A New Racial Law Amendment

[Gladiator]

New law amendments enter into effect by Chris Galea, di-ve news

http://www.di-ve.com/image-jpeg.dyn?imageId=245086 Drug sharing no longer necessarily penalised with jail term

VALLETTA, Malta (di-ve news) -- August 21, 2006 -- 1500CEST -- A set of new law amendments has entered into effect on Monday, under which drug sharing of small amounts of drug substances not intended for trafficking will not automatically mean a jail sentence.

On more than one occasion, Minister for Justice and Home Affairs Tonio Borg had said that such an amendment is intended to punish drug traffickers with a peremptory jail term, while the victims of drugs would be given a different treatment.

Under the amended law, while drug sharing remains a crime punishable with a jail term, the judging person can decide not to hand down a jail sentence based on circumstances such as the amount of drugs involved and the criminal record of the accused. Moreover, the accused can benefit from the amendment only once.

The aggravated crime of racial hatred also entered into effect on Monday. With this amendment, harsher punishments would be handed out for crimes against persons or property if they are proved to have been inspired by racial hatred. :mad:

Another amendment which entered into effect on Monday was made to the Press Act, whereby a simple libel suit is not punishable with a jail sentence anymore.

[praefectus]

Snuck that one in, didn't they ...

[umberto]

the law does not concern voicing opinions against this massive african invasion. and if it does, it goes defied.

[shadow cup]

O...kay...

On drug sharing:

I personally feel that this is only encouraging things. There can be no two ways about this topic. No half-solution... there are only two realistic solutions as I see them.

1.) Ban any and all non-medicinal involvement with drugs: - The way I would implement this is through a decree setting jail terms based upon quantity, drug type involved, personal use or for sharing, etc.

An example would be imposing a term of one day per 5 grams of cannabis possessed. If a person has two kilos then gee whiz looks like the guy is looking at 100 days behind bars if it transpires that it was for personal use - the time could be used to rehabilitate the person. If it transpires that the amount discovered was for sharing then apply quadriple the sentence +10% for every year below the age of maturity that the youngest distributee is.

2.) Knock down all the laws of prohibition and set up strict guidelines of regulation. Yep thats right folks. Legalize legitimate drug use in a mature fashion.

In this way one would be able to get the drug barons out into the open with a legitimate trade. The illegitimate players would either go out of business or deal in inferior or more dangerous products. In this scenario I would be the first to support the punishing of apprehended rogues with the proverbial tonne of bricks.

-----

On crimes aggravated by racial hatred:

A crime is a crime is a crime... this is not a crime but a modifier in my book. In my book (the one between my ears ;c) there should be modifiers for violence involving genders or age-groups of greater vulnerability than the self (for example man-on-woman or woman-on-child).

Are those of a different race structurally more vulnerable? And even if so how is one to proove that the perpetrator deliberately took such vulnerability into consideration in the attack?

In the case of foreign persons being the victims of a crime I believe that it is not a matter of the crime being more serious but rather that the motive is more frivelous and hence the crime itself is less justified (if there is any justification to note).

To be clear, if a person attacks a dark-skin for no apparent reason other than getting a glare then the motive is frivelous and hence the sentence should be modified upwards... I'd expect the same to be true of dark-skinned persons attacking locals.

Racial compensation should not be pandered to. You don't fix a broken leg by encasing it with a robotic exoskeleton as the breakage is still there and persons with healthy legs would feel cheated in a race.

-----

On Libel

This charge should never have had a prison sentence attached in the first place. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

-----

Oh and I doubt that expressing concerns or opposition to illegal immigration falls under these. ^_^

[shadow cup]

How about, black boy gets on double decker bus and proceeds to top deck.Black boy has been to the chippy and is throwing his chips at folk sitting in the bus.Chip hits white boys girlfriend.White boy protests to blackboy .Black boy stabs whiteboy to death with concealed knife.Was the manslaughter racially motivated ?
How about, white boy gets on double decker bus and proceeds to top deck.White boy has been to the chippy and is throwing his chips at folk sitting in the bus.Chip hits black boys girlfriend.Black boy protests to whiteboy .White boy stabs blackboy to death with concealed knife.Was the manslaughter racially motivated ?

I am reversing it to allow myself a better perspective of the situation. And I would have to say... no... it cannot be proven that the attack was racially-motivated BUT that the murder was senseless and hence a due modifier for such applies. I would also apply much lighter penalties upon bystanders who are proven to have just stood idly, hence failing to prevent a crime that they were duty-bound (as fellow human beings) to prevent.

That is how I see it at least...

[dust commander]

How about, black boy gets on double decker bus and proceeds to top deck.Black boy has been to the chippy and is throwing his chips at folk sitting in the bus.Chip hits white boys girlfriend.White boy protests to blackboy .Black boy stabs whiteboy to death with concealed knife.Was the manslaughter racially motivated ?

The answer is no, coz the white boy had a "CHIP" on his shoulder.;)

[dust commander]

How about this one.White boy attacks black boy and embeds axe into blackboys head.White boy is charged with murder.Is this a racially motivated crime?

YES, coz the white boy had an "AXE" to grind.;)

[Marco Polo]

How about, black boy gets on double decker bus and proceeds to top deck.Black boy has been to the chippy and is throwing his chips at folk sitting in the bus.Chip hits white boys girlfriend.White boy protests to blackboy .Black boy stabs whiteboy to death with concealed knife.Was the manslaughter racially motivated ?

yes, but it wasn't in the UK where it happened. The story was covered up.

[Marco Polo]

How about this one.White boy attacks black boy and embeds axe into blackboys head.White boy is charged with murder.Is this a racially motivated crime?

of course it is! the attacker was white and the victim black. must be racially motivated. :rolleyes:

[etoile noir]

these amendments to the law were proposed a few months ago. not quite "new".

what is new is that they came into effect yesterday. personally i think its the fastest law ever to go from white paper to actually being in effect. surprise surprise - not!

[shadow cup]

How about this one.White boy attacks black boy and embeds axe into blackboys head.White boy is charged with murder.Is this a racially motivated crime?
Without any hint of a motive I can only say 'I don't know'. If there is no clear motive then perhaps one should consider it motiveless, hence indefensible through justification and hence the due modifier would apply.

I feel that the only crimes that can be called racially motivated are those where either a perpetrator drops hints of his own at the site of the crime (Things like cursing him by race or spray painting racist comments or such). Alternatively a situation where a number of persons suffered from actions but undue focus was given to a particular foreigner.

Racial motivations ought to have a modifier attached as one's actions should be based upon the individual and not on the collective level.

[shadow cup]

these amendments to the law were proposed a few months ago. not quite "new".

what is new is that they came into effect yesterday. personally i think its the fastest law ever to go from white paper to actually being in effect. surprise surprise - not!

And hence we have an excellent example of how the big strong (but top-heavy) government takes decisions for the rest of us. I feel that laws should be scrutinized via internet forum or other truly public means before they ever are officially up for approval (having passed public scrutiny).

Democracy? In name perhaps... When the population is blinkered and is in a subtle stranglehold, what sort of democratic value are we to place upon their "democratic" vote?