HATE CRIMES

HateCrimes1

“Hate crimes laws” are all babbling nonsense! We already have valid laws concerning prejudicially accusative slander and libel, to which there’s always the defense of the Truth!

People advocating for this nonsense have obviously (and perhaps deliberately) confused the invalid, false emotion of festering, victim-blaming, jealous ENVY (which is always really only prejudicial slander) with valid responsive HATE.

HateCrimes2

Either that, or they’ve mixed up the words ‘hate’ and ‘hurt!’

All crimes are committed from a motivation of greedy envy – the fear that others’ success leaves the negligent criminal relatively exposed to the risk of more pain than other people. Envy is really only the victim-blaming imitation of righteous hatred.

But true “hate” is only the natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam)!

Without “hate,” no one would ever bother to accuse any criminals of their crimes, and by doing so, end those crimes!

When they pretend to want to make HATE CRIMES “illegal,” they really only try to make it illegal to HATE CRIMES!

They now pretend it’s illegal to accuse any criminals of their crimes, if doing so might hurt the criminals’ feelings, and so “make” them commit even more crimes!

Well, I’m not afraid to say in public, that Yes, I DO hate crimes!

So why don’t these ‘authorities?’!

HateCrimes3

Babbling nonsense!

…….

Re: HATE CRIMES AND ANTI-BLASPHEMY LAWS AT THE UN:

So Hanki Banki Moon wants to tell us it’s “illegal” to criticize the threats and crimes from an extortion-racket crime-gang which pretends it’s “god” ordered it’s members to commit their crimes, does he?!

The ONLY limit to Free Speech, should be the Truth!

As even Aristotle noted long ago, slander is only pre-judice, and vice-versa; presenting accusatory opinions as if they were facts (making accusations against someone else, BEFORE having the facts straight)! And that breaks the Golden Rule of Law (to not attack first)!

Of course, aggressively chanting or yelling a truth at someone in a threatening manner ALSO breaks the Golden Rule, because all threats are psychological attacks (aka: coercion, duress, extortion, “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are crimes.

But ‘threatening’ a criminal with his just punishments, after he’s already committed his crimes, isn’t a theat so much as a promise!

The only other way speech should be limited, is if it incites un-just violence against innocent others (as opposed to legislators and police chiefs calling for violence against those who have already attacked innocent others, as in if they call for the death-penalty, for instance).

The Defense of Truth should always apply.

Here’s a quick comparison of Philosophy, Science and Religion:

1). Philosophy is speculation presented AS speculation.
2). Science is tested speculation, presented AS tested speculation.
3). Religion is speculation, presented AS fact.

So, only one of these is a lie, and lying is only the most basic form of theft: it’s the theft of the Truth. And theft IS crime. However, that being said, at best, religion is advice based on observing human behavior and metaphsics, while, at worst, it’s a case of (in all ‘real’ religions) only saying:

“Obey our silly rules, or GOD (/’the gods’) will get you!”

But ONLY islam says:

“Obey our silly rules, or WE will get you (‘for god’)!”

So the moslems are basically atheists … because they have NO faith in their god’s abilities or desires to pay any attention to them or to anyone ever anyway, not even a desire nor ability to enforce even it’s own us-versus-them, might-makes-right creed.

Allah is described in the Qur’an as a big, bad, remote, scary thing, so the group called “islam” and it’s rule-book, the Qur’an, are the only gods they can worship and obey.

So, static islam itself is the false idol they continue to worship – and it’s about as responsive to human needs as the rocks they used to worship!

Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:

“I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and you can, too!”

-Muhammad-

So obviously, islam is ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

“God told us to commit these crimes!”

(Capisce?)!

😉

BAN ISLAM – because everything moslems pretend to consider “holy” is already a crime!

;-(

FINALLY, (and, TO REPEAT:)

It’s insane to try to criminalize an emotion such as “hate!”

Hate is only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam) without hate, no one would ever bother to accuse any criminals of their crimes, and by doing so, hope to end those crimes!

It’s victim-blaming nannystate extortion at its worst: “I don’t care who started it – *I* only want it all to stop!”

These “judges” now pretend to make it “illegal” to accuse any criminals (moslems) of their crimes, if doing so might offend them and hurt their feelings, and so “make” them commit even more crimes!

When they pretend to want to make HATE CRIMES “illegal,” they really only try to make it illegal to HATE CRIMES!

Well, I’m not afraid to say in public, that Yes, I DO hate crimes!

So why don’t these ‘authorities?’!

The ONLY limit to Free Speech, should be the Truth!

As even Aristotle noted long ago, slander is only pre-judice, and vice-versa; presenting accusatory opinions as if they were facts (making accusations against someone else, BEFORE having the facts straight)! And that breaks the Golden Rule of Law (to not attack first)!

Of course, aggressively chanting or yelling a truth at someone in a threatening manner ALSO breaks the Golden Rule, because all threats are psychological attacks (aka: bullying, intimidation, coercion, duress, extortion, “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are crimes.

But ‘threatening’ a criminal with his just punishments, after he’s already committed his crimes, isn’t a theat so much as a promise!

The only other way speech should be limited, is if it incites un-just violence against innocent others (as opposed to legislators and police chiefs calling for violence against those who have already attacked innocent others, as in if they call for the death-penalty, for instance).

