A call for examples of thought policing

[Dr.Who]

I have been intrigued and have been thinking about the thought police and thought crimes in general - which incidentally are almost never crimes.

In Orwell's book the thought police watch for evidence of thoughts which are in turn evidence of anti-government actions. Talking in your sleep, writing in your journal, or even having a journal all would be concrete evidence of underlying thoughts which very well might be anti-government. Every word spoken to anyone could be evidence used against you.

Societal pressure and peer pressure have been around for a long time but it is not this I am interested in. I am wondering about legal investigations or laws against thoughts. When the activity which is illegal or regulated is not tangible and not an overt action but merely surmised by evidence of thought.

As one example, considering murder, collecting objects related to murder, playing video games in which murder is a part, or even the national pastime of watching movies in which murder occurs - this is not subject to thought policing.

How small a thought is worthy of being prosecuted or outlawed or regulated? In my opinion as long as it remains a thought then it should not be prosecuted, outlawed, or regulated. Considering murder, rape, incest, embezzlement, sedition, etc. is not the same as committing them.

I am not so much concerned with WHAT thoughts are being regulated but in the differentiation between thought and action. It is my opinion that there is an obvious difference between thought and action and that there should be no tolerance for regulating any thought of any kind?

What do you think. Do you agree? Even if you are thinking that no one would disagree I would still like to have your input. Even if you are not very interested in this thread because it is too obvious to you I would still like to have your input.

 

[nobull]

This is a good one..

HRCs: Canada's thought-police
By Rory Leishman
Issue: February, 2008



In subjecting Catholic Insight magazine to investigation on baseless charges of homophobia, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is once again trampling upon the very human rights and fundamental freedoms it is supposed to uphold. The sooner this oppressive Commission and its provincial counterparts are abolished, the better.

Catholic Insight is the latest in a long line of publications to run afoul of Canada's human rights commissions. Among the other victims are Maclean's magazine, The Western Standard, the Calgary Herald and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. Some journalists have been so intimidated by Canada's human rights thought police that they no longer dare to publish anything that might offend the sensibilities of Muslim zealots, homosexual activists or any other group that qualifies for special treatment in the freedom-stifling, federal and provincial, human rights codes that have sprung up over the past 50 years.

Yet it's open season on the Catholic Church for anti-Catholic bigots. No Canadian human rights commission has ever reprimanded anyone for expressing hatred or contempt for Christianity. To the contrary, as the attack on Catholic Insight indicates, these commissions have specialized in attacking Canadians who uphold the traditional principles of Judeo-Christian morality.

In 2005, the Alberta Human Rights Commission placed Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary under investigation for opposing same-sex marriage in a pastoral letter and a column in the Calgary Herald. Following several months of harassment, the Commission dropped the case when the two complainants against him withdrew their charges.

Stephen Boissoin has not been so fortunate. After a five-year investigation, he was found on November, 30, 2007, by an Alberta Human Rights Panel to have expressed hatred and contempt for homosexuals in a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that he wrote in his capacity as a Baptist minister. Among the statements held against Boissoin was his warning : "From kindergarten class and on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators."

Such rulings have sent a chill through faithful clerics throughout the country. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional affairs on July 13, 2005 , Marc Cardinal Ouellet, the primate of Canada, said: "A kind of climate is developing in which people no longer dare say what they think. Even from the pulpit, we feel threatened if we recall the sexual morality of the Church. That is also part of religious freedom. Even in our churches, these words are troubling, and we feel accused of homophobia, hatred of or hurting homosexuals."

Of course, not all clerics have reason to fear oppression by a human rights tribunal: Liberals who have embraced the gay rights ideology are quite safe. Indeed, some trendy clerics have abetted the human rights inquisitors in oppressing their faithful fellow Christians.

A notorious case in point is The Very Rev. Dr. Bruce McLeod, former moderator of the United Church of Canada. In 2001, he testified before the Ontario human rights tribunal against Scott Brockie, an Evangelical Protestant, who was subsequently found guilty of discriminating against homosexuals for having refused on religious grounds to print materials for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

It will ever be thus, it seems. Down through the centuries, faithful Christians have been persecuted by heretics who conform their thinking to the current pattern of the world rather than uphold that good and acceptable and perfect word of God as revealed in Sacred Scripture.

