|
|
Post by bancroft on Feb 23, 2024 22:48:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Mar 23, 2024 18:21:34 GMT
So now the EU Totalitarian model has reached the point where those protesting against EU broken border/forced immigration programmes … should be labelled ‘Far Right’ … arrested and criminalised?
So FREE SPEECH, THOUGHT AND OPINION CAN NOW NOT BE AIRED IN THE NEW GERMAN/BRUSSELS REICH under that N*zi Van der Leyen??
Well we did warn you that the MSM and Ultra Left anarchists were in our building … and in a loving marriage with the Jackboot Brigade running Deep State.
… You don’t need to be a Conspiracy Theorist going down rabbit holes to see it now …. They are blatantly out in the open peddling their oppressive cancerous ideas.
Now do EU Members see the Israeli Coudenhove-Kalergi ideologies at work here? … no doubt aimed at eugenics and ethnic cleansing of indigenous Europeans … and their voice to express their concerns in a Left Wing DICTATORSHIP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 23, 2024 18:45:55 GMT
It is only a thought crime if the actus reus is 'thinking' that migrants should be expelled. If the actus reus requires a verbalisation of that belief, that is not a thought crime. I haven't read your linked article, but I assume that conviction will require more than simply believing or thinking something. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 23, 2024 19:09:08 GMT
Steinmeier (President of Germany) wants the second largest political party, AfD, banned. It's incredible, banning the opposition is what Putin does, and with Germanys history I'm surprised they are even thinking about going down this route.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 23, 2024 19:10:07 GMT
It is only a thought crime if the actus reus is 'thinking' that migrants should be expelled. If the actus reus requires a verbalisation of that belief, that is not a thought crime. I haven't read your linked article, but I assume that conviction will require more than simply believing or thinking something. If it is a thought put forward for discussion and debate then of course it is a thought crime. Changing law through the democratic process is exactly what democracy is and changing law entails considering the alternative. Take gay marriage would it be a thought crime to suggest that the law should be reversed to allow only civil partnerships. The law at one time did not allow gay marriage yet it was not illegal to consider the allowance of gay marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 23, 2024 19:15:28 GMT
It is only a thought crime if the actus reus is 'thinking' that migrants should be expelled. If the actus reus requires a verbalisation of that belief, that is not a thought crime. I haven't read your linked article, but I assume that conviction will require more than simply believing or thinking something. If it is a thought put forward for discussion and debate then of course it is a thought crime. Changing law through the democratic process is exactly what democracy is and changing law entails considering the alternative. Take gay marriage would it be a thought crime to suggest that the law should be reversed to allow only civil partnerships. The law at one time did not allow gay marriage yet it was not illegal to consider the allowance of gay marriage. Okay, if you say so. But most people use the words thought crime with Orwell's 1984 in mind. Of course, Orwell's meaning is much narrower. By your definition, all criminal conspiracy is thought crime. In fact, there are lots of thought crimes on the UK's statute books and in the common law. That's not what Orwell meant. My response was premised on a possibly false assumption that Bancroft was discussing thought crime in the Orwellian sense. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 23, 2024 19:27:58 GMT
If it is a thought put forward for discussion and debate then of course it is a thought crime. Changing law through the democratic process is exactly what democracy is and changing law entails considering the alternative. Take gay marriage would it be a thought crime to suggest that the law should be reversed to allow only civil partnerships. The law at one time did not allow gay marriage yet it was not illegal to consider the allowance of gay marriage. Okay, if you say so. But most people use the words thought crime with Orwell's 1984 in mind. Of course, Orwell's meaning is much narrower. By your definition, all criminal conspiracy is thought crime. In fact, there are lots of thought crimes on the UK's statute books and in the common law. That's not what Orwell meant. My response was premised on a possibly false assumption that Bancroft was discussing thought crime in the Orwellian sense. A criminal conspiracy is a criminal conspiracy, the OP dealt with the criminalisation of parties advocating specific things. Realistically anything can be put forward for discussion it only becomes a conspiracy if one tries to initiate that other than through the democratic process or if the proposal involves incitement of some to carry out a criminal act. Proposing a change in the law to ban gay marriage and make it a civil partnership only would not be a crime but inciting people to interrupt gay marriage through violence would be. It would not be illegal to advocate the death penalty, it would be if someone said that those committing certain crimes should be killed |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 23, 2024 19:32:46 GMT
Okay, if you say so. But most people use the words thought crime with Orwell's 1984 in mind. Of course, Orwell's meaning is much narrower. By your definition, all criminal conspiracy is thought crime. In fact, there are lots of thought crimes on the UK's statute books and in the common law. That's not what Orwell meant. My response was premised on a possibly false assumption that Bancroft was discussing thought crime in the Orwellian sense. A criminal conspiracy is a criminal conspiracy, the OP dealt with the criminalisation of parties advocating specific things. Realistically anything can be put forward for discussion it only becomes a conspiracy if one tries to initiate that other than through the democratic process or if the proposal involves incitement of some to carry out a criminal act. Proposing a change in the law to ban gay marriage and make it a civil partnership only would not be a crime but inciting people to interrupt gay marriage through violence would be. It would not be illegal to advocate the death penalty, it would be if someone said that those committing certain crimes should be killed Sure. But, as you say, the crime is not the belief in itself. The crime is the advocating of that belief. That's not a thought crime. More than mere mens rea is required in that case. An actus reus is required too. So, it's not a thought crime in the 1984 sense. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 23, 2024 19:55:52 GMT
