• zoostation@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    61
    ·
    10 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
      56
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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
        8
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        10 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
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          10 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
            ·
            10 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
          10
          ·
          10 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
          2
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          10 months ago

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

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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,

      shall be deemed to have committed an act of terrorism

      You’re probably right. Although, I question whether or not there should be an “and” after every line, to clearly define the Boolean logic. In one way of reading it, you would need to be either Hispanic living in Oklahoma, OR a member of a criminal offense and convicted of gang-related offenses, to be labelled as a terrorist.

      This also entirely ignores the fact that terrorism has a clear definition that does not apply here. Terrorism is using violence or the threat of violence against a civilian population to enact political change - gang crime does not generally fit into this, except in very limited circumstances.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        I swear I’ve seen laws written with a big capitalized “AND” when enumerating conditions like this.

        They would twist this and force forfeitures based on ethnicity alone. “It’s the law.”

        Fucking disgusting.

    • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 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
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 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
          ·
          10 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
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 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
              ·
              10 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
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 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.