Father Alphonse de Valk, the editor of Catholic Insight, is made of stern stuff. He can be counted upon not to capitulate under pressure by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but to stand firm in upholding the truths of Christian faith and morality as authoritatively expounded by the sacred magisterium of the Catholic Church.

And in doing so, Father de Valk should have the solid support of all Canadians who affirm the inalienable rights of all people to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. Certainly, conscientious Christians should never fail in their duty to defend and affirm the faith in public after the manner urged by Abraham Lincoln: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right."


--
Rory Leishman
Author and Freelance Columnist
www.roryleishman.blogspot.com


© Copyright 1997-2006 Catholic Insight
Updated: Mar 5th, 2008 - 17:15:21

 

[nobull]

Thought policeman

It's going to be a supersmart search engine, capable of answering complex questions such as What were the major issues in the last 10 presidential elections? would be very useful for the public.(or at least thats what they will tell us) But that same capability in the hands of an agency like the NSA—absolutely secret, often above the law, resistant to oversight, and with access to petabytes of private information about Americans—could be a privacy and civil liberties nightmare. "We must not forget that the ultimate goal is to transfer research results into use...

Once up and running, the database of old newspapers could quickly be expanded to include an inland sea of personal information scooped up by the agency's warrantless data suction hoses. Unregulated, they could ask it to determine which Americans might likely pose a security risk—or have sympathies toward a particular cause, such as the antiwar movement, as was done during the 1960s and 1970s. They might then base the decision on the type of books a person purchased online, or chat room talk, or websites visited—or a similar combination of data. Such a system would have an enormous chilling effect on everyone's everyday activities..


just sayin
doug

 

[Rick]

Nobody can read your thoughts, but there already are crimes on the books for having impure thoughts, namely hate crimes. With those, you are given an extra penalty for what you thought or believed.

 

[Dr.Who]

This is a good one..
[]: Mar 5th, 2008 - 17:15:21

So it is the publishing or the preaching of words deemed to be offensive that are being regulated? And the regulations are being enforced unequally?

In other cases I have seen like this the actual words (which represent the thoughts) are often not all that hateful. But does it matter how large or small the offense is? Should the state intervene in regulating offensive thoughts that are very offensive but not those that are less offensive, or is the very nature of a state regulating ones thoughts too much?

 

[Dr.Who]

Nobody can read your thoughts, but there already are crimes on the books for having impure thoughts, namely hate crimes. With those, you are given an extra penalty for what you thought or believed.

Well I never expected that the state would read your mind. I am speaking of the state using evidence to determine what is in your mind.

Hate crimes happen to be a controversial topic. What about something that is not so controversial? Would it be ok for them to determine if you intend to evade your taxes? Suppose they want to know if you are planning to buy counterfeit jeans from China?

 

[Rick]

Well I never expected that the state would read your mind. I am speaking of the state using evidence to determine what is in your mind.

Hate crimes happen to be a controversial topic. What about something that is not so controversial? Would it be ok for them to determine if you intend to evade your taxes? Suppose they want to know if you are planning to buy counterfeit jeans from China?

Actually, hate crimes are the only crime for which you are penalized for thoughts that I know of. When you talk about intention, it depends how far you went with them. Eg, if you drew up actual PLANS to break the law, and someone else was involved, you can be arrested for conspiracy.

 

[nobull]

So it is the publishing or the preaching of words deemed to be offensive that are being regulated? And the regulations are being enforced unequally?

In other cases I have seen like this the actual words (which represent the thoughts) are often not all that hateful. But does it matter how large or small the offense is? Should the state intervene in regulating offensive thoughts that are very offensive but not those that are less offensive, or is the very nature of a state regulating ones thoughts too much?

No they should not!!!!
Look what's happened in egypt, Iran and Libya..Technology, is proving to be a great leveller n the muslim world. It is easy to ban books and films and proscribe publications. But it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ban Websites and digital platforms. That is today’s reality and we might as well learn to live with it. We can’t demand freedom of speech and freedom of faith without conceding the freedom to offend; ideas must be contested with ideas and not sought to be stamped out by bogus decrees. To refuse to accept this fact would be to under-estimate the power of technology — that would be both foolish and dangerous. IMVHO

just sayin
doug