The Defense of Truth should always apply.

Basically, what these “judges” assert is that:

1. If you express hate (perpetual anger) towards anyone, it’s never justified (they are always innocent); so it’s “illegal” to truthfully accuse any criminals of their crimes, even with proof.

Whenever you are angry at someone else, you are hereby pre-judged to be wrong; you are to be automatically judged Guilty Until (never) Proven Innocent! Your “facts” are completely irrelevant!

The Supreme Court of Canada says so!

Hate is the crime, not the fact that the criminal you hate committed hateful crimes against you first.

You must all learn to be better victims, because it’s only the criminals’ right to remain irresponsibly wrong.

2. It is absolutely illegal to hate anyone because of group membership (chosen/voluntary or not)!

3. It is therefore illegal to hate any or all mafiosis, nazis, or moslems, for committing crimes, and it’s especially illegal to hate them for simply being members of groups that threaten everyone else!

Group might-made-right extortion trumps all individual citizen’s rights to complain about (“hate”) it!

;-(

The group extortion rights promoting stance of these “Human Rights Commisisons” (HRCs) is anti real individual human rights.

We already have valid laws against SLANDER (and against it’s written/recorded form: “Libel”) – but they involve not only the Defense of the Truth (where, if your accusations are based on facts, they cannot be deemed slander) and also that actual harm has to be proven, not only slanderoulsy inferred;

i.e:

“Since you MIGHT hurt someone’s feelings, SO you WILL hurt them, SO we must stop you in advance!”

This is “pre-emptive” slander on the part of the court system and government; it is to attack the citizens first, pre-judging them Guilty Until (never) Proven Innocent!

The Golden Rule of Law, which simply defines all situational morality as DO NOT ATTACK FIRST!

This is the #1 requirement for all sub-sequent laws, rules, and regulations; it’s basic Law 101 that this is the only requrement which validates any and all laws! Without it, they are invalid and void!

Even ‘the State’ as the largest group of individuals, has no right to attack its constituent members first, which is why we have “Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty” and not the reverse!

After all, when you attack the Others first, then, by definition, you are the predatory criminal aggressor, and they are your innocent victims – there’s no two ways about it!

(Attacking second, or counter-attacking, in defense of one’s self and/or of innocent others, is always OK, and in fact such retaliation is the most basic and crucial, mandatory requirement for having any sort of deterring justice in the world at all, ever)! The only caveat is that all threats are psychological attacks, and all non-defensive attacks are already classified as crimes.

Yet these “judges” don’t seem to know this simple FACT!

The HRCs are false rival courts to the real judicial system. They endorse false and subjective group rights at the expense of the universal equality of real human individual citizens rights!

For any court to endorse and support them, in stead of declaring them illegal, is to bring the entire justice system into disrepute.

A two-tier system, one for individual rights, and one endorsing group rights (extortion) is to offset our only objective justice system with a subjective injustice system – it is to endorse crime and double standards.

How many real individual human lives have been ruined already by these confused and idolatrous criminal tards who dare to call themselves “judges”?!

Canada is now fully endorsing the crime of group-rights extortion, at the direct expense of universal human rights (because when group membership – voluntary or not – determines whether one will have more or less rights than any other given citizen does, it’s an obvious crime)!

;-(

“Bullying” (cyber, or otherwise) is already subject to laws against extortion. Extortion is also known as intimidation, coercion, duress, and, of course, terrorism.

As for “hate-crimes:” we already have laws against slander.

Slander is fraud, and it’s a crime because it’s used to accuse people of crimes, without having a shred of evidence to back those accusations up.

The aim of slander is to falsely inspire hatred (perpetual anger) in others.

However, hated itself is often a good thing, because if people were unable to hate crimes and the criminals that commit them, no one would ever bother to accuse any criminals of their crimes, nor by doing so , hope to end those crimes. Idiots who want to make “hate” (a symptom, or an effect) into a crime, can only ever end up making it ‘illegal’ to hate crimes!

So what’s the difference between slander and “hate-crimes” legislation?

Well, for starters, the only defense against charges of slander, is the Truth (your accusations are not slander if you can objectively prove them)!

But “hate-crimes laws” are based not on objective Truth, but on the subjectively-claimed “perception” that one is being unfairly accused of one’s crimes, even if there’s proof one did indeed commit them!

So, accusing someone of a “hate-crime” and not of slander, IS in fact, only slander!

But it’s official, government-backed and police-state-enforced slander!

😉

Re: HRCs:

“Human Rights” Commissions ignore that rights can ONLY come with concommitant responsibilities; these liberal star chambers assert the criminal’s main contention, that hope IS a plan, and that one can indeed have rights (like, to your stuff) without any responsibilities (like, say, for having paid for it or earned it)!

In this way, they replace real live individual citizen’s human rights, with group-might-made (extortionist gangster’s) rights, and will always therefore, by slanderously assuming those groups with more money have more power and so HAVE TO have oppressed the minority group’s rights, are deemed automatically guilty until never proven innocent, and so must “prove a negative” and somehow prove, without evidence, that they have NOT discriminated against the poor “victim’s” rights! They are illegal slander-fests, which explains their 100% conviction rates!

Advertisements

About unclevladdi

Vojvoda
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s