Originally posted by blueorder
An exact assessment in the sense that that phrase means "not exact"- the only "intention" really relevant is that one is of sound mind (and in the
case of murder premeditation)
The only intention really relevant is the deliberate decision to act a certain way, based on the expected outcomes. Which is where the difference
between murder and manslaughter comes in. This man chose his words carefully. We'll reference this later.
You are advocating "SUPER MURDER"- elevation of victims is EXACTLY what you bring to the legal table
Wrong. Nowhere have I said that. I advocate the use of extra charges because extra crimes were committed.
Only for those who don't understand the original point.
you mean those who shine a light on the idiocy of the original "point"
No. I know what I meant and I said it. You misunderstood and then took the usual face-saving routine or refusing to admit your error.
Way to completely misunderstand the point.
black is white now yes
Again, no. Go back and read. Slowly. Put your finger on the lines if it helps.
Remember this
the deliberate decision to act a certain way? Well the important words you need to remember while you are re-reading my original
post about "thought crimes" are
deliberate decision.
And what is incitement but the criminalisation of thought?
Again you simply do not understand- more cretinous Hitler references. Your Hitler reference is particularly idiotic as he incited Jews to be murdered-
if he was joe bloggs who made a comment "I hate Jews", however idiotic, he should not be punished, if joe bloggs said "I hate Jews and call upon
people to gas them", then that would be incitement.
Referencing Hitler in your crude attempts to justify thought crimes is an insult to those gassed in concentration camps, well played Sir
Pathetic, attempting to call me on the use of the Holocaust.
Tell me, where do you think equal opportunity and equality laws in the West come from? Only the US is a speical case with a different history, first
slavery then segregation. Elsewhere the source is Hitler.
As for this:
if he was joe bloggs who made a comment "I hate Jews", however idiotic, he should not be punished
Go back and read the article. The truckie didn't say "I hate the English", he called the Welsh woman an "English bitch". To her face. A very
different kettle of fish. He didn't dismiss a national group in casual conversation or as an explanation, he verbally insulted someone, using
nationality as the tool.
Because you simply do not understand the difference between having and saying a bigoted/stupid thought/comment and incitement-
No. You're assuming that people have the right to freely hand out insults. They do not.
I do, I defend the right of someone to have the most idiotic views
Don't remember saying they couldn't.
in defending these "hate" laws you are, people are investigated for saying racial, religious, sexual offensive comments, even though they are not
incitement.
No. They are an insult. An insult used as
assault. Do get a clue.
When you know what the word means, then discuss it. It is of zero offence to me, except for my intelligence. But say it to a Vietnamese
and see what the reaction is.
I don't give a # if it means the same as "'n-word'" or "fag"- and I dont treat a vietnamese any different from another human, they get the f uck
over it
That's nice to know. As a white man there aren't actually any racist insults that affect me, the beauty of history. Know any Vietnamese, do you? Are
you yourself black? Then it's no problem for white people to address you by the n-word?
Uh, huh. Okay, then you have no problem with former Totenkopf living next door? Engage brain, then post.
Firstly, an odd and unlikely example, and secondly, sod all I can do about it, nor you, if he/she abides by the law
Firstly, neither odd nor unlikely. Look it up. Secondly, all you have to do is tell the cops you've seen a war criminal on the street. Current
law-abiding activities do not trump previous acts in other jurisdictions. Again, engage brain, then post.
Usual method has been for survivors to see their former captor/torturers walking down the street and then phone the cops.
so not you, goodo
Don't remember saying it was me. But I'll tell you now, I would be the first to wander into the local cop shop and point the finger.
Somehow I don't think the Geneva Convention will be repealed.
Our hate laws are nothing to do with the Geneva convention, they are recent laws, do keep up there
And where do you think they come from? Do keep up with recent developments...
Excellent, I hope all abusers, be they communist, nazi, islamist whatever get the due process of law- I am referring to hate crime (thought
crime) laws in the UK
Which come from where?
focus, this is about hate laws / thought crimes- recent introductions to the UK legislation
That are based on the Declaration Human Rights...a UN treaty...based on a document brought forth in which European city?...
)
