January 17, 2008
Go check out this clip of a Canadian publisher lambasting an investigator from the Human Rights Commission, sent to determine whether he has committed a thought crime. Courtesy of Megan McArdle from, of course, The Atlantic.
Update
Tim Sandefur offers some closing comments from the same hearing. And here's a link to the publisher's website. I suspect he now needs to worry about being a marked man, and not just by the Canadian government.
Posted by Woodlief on January 17, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Posted by: Rob at January 17, 2008 11:30 AM
Yay for people defending their rights from Human Rights sheep.
Thought Crime? Please. I'll stop now so I dont bring embarrassment to my husband.
Posted by: Charity at January 18, 2008 1:51 PM
Watched a few of those youtubes. Including his closing remarks. I have to say that I agree with him 100%. He made a very compelling argument.
Posted by: Jim Ratajski at January 18, 2008 2:19 PM
Hi, Tony. A friend just sent me a link to your blog.
Yikes! At the risk of stating the obvious, the intellectual vapidness of the fascist bureaucrat ought to be Exhibit A as to why the State is incompetent to judge "thought crime".
Thanks for linking to this. I hope you're well.
Posted by: Leslie Carbone at January 18, 2008 3:25 PM
The U.S. is already walking down this path. Hate crimes are thought crimes, because their entire justification is the motive behind the criminal action. How is that constitutional?
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at January 20, 2008 7:41 PM
The "motive behind the crime" has always been important in most crimes - it makes the difference between murder and manslaughter, for just one easy example.
What is different about "hate crimes" is that it is just a new Jim Crow - where it is MORE egregious to harm a member of the "protected class" than someone not in a protected class.
The "thought crime" portion is not (yet) part of the law... but it's getting there. It's already present in many semi-official forms ("political correctness" is enforced through secondary channels, including some that are indeed arms of the state, but not specifically by law, such as the Family Law, where certain views on certain topics are automatically considered bad for the child, etc).
Posted by: Deoxy at January 22, 2008 5:07 PM
Post a comment
