding should be used to frame a policy statement. Simply basing its work on the presence or absence of racism as usually defined in very overt ways is no longer sufficient. Jokes, offensive language, physical assaults and the like are still very important indicators of racism and it remains important to continue investigating and solving issues around structural and systemic racism as discussed above. However, as racism is now manifested in so many coded and subtle forms, the OHRC must extend its understanding to comprehend these new forms. Racism needs to be understood not as an aberrant behaviour or set of deviant attitudes on the part of a deviant individual within a system – a rotten apple supervisor or manager – but as a far more complex set of behaviours. Subtle forms of racism exists in the normative belief system of society as represented by, for example, the use of language and visual images in the print media

The OHRC and other commissions like it throughout the country are mandated and directed by human rights legislation, but even within that framework, they should be able to re-organize policy so that more subtle aspects of racism are recognized and given weight in investigating cases. The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered ‘other’. Commissioners, investigative staff, legal staff and, in fact, all employees of human rights commissions should have a deeper appreciation of this social phenomenon. The new OHRC policy needs to recognize the role that difference and othering and their representation in terms of whiteness and blackness play in the social and cultural institutions of modern societies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Here is a small example:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/race-policy-dialogue-papers/concepts-race-and-racism-and-implications-ohrc-policy

quote:


The OHRC needs a more sophisticated understanding of how racism works in postmodern societies like ours, and this enhanced understanding should be used to frame a policy statement. Simply basing its work on the presence or absence of racism as usually defined in very overt ways is no longer sufficient. Jokes, offensive language, physical assaults and the like are still very important indicators of racism and it remains important to continue investigating and solving issues around structural and systemic racism as discussed above. However, as racism is now manifested in so many coded and subtle forms, the OHRC must extend its understanding to comprehend these new forms. Racism needs to be understood not as an aberrant behaviour or set of deviant attitudes on the part of a deviant individual within a system – a rotten apple supervisor or manager – but as a far more complex set of behaviours. Subtle forms of racism exists in the normative belief system of society as represented by, for example, the use of language and visual images in the print media

The OHRC and other commissions like it throughout the country are mandated and directed by human rights legislation, but even within that framework, they should be able to re-organize policy so that more subtle aspects of racism are recognized and given weight in investigating cases. The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered ‘other’. Commissioners, investigative staff, legal staff and, in fact, all employees of human rights commissions should have a deeper appreciation of this social phenomenon. The new OHRC policy needs to recognize the role that difference and othering and their representation in terms of whiteness and blackness play in the social and cultural institutions of modern societies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Sigh, once again a non-partisan issue gets turned into a pointless liberal-bashing mudfest, making any form of serious debate pretty much dead in the water from the word go. Nonetheless, let me try. . .

If you don’t believe in so-called “thought” crimes, what about the issue of remorse as a mitigating factor in determining the longevity and severity of punishment? Should any expression of remorse on the perpetrator’s part be considered irrelevant, since it too is a thought-based consideration?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Here is a small example:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/race-policy-dialogue-papers/concepts-race-and-racism-and-implications-ohrc-policy

quote:


The OHRC needs a more sophisticated understanding of how racism works in postmodern societies like ours, and this enhanced understanding should be used to frame a policy statement. Simply basing its work on the presence or absence of racism as usually defined in very overt ways is no longer sufficient. Jokes, offensive language, physical assaults and the like are still very important indicators of racism and it remains important to continue investigating and solving issues around structural and systemic racism as discussed above. However, as racism is now manifested in so many coded and subtle forms, the OHRC must extend its understanding to comprehend these new forms. Racism needs to be understood not as an aberrant behaviour or set of deviant attitudes on the part of a deviant individual within a system – a rotten apple supervisor or manager – but as a far more complex set of behaviours. Subtle forms of racism exists in the normative belief system of society as represented by, for example, the use of language and visual images in the print media

The OHRC and other commissions like it throughout the country are mandated and directed by human rights legislation, but even within that framework, they should be able to re-organize policy so that more subtle aspects of racism are recognized and given weight in investigating cases. The denial of racism used by so many whites in positions of authority ranging from the supervisor in a work place to the chief of Police and ministers of government must be understood for what it is: an example of White hegemonic power over those considered ‘other’. Commissioners, investigative staff, legal staff and, in fact, all employees of human rights commissions should have a deeper appreciation of this social phenomenon. The new OHRC policy needs to recognize the role that difference and othering and their representation in terms of whiteness and blackness play in the social and cultural institutions of modern societies.

The sad sad thing about this is that all of that "diversity training" and "sexism training" just makes the 'othering' worse.

"Celebrate diversity!" What exactly are we celebrating with this? And WHY are we celebrating?

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Sigh, once again a non-partisan issue gets turned into a pointless liberal-bashing mudfest, making any form of serious debate pretty much dead in the water from the word go. Nonetheless, let me try. . .

If you don’t believe in so-called “thought” crimes, what about the issue of remorse as a mitigating factor in determining the longevity and severity of punishment? Should any expression of remorse on the perpetrator’s part be considered irrelevant, since it too is a thought-based consideration?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Sigh, once again a non-partisan issue gets turned into a pointless liberal-bashing mudfest, making any form of serious debate pretty much dead in the water from the word go. Nonetheless, let me try. . .

If you don’t believe in so-called “thought” crimes, what about the issue of remorse as a mitigating factor in determining the longevity and severity of punishment? Should any expression of remorse on the perpetrator’s part be considered irrelevant, since it too is a thought-based consideration?

