• Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      There is some hyperbole - that’s an “and” not an “or”. So the law wouldn’t define anyone of Hispanic descent as a terrorist, just like it doesn’t define non-hispanic convicted gang members as terrorists.

      Still completely fucked up and racist, but the article title is slight hyperbole. And the politician is a total shitbag.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If there are people that would fall into points 2 and 3 but are in non-Hispanic gangs and because of that alone they aren’t labeled as terrorists in the same way, how would this be constitutional? Not that the politicians proposing it care, but it seems like it would be struck down, or they would have to amend it to remove that sort of language. Maybe if they were claiming it was combating Mexican cartels or other criminal foreign nationals with a qualifier about nation of origin, they could try to argue that wasn’t racist.

        Edit: Ah I didn’t read the article, as another commenter pointed out:

        He said: “I apologize for using the word Hispanic, but I was not wrong. Again, these are Hispanic. Reality is they are Hispanic. There’s nothing to be ashamed with.”

        Humphrey said he will go back to the bill and amend the language from “Hispanic” to “undocumented here illegally, or something like that”.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    11 months ago

    I thought it was clickbaity exaggeration.

    He said: “I apologize for using the word Hispanic, but I was not wrong. Again, these are Hispanic. Reality is they are Hispanic. There’s nothing to be ashamed with.”

    Humphrey said he will go back to the bill and amend the language from “Hispanic” to “undocumented here illegally, or something like that”.

  • ApeNo1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    11 months ago

    Direct extract from the S 894 US congress bill to address domestic terrorism.

    “ Congress finds the following:

    (1) White supremacists and other far-right-wing extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States. “

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree that there is a significant subset of Americans that are lost and can’t be fixed. But there are at least some that are still open to reason and facts. That’s who we have to focus on to negate the divisive social and MSM machine.

  • Daniel F.@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    So much for Republicans being “tough on crime,” this law would be more effective (for the purpose of fighting street crime) if they just removed the whole racist bullshit. Of course, that’s not what this law is intended to do. This is some stupid political game where Republicans present a bill that is “intended” to fight street crime. Every sane person and media establishment will see and criticise it for being racist, which it is. Then Republicans and Fox can yell about how those darn woke communists “don’t care about the community” and “aren’t tough on crime.” Also did I mention it’s hella racist? Because it’s hella racist.

  • Godric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    I thought this was BS, because no way, right?

    NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1268.9 of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

    Any person who:

    1. Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;

    2. Is a member of a criminal street gang as such term is defined in subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and

    3. Has been convicted of a gang-related offense enumerated in paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Req. No. 8450

    shall be deemed to have committed an act of terrorism as such term is defined in Section 1268.1 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Any and all property, including real estate and personal property, conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels, monies, coins and currency, or other instrumentality used or intended to be used, in any manner or part, by said person shall be subject to forfeiture as provided in Section 1738 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

  • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s bad on its face, but to make it even worse: AFAICT, the definition would apply post-hoc, so anyone who has had such a conviction ever would be liable to have their property seized, even if they weren’t doing anything wrong today. Made a mistake in 1998? Terrorist.

  • zoostation@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s a terrible bill, but it only defines Hispanics as terrorists if they’re also a gang member who’s been convicted of a gang offense. Shitty to single them out this way, but no it doesn’t label any Hispanic person as a terrorist.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      There is zero need for him to bring race into this at all. Or even immigration status. The fact that he equates Hispanics as terrorists and feels it’s appropriate to change it to “illegals” is profoundly telling of his views.

      Terrorism is already narrowly defined within legal and law enforcement contexts.

      This guy is a racist prick who should probably be treated as a terrorist, rather than the people he’s absolutely racially profiling

      • zoostation@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes, like I said the bill is terrible. But the headline is wrong. The bill does not define someone as a terrorist just for being Hispanic.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          SECTION 1. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1268.9 of Title 21, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows: Any person who:

          1. Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;
          2. Is a member of a criminal street gang as such term is defined in subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and
          3. Has been convicted of a gang-related offense enumerated in paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of subsection F of Section 856 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statute

          I read the law. under this proposed law, any one who is a member of a gang, and has been convicted of gang crimes is not a terrorist, but any such person who also happens to be Hispanic Is a terrorist.

          When called out for it… he didn’t apologize, but then proceeded to suggest “illegals” as an alternative term, as if Hispanics are illegals. This asshole is so fucking racist, he doesn’t understand what the issue is.

          • Cowlitz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            What the actual fuck is wrong with this country? Him and the dumbshits that elected him need to face some actual adversity in life. Pathetic excuses for humans or americans.

        • Veedem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          But it does if two people, one white and one Hispanic, meet the other two criteria. Then one is not a terrorist and one is simply because they are Hispanic.

        • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re not wrong. The headline’s misrepresentation is needlessly distracting. The bill is still racist; why specify ancestry at all?

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      11 months ago

      The title doesn’t say “all” or “any” Hispanic person, because it conveys the main point which is that the law labels only Hispanic people, and not other people, as terrorists. The additional gang affiliation is not nearly as important as the racist basis of only applying the label to Hispanic people.

    • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Nope. If it did it would have included both lines together. It literally lables anyone Hispanic as being a terrorist right from the get go.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s an “and” in the second statement. It requires all three to be true.

        Still a horrible racist law. If they want gangs to be labeled terrorists, just drop the Hispanic requirement and go after all of them.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          You’re correct, however, by including “Hispanic” as a qualifier, excludes convicted gangbangers who are not Hispanic.

          While it is true to say that the law doesn’t include all Hispanics… it’s also true to say it doesn’t apply to white gang members or any other. Which means that while Hispanic gang member are terrorists, non-Hispanic are not terrorists, just …gang members…

          It’s fucking racist.

        • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Shouldn’t the “and” be in the first statement as well to link them all together?

          Any person who is of Hispanic *and

          member of a gang *and

          Convicted of yada yada yada.

          The way it is written doesn’t link the first two together. It’s its own statement of law.

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s what the semicolons are for. It’s like saying “red, white, and blue”. You don’t need to say “red and white and blue”.

            • Cowlitz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Except in this country where the courts can’t read and just makes up whatever it wants. Easier to do the less explicit things are.

      • zoostation@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        No, the bill clearly has a three part definition of a terrorist. One part is race related, but the other two that must be satisfied are about gang activity.

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The law that it has 3 requirements. Being Hispanic is a strange requirement but they are probably trying to target native Americans.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    They should read the la…they should learn more about reading first. Once they know how to read, then read the laws they proposed.