Selective law enforcement and selective prosecution sound similar, and to me seem interchangeable. Both are hallmarks of tyranny. Examples:
Hate Crimes: This is a darling of the liberals because it speaks of moral superiority. Who is to say, for example, that the brutal murder of Mathew Shepard was not a hateful act? But the concept of a “hate crime” takes us beyond crime and punishment and into the realm of attitude. We already allow for mindset – premeditation, passion, inebriation, etc., but “hate” takes us into a subjective area that allows punishment of thought processes.
Turn it around to a time when attitudes about groups within our society were different, as in the Antebellum South. Imagine back then that a black man raped a white woman. That would not only have been a crime, but a hate crime that deserved worse punishment than a white man raping a black woman. The punishment for the former: hanging. The latter? None. That’s what happens when selected groups are given special treatment under the law. Maybe it’s an extreme example, but it is the same logical pathway.
No matter how well intended, hate crime laws are bad precedent. Those who murdered Shepard should be tried, convicted and lawfully punished for murder of a man. Period. If the judge and jury finds the particular crime egregious, additional punishment can be meted out.
A Department of Justice memo instructs local police, under a program named “communities against terrorism,” to consider anyone who harbors “conspiracy theories” about 9/11 to be a potential terrorist.
That paragraph is taken from this link, which concludes that about half of us are terrorists.
Similarly, in Canada and Austria, one can be imprisoned for publicly denying the Holocaust.
The idea that the state owns truth gives it complete control of us, mind and body. In the US, most people who harbor suspicion about the true events of 9/11 are hush-hush about it. No debate is allowed on mainstream media, hardly any in alternative media. That’s totalitarian – if you harbor doubts about that day and are afraid to say so, you are feeling it, baby.
This article, The Soviet Legacy: The Impact of Early Bolshevik Law Felt Up to the Present, states,
In the first years of its existence or, as we say, at the dawn of its misty youth, Soviet criminal law was different. The main difference was that the law was couched in sociological, not legal, terms. A crime was defined as a “socially dangerous act,” a punishment as a “measure of social protection.” The offender was named a socially dangerous person and to be declared this kind of person, it was not necessary for an individual to have done something bad: any past activity that looked wrong from the viewpoint of the new regime, or some sort of connection with the underworld, was enough to brand a person with this designation.
The Soviets were new on the map and felt threatened from every sphere, not without good reason. The Americans, Brits and French were attacking from the west, the Japanese from the East. The military was crawling with moles, and Trotsky was trying to organize a coup from without. They gave themselves more leverage to punish malcontents for sake of internal security. But as time went on and the regime stabilized, it worked so well that they did not change it. Consequently, throughout its existence, the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state.
In the US, we have historically been much more open, but we are heading down that path. The social pressure people feel that prevents them from expressing legitimate doubts about 9/11 signals presence of the thought-crime overlord. Fear is a weapon of the tyrant, allowing the state usurp more power. We saw Gestapo-like house-to-house searches in Watertown, MA after the alleged bombing incident. The executive has claimed for himself the right to imprison and murder American citizens without due process. (Bad enough that even supposed civil libertarians are not concerned that he can willy-nilly murder foreigners, wedding parties a special delight.)
The Soviet Union owned truth, and dissident citizens were often confined to mental institutions. After all, if truth was obvious and a person could not see it, wasn’t that person by definition mentally off-kilter? It is no different now with treatment of 9/11 skeptics except that we’ve not completely gone down the Soviet path.
These are the hallmarks of American jurisprudence:
- All citizens are equal before the law;
- The Bill of Rights represents rights won in a revolutionary struggle, and not rights that were “given” to us;
- The Bill of Rights only exists for so long as we fight for its existence;
- Crimes are punishable acts, and not attitudes;
- Justice is meted out under strict rules of evidence;
- No one is imprisoned without the right to appear before a judge in short order;
- Torture is never justified and is itself a punishable act;
- An executive that murders a citizen without due process is a criminal who should be brought to justice.
I originally set out to write about selectivity enforcement of marijuana laws a few days ago, but found it was a much deeper and complex subject than that. I’ll get there, eventually. The reader might notice that I’m trying to make sense of it all in my own mind rather than pedantically laying it out. I do think with my fingers.