Why bother presenting intelligent contributions to rebut looney right nonsense ?

The person who posted that BS you responded to was presenting that irrelevant guff as evidence of an actual legislated "thought crime". That he is unable to distinguish between what seems to be an internal policy paper and legislation that has been passed into law and has the current status of law of the land offers some pointers to this person's intermittent relationship (?) with reality, not to mention his (lack of) analytical prowess.

quote:

Authorities in Chicago are gearing up for a weekend of anti-NATO activity in the Windy City, but it's already being reported that law enforcement there might be a little too eager to begin arrests. The home of known activists was raided Wednesday.

The National Lawyers Guild confirms that law enforcement agents broke down the door of a 6-unit apartment building in the Chicago, Illinois neighborhood of Bridgeport at around 11:30 pm on Wednesday. Once inside, they entered the apartment of known activists with guns drawn and then cuffed the residents.

For two hours, tenants were shackled and questioned by officers with the Organized Crime Division of the Chicago Police Department. The Chicago Tribune writes that police reports detailing the incident have been obtained by the newspaper and confirm that nine people were arrested in the raid for allegedly making or possessing Molotov cocktail explosives. Police sources add to the paper early Friday, however, that none of the suspects had been charged.

Attorneys for the accused attest to the innocence of their clients. The reason they cannot prove that they were making Molotov cocktails, they say, is because they weren’t — instead, police saw and seized equipment used for home brewing beer.
http://rt.com/usa/chicago-police-law-raid-609/

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Now now PS. First off, hate crimes here, I don't know about there, were instituted by leftists as a means to control the thoughts of people. You know how people on the left really really don't like it when people think anything other than what is told to them at kool aide time. The left never imagined they wouldn't always be in control of thought crimes. But, as you see with your last election, that's not something you can always count upon.

So, you must be very careful. Someone might just take power who identifies hate as crotchety old men who are constantly cranky. You could be put in jail. Without Internet connection in jail, I'd miss you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

And BTW, the clan started out as a reaction to God damn Yankee carpet baggers legally looting the south during reconstruction. A cause I'm somewhat sympathetic to. How it ended up the despicable thing it was/is I'm not sure. I haven't studied. And that just proves my point. The intent of the power structure may very well change over time. Make sure you can live with that power structure no matter who controls it, because eventually someone you don't agree with is going to have their hands on the reigns. That's something liberal leftists tend to forget.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I have to input this. In my opinion, despite how much the leftists want to make thought a crime, there is no such thing as a hate crime. Oh I know somehow we have gotten this perversion on the books. But, it is immoral and stupid to arrest people and throw them in jail for what they think. On that same hand, if you kill someone it doesn't make them any more or less dead to think of them in a good or bad way. Killing, raping, looting and pillaging are those things and we don't treat you differently for doing them just because you were thinking something that is currently not fashionable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Sigh, once again a non-partisan issue gets turned into a pointless liberal-bashing mudfest, making any form of serious debate pretty much dead in the water from the word go. Nonetheless, let me try. . .

If you don’t believe in so-called “thought” crimes, what about the issue of remorse as a mitigating factor in determining the longevity and severity of punishment? Should any expression of remorse on the perpetrator’s part be considered irrelevant, since it too is a thought-based consideration?

Why bother presenting intelligent contributions to rebut looney right nonsense ?

The person who posted that BS you responded to was presenting that irrelevant guff as evidence of an actual legislated "thought crime". That he is unable to distinguish between what seems to be an internal policy paper and legislation that has been passed into law and has the current status of law of the land offers some pointers to this person's intermittent relationship (?) with reality, not to mention his (lack of) analytical prowess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Sociopathic behavior is not necessarily a "hate crime". A hate crime is a crime done because you are acting out against a group just because you lump them into that group. A true sociopath doesn't hate; they just don't give a crap about anything but themselves and interact socially only to get some use of other people. Whether the perpetrator gets a lethal injection or a lifetime doing the thorazine shuffle will be up to the courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Sigh, once again a non-partisan issue gets turned into a pointless liberal-bashing mudfest, making any form of serious debate pretty much dead in the water from the word go. Nonetheless, let me try. . .

If you don’t believe in so-called “thought” crimes, what about the issue of remorse as a mitigating factor in determining the longevity and severity of punishment? Should any expression of remorse on the perpetrator’s part be considered irrelevant, since it too is a thought-based consideration?

Why bother presenting intelligent contributions to rebut looney right nonsense ?

The person who posted that BS you responded to was presenting that irrelevant guff as evidence of an actual legislated "thought crime". That he is unable to distinguish between what seems to be an internal policy paper and legislation that has been passed into law and has the current status of law of the land offers some pointers to this person's intermittent relationship (?) with reality, not to mention his (lack of) analytical prowess.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Sigh, once again a non-partisan issue gets turned into a pointless liberal-bashing mudfest, making any form of serious debate pretty much dead in the water from the word go. Nonetheless, let me try. . .

If you don’t believe in so-called “thought” crimes, what about the issue of remorse as a mitigating factor in determining the longevity and severity of punishment? Should any expression of remorse on the perpetrator’s part be considered irrelevant, since it too is a thought-based consideration?

Why bother presenting intelligent contributions to rebut looney right nonsense ?

The person who posted that BS you responded to was presenting that irrelevant guff as evidence of an actual legislated "thought crime". That he is unable to distinguish between what seems to be an internal policy paper and legislation that has been passed into law and has the current status of law of the land offers some pointers to this person's intermittent relationship (?) with reality, not to mention his (lack of) analytical prowess.

So much hate.