-51 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
-2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

Whites who join such gangs are a-ok though

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

They get snazzy uniforms and patrol vehicles too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

That’s really not any better. It’s still punishing people for their ethnicity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
65 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-19 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

“This is a whites only state”

permalink
report
reply
27 points

“I mean, it was originally where we sent the Native Americans when we thought that part of the country wasn’t worth settling, but there was oil and so we had to take it back.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Betcha a quick look at 23andMe’s data breach could prove a whole bunch of them don’t have a white-only DNA history.

What an out that would be!

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Unfortunately, that would only lead to them saying “I can’t be racist, I’m 1/264th Cherokee!” and then holding up their color card to decide who to let in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
104 points

Bro, there’s not an ounce of hyperbole here. Crazy…

The proposed law

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

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”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

But what happens if their family has no ancestors from Spain?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Then they’re indigenous and you know what Americans do with them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Jesus, that’s every bit as bad as it sounds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

holy sweet tapdancing Christ

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

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

permalink
report
reply
20 points

So they’re going full Nazi, huh?

It’s a bold strategy

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Is that even news at this point?

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 21K

    Posts

  • 545K

    Comments