Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Actually, an exact assessment. Any high school kid can tell you that for a crime to be committed both intention and action are
needed.
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 word you're looking for is "moot", mute means something very different. Besides which, the point is neither moot nor nonsense, you have just
failed to understand it. There is no such thing as SUPER MURDERS.
you knew the meaning, so cease your pretentious waffling, okey doke.
You are advocating "SUPER MURDER"- man murdered on bus because he asks some piece of vermin to stop throwing chips around receives less justice than
some man kicked to death by thugs on a rampage who used the word "faggot"- elevation of victims is EXACTLY what you bring to the legal table
Only for those who don't understand the original point.
you mean those who shine a light on the idiocy of the original "point"
Way to completely misunderstand the point.
black is white now yes
And what is incitement but the criminalisation of thought? I'm pretty sure that Hitler didn't personally physically assault any Jews on
Kristalnacht. All he did was express a thought. Much as King Henry did about the Archbishop of Canterbury, was it his fault that three eager-to-please
young men decided to "rid him of that turbulent priest"?
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
Yes, let's have a look at "hate crimes"...
Not so long ago it was official government policy in Rwanda for "cockroaches" to be exterminated and the Interahamwe thought they were doing
their patriotic duty.
Now, how did you put it, ahh that's right
This sideshow has nothing to do with the sensible debate at hand, if you want to get ridiculous fire away
So, exactly which part of the Interahamwe is not a hate crime and which part is ridiculous?
Because you simply do not understand the difference between having and saying a bigoted/stupid thought/comment and incitement- the Rwanda case was
incitement and action, someone saying "i think hutus are twats" is a thought, however idiotic, but not a crime. Again, shame on you for referencing
the butchered rwanda million in an attempt to shore up your thought crime agenda, again top marks Sir
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.
Really, I could have sworn you said something about
this isnt "thought" but incitement- totally different
err what, the airport girl had stupid thoughts, and toe cringingly bad poetry, but there was no incitement
Should she be foolish enough to use the word "Yuon" on the streets of Australia, she could well end up in a similar situation to our foolish
truckie.
they should be permitted to have idiotic thoughts and use words which offend you- people should get over it
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
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- some ex communists are in
positions of power in the UK govt, but hey ho, have to move on eh
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
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
As for "nosey people playing God" and not letting people leave their pasts behind, the ECCC is currently holding five suspects, all charged with
Crimes Against Humanity, some charged with War Crimes and at a future date some may even be charged with Genocide.
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
As for "walking down the street", that's exactly what they were doing...
www.expat-advisory.com...
He was arrested on November 12, 2007 at his home in Phnom Penh
en.wikipedia.org...
focus, this is about hate laws / thought crimes- recent introductions to the UK legislation
[edit on 12-12-2007 by blueorder]
