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.
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
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:
Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is of Hispanic descent living within the state of Oklahoma;
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re not wrong. The headline’s misrepresentation is needlessly distracting. The bill is still racist; why specify ancestry at all?
Whites who join such gangs are a-ok though
They get snazzy uniforms and patrol vehicles too.
It’s the other way around.
It only defines Hispanics as terrorists.
Anyone else involved in gang activity will not be labeled a terrorist under this law, only Hispanics.
Well, that makes sense. They wouldn’t want any KKK or Proud Boys to get locked up for doing terrorism that they support.
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.
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.
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.
That’s really not any better. It’s still punishing people for their ethnicity.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.