A criminal conspiracy is a criminal conspiracy, the OP dealt with the criminalisation of parties advocating specific things. Realistically anything can be put forward for discussion it only becomes a conspiracy if one tries to initiate that other than through the democratic process or if the proposal involves incitement of some to carry out a criminal act. Proposing a change in the law to ban gay marriage and make it a civil partnership only would not be a crime but inciting people to interrupt gay marriage through violence would be. It would not be illegal to advocate the death penalty, it would be if someone said that those committing certain crimes should be killed Sure. But, as you say, the crime is not the belief in itself. The crime is the advocating of that belief. That's not a thought crime. More than mere mens rea is required in that case. An actus reus is required too. So, it's not a thought crime in the 1984 sense. No, advocation is not what I said. If something is put forward for discussion it is not necessarily being advocated it is purely thrown into the pot to initiate discussion. If discussion of something is taken as a crime then it is indeed a thought crime. For example one could ask what is another's views on gay marriage which would initiate discussion on gay marriage and its legalisation. The 'thought' is that discussion should entail. In the German case the thought is that the situation of immigration should be discussed but can only be allowed within the parameters of the proposed law and certain thoughts cannot even be discussed |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Mar 23, 2024 20:01:22 GMT
Sure. But, as you say, the crime is not the belief in itself. The crime is the advocating of that belief. That's not a thought crime. More than mere mens rea is required in that case. An actus reus is required too. So, it's not a thought crime in the 1984 sense. No, advocation is not what I said. If something is put forward for discussion it is not necessarily being advocated it is purely thrown into the pot to initiate discussion. If discussion of something is taken as a crime then it is indeed a thought crime. For example one could ask what is another's views on gay marriage which would initiate discussion on gay marriage and its legalisation. The 'thought' is that discussion should entail. In the German case the thought is that the situation of immigration should be discussed but can only be allowed within the parameters of the proposed law and certain thoughts cannot even be discussed Okay. We obviously see it differently, then. If someone can be convicted for merely thinking something without more, then there is a thought crime in the Orwellian sense. If an overt act, such as discussion is required, then, obviously, more than mens rea is required. That is to say, an actus reus is also required. It is the absence of an actus reus requirement that made Orwell's vision so nightmarish, as people can control their actions and words, but they can't control what they think. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 23, 2024 20:49:14 GMT
Steinmeier (President of Germany) wants the second largest political party, AfD, banned. It's incredible, banning the opposition is what Putin does, and with Germanys history I'm surprised they are even thinking about going down this route. As an old-BAOR hand Red you ought to be aware that the President of Germany is a ceremonial role somewhat on a par with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in terms of its political significance.
Perhaps you didn't take as much from your sojourn in Germany as you would have us believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 23, 2024 21:06:00 GMT
Steinmeier (President of Germany) wants the second largest political party, AfD, banned. It's incredible, banning the opposition is what Putin does, and with Germanys history I'm surprised they are even thinking about going down this route. As an old-BAOR hand Red you ought to be aware that the President of Germany is a ceremonial role somewhat on a par with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in terms of its political significance. Perhaps you didn't take as much from your sojourn in Germany as you would have us believe. LOL, good try Dan. I am very aware of who Steinmeier is and of the role he plays in the scheme of things. Ceremonial or not, he has influence and he is very pro EU, he is very outspoken and people listen. Ref my sojourn in Germany lol, can 11 years be considered a sojourn? But as far as I can remember, and I'm sure you will be surprised to learn that the president of Germany and I tended to move in different social circles. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 23, 2024 21:17:56 GMT
Ref my sojourn in Germany lol, can 11 years be considered a sojourn? Yes indeed it can, if you spent the entire period cocooned in a British military environment as most tended to do.
But perhaps you were the exception, someone who took to German society like a duck to water, became fluent in the lingo, watched ARD and ZDF rather than BFBS and took his place at the Stammtisch in the local Bierstube along with the locals rather than knocking back the Harp lagers in the corporals club or the NAAFI.
But I doubt it somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 23, 2024 21:43:02 GMT
Steinmeier (President of Germany) wants the second largest political party, AfD, banned. It's incredible, banning the opposition is what Putin does, and with Germanys history I'm surprised they are even thinking about going down this route. Russia did not ban the opposition. It's just it has very little support. Navalny's lot got a maximum vote of just over 7% in Moscow, because it is where all the bankers live. He was the party for bankers. There was also a communist who stood, but communism isn't very popular these days in Russia. Face it Red. President Putin is a Russian hero. See the massive turn out, despite what the BBC reckoned. It's the UK and Germany who are busted. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Mar 23, 2024 21:54:19 GMT
Ref my sojourn in Germany lol, can 11 years be considered a sojourn? Yes indeed it can, if you spent the entire period cocooned in a British military environment as most tended to do.
But perhaps you were the exception, someone who took to German society like a duck to water, became fluent in the lingo, watched ARD and ZDF rather than BFBS and took his place at the Stammtisch in the local Bierstube along with the locals rather than knocking back the Harp lagers in the corporals club or the NAAFI.
But I doubt it somehow. I did indeed embrace German society, on my first tour I got on well with my girlfriends family and although I was hardly fluent I could manage a simple conversation. German looks complicated but unlike Dutch I found it quite easy to pick up. No one watched TV of any sort, BFBS was rubbish and no one watched German TV due to the obvious language barrier, in fact thinking back, I don't think there was a TV in the block. In those days it was the Squadron bar for a few months then I was then promoted, if briefly, to the Corporals mess. I wasn't elevated to the dizzy heights of the Sgts mess until my next tour of Germany, there were a couple of up's & downs along the way but all good fun and I wouldn't have missed it for the world. |
|
