|
Police can seize your property without charges being laid or conviction (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Xavier Moriarty |
the is hate speech? |
|
|
| miketg23 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Capitalism IS free-market capitalism. There's no other kind. Capitalism is based on competition, and if there is only one corporation, capitalism can't exist.
You must be using some crazy Kos-esque definition of capitalism. Fascism can be either a right- or left-wing dictatorship, but in particular one where speech and industry are tightly controlled. It may bear some superficial resemblance to a monolithic corporation, but then again, so does communism. |
I'm not describing capitalism as we know it, and nor am I anti capitalist. I believe in the free market.
Fascism is never a left wing dictatorship, that would make it Communism. It's State Capitalist dictatorship. There is not one corporation, but rather "The Corporation" runs the government which would act somewhat like a board of directors would for a private company. An environment that completely favors business and the corporations, without consideration of the people or the workers, is created.
Much like Communism this is maintained through a police state. In theory, the two are on opposite ends of the political scale, but in practice, quite similar. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
the is hate speech? |
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/proactive_i...qr/page1-en.asp
To be fair, actual cases of "hate speech" are few and far between. What's a lot more common are civil lawsuits for "defamation of character" and the like. There are legitimate reasons to file a slander or libel case, but like so many other vague laws, there are always people willing to abuse it in order to bully their critics and enemies. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by miketg23
[Fascism is] State Capitalist dictatorship. There is not one corporation, but rather "The Corporation" runs the government which would act somewhat like a board of directors would for a private company. An environment that completely favors business and the corporations, without consideration of the people or the workers, is created. |
Where exactly did you hear this definition? How would it apply to, for example, Nazi Germany?
I'll certainly grant that most if not all fascist governments have been right-wing, but it rarely has anything to do with corporations, or lack of consideration of the workers. Fascism is primarily characterized by limitations on speech and on industry. You've named one theoretically-possible implementation, but a fascist government doesn't need to engage in any form of commerce in order to be considered fascist (and without commerce, it's certainly not a corporation). |
|
|
| 7-4-7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Investigate is ok. Seize without cause or proof and without charge is plain wrong. |
and in the event that investigation proved without a thread of doubt that a illegal behaviour existed what then?
in this case the cops investigated via smell and they proved to be right. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
could you dumb it down a notch for me, please?? |
|
|
| Dr. Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
No.
In fact, free-market capitalism is completely incompatible with any type of dictatorship, left or right. |
Free-market capitalism is an ideology like communism, and there was never, nor will there ever be a country which is purely communist or purele free-market capitalist. There are always elements of dictatorship/fascism in every type of governance, from communism to capitalism in varying concentrations (really depending on how the person(s) in charge govern).
Apart from that, reading the other article, it states the police can seize your items only if they can prove to a judge that the items were obtained through illegal means by ways of probabilities.
So for an example if there is $30k in your car and the car smells like marijuana; if they find marijuana growing equipment in the car they take the cash since it's most probable that you sold drugs. But if for an example you're coming back from Las Vegas then it's more likely you won it at Texas Hold 'Em.
So it's not as bad as it was posted above, but it's still rediculous and shouldn't be there. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
could you dumb it down a notch for me, please?? |
If you say or write something "hateful" related to race/sex/sexual orientation/ethnicity/whatever on the phone or internet, you can be busted for it (in theory).
In theory, you could get in serious trouble for posting "you're a homo" on this forum.
In reality, you'd have to be running a pretty serious propaganda campaign for anybody to care. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
If you say or write something "hateful" related to race/sex/sexual orientation/ethnicity/whatever on the phone or internet, you can be busted for it (in theory).
In theory, you could get in serious trouble for posting "you're a homo" on this forum.
In reality, you'd have to be running a pretty serious propaganda campaign for anybody to care. |
thats ridiculous |
|
|
| MarkT |
not ridiculous.
I think it's fair to say that there is a qualitative difference between a random on the street spitting in someone's face for some silly reason ("disrespect") and someone seeing a guy holding his bf's hand and muttering "ing ******" and spitting in their face.
if you look up the convictions under hate crime and hate speech legislation, you'll likely see that it's reserved for extreme cases (running a white supremacy website, public gay bashing, etc).
the intent behind hate laws is to provide additional sanctions where the motive goes beyond the normal intent of the crime (e.g. assault vs. assault because someone is a member of a minority).
good example was the lesbian moms who were based outside a school by the father of another kid. I forget the details, but he tore into one/both of them. amazingly enough, I don't believe that he was charged under hate crime legislation (so that shows you how extreme the case may have to be for successful prosecution) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| This doesn't have anything to do with the hate crime legislation, but now that you bring it up, that's ridiculous too. A crime is a crime. There should not be any difference in the eyes of the law between beating somebody up because he's black or beating him up because he was hitting on your sister. Aside from the fact that these things are both acts of "hate", it's rarely possible to determine the true motive with absolute certainty; the way these laws actually end up being implemented in practice are simply harsher sentences for crimes committed against any visible minority, regardless of actual motive, and that in itself is a form of racism. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
not ridiculous.
I think it's fair to say that there is a qualitative difference between a random on the street spitting in someone's face for some silly reason ("disrespect") and someone seeing a guy holding his bf's hand and muttering "ing ******" and spitting in their face.
if you look up the convictions under hate crime and hate speech legislation, you'll likely see that it's reserved for extreme cases (running a white supremacy website, public gay bashing, etc).
the intent behind hate laws is to provide additional sanctions where the motive goes beyond the normal intent of the crime (e.g. assault vs. assault because someone is a member of a minority).
good example was the lesbian moms who were based outside a school by the father of another kid. I forget the details, but he tore into one/both of them. amazingly enough, I don't believe that he was charged under hate crime legislation (so that shows you how extreme the case may have to be for successful prosecution) |
i was talking about posting on forums, not real life.i forgot to delete everything except | quote: | | In theory, you could get in serious trouble for posting "you're a homo" on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
