Thoughtcrime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling unapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "crimethink".

In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary:

   
“
 Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.
   
”

He also makes remarks to the effect that "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters."

Contents

[edit] Thought Police

The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) was the secret police of the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four whose job it was to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police used psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority.

Orwell's Thought Police and their pursuit of thoughtcrime was based on the methods used by the totalitarian states and competing ideologies of the 20th century. It also had much to do with Orwell's own "power of facing unpleasant facts," as he called it, and his willingness to criticise prevailing ideas which brought him into conflict with others and their "smelly little orthodoxies." Although Orwell described himself as a democratic socialist, many other socialists (especially those who supported the communist branch of socialism) thought that his criticism of the Soviet Union under Stalin damaged the socialist cause.

The term "Thought Police," by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness in any modern or historical contexts.

[edit] Soviet abuses

In the Soviet era, the USSR frequently used psychiatry as a weapon against dissidents. The diagnosis of sluggishly progressing schizophrenia was used to commit many dissidents to psychiatric hospitals (called Psikhushka in Russia), where they were then treated aggressively with psychoactive drugs. The Tom Stoppard play Every Good Boy Deserves Favour is a fictionalized version of the Soviet experience with psychiatry used for this purpose. Natan Sharansky, among others, have written detailed accounts of their experiences as refusnik detainees in this system.

[edit] Reported Modern Instances

[edit] In The United States and Elsewhere

Some people believe governments may be currently enforcing laws that implement a de facto kind of thoughtcrime legislation. Prime among the laws accused of this are hate crime laws that mandate harsher penalties for people who commit crimes out of racism or bigotry. Opponents of those laws claim that all crimes are committed out of an element of hate, so that defining a specific subset of laws as 'hate crimes' is meaningless, and that these very laws in fact imply the inequality of citizens before the law ("castes" of special sub-groups benefiting from privileges other groups do not, e.g. ethnic or sexual minorities) and that the government should outlaw actions, not thoughts or states of mind. Proponents argue that hate crime legislation protects all groups, be they majority or minority (crimes against majority groups have in fact been prosecuted as hate crimes), and that the state of mind of the perpetrator has always influenced the punishment for crimes (e.g. The charge of murder requires clear intent, but the charge of manslaughter usually does not. Hence, murder carries a much stiffer penalty than manslaughter.) They further argue that hate crime laws are the only way to ensure proper punishment of those who commit egregious crimes in the name of prejudice or bigotry. The debate remains open to this day.

Another controversial topic that may qualify as thoughtcrime is Flag desecration, specifically the Flag Desecration Amendment. The most common act that is thought of as desecration is flag burning. Opponents of the amendment point out that burning is the preferred method for the disposal of worn-out flags and is commonly practiced by the U.S. military, the American Legion and the Boy Scouts of America. The argument is that the proposed amendment criminalizes thought by making the intent of the flag burner the determination of criminality.[1]

An extremely controversial example of borderline thoughtcrime behavior is pedophilia. Along with other "paraphilias" that exist as psychiatric diagnoses in the absence of the actual commission of an act beyond the formulation of a thought, pedophilia, in the psychiatric context, can easily and erroneously be confused with an actual act of molestation. For example, in 2000 the court in Lafayette, Indiana banned a convicted child sex offender from all city parks, which included a zoo and a golf course after he admitted to his psychologist that he had sexual fantasies about children he saw playing in the park. The man sued, and a U.S. District Judge ruled in favor of the city. Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit sitting en banc upheld the District Court's decision. [2]

Laws providing for involuntary commitment are also open to accusations that they provide for thoughtcrimes, since those who have committed no crime may be denied their liberty simply because an alleged medical professional or court assert that they are a "danger to self or others." This while individuals who may really be a "danger to self or others" may remain free so long as they have not been suspected of, charged with or convicted of a crime.

[edit] In Canada

In Canada certain credentialed medical practitioners may, apparently at their sole discretion, make state sanctioned investigations into and diagnosis of "mental illness" that can involve or result in involuntary detainment and treatment of the subjects. These diagnoses appear to be based at least in part, and in some cases entirely upon, the investigator's perceptions of the subject's thoughts and beliefs. This aspect of diagnosis is manifest in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision glossary definition of "delusion" which begins; "A false belief based on...", and is found on page 821 of the DSM-IV-TR. Significantly the presence of "delusions" seem to form a primary criterion for the diagnosis of the majority of DSM-IV-TR "psychotic" disorders including Schizophrenia and Scizoaffective Disorder (Criterion A1 in the case of Schizophrenia). The DSM-IV-TR also states the "No laboratory findings have been identified that are diagnostic of Schizophrenia". This statement is also applied to Major Depressive episodes and Manic episodes.

The application of DSM-IV-TR criteria to the various pieces of federal health and provincial mental health law in Canada seems to still occur in spite of their conflict in this respect with Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [3] which garuantees the "fundamental" "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression". Part VII -- General, of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 states that "any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution "...(which contains the Charter)..."is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect".

The potential for state sanctioned involuntary detainment and treatment exists pursuant to these health acts. The Ontario Mental Health Act[4] for example contains references to circumstances under which involuntary admission to psychiatric facilities can occur.

Incidentally legal involvement and involuntary detainment and treatment is not fundemental to the DSM-IV-TR nor are implications of violent behavior at frequencies exceeding that of the general population attributed to those diagnosed. To a significant degree courts are in fact cautioned against the use of DSM-IV diagnosis in the DSM-IV introduction itself in its section entitled Use of DSM-IV in Forensic Settings.

The position of the Canadian Psychiatric Association itself, stated in The Confidentiality of Psychiatric Records and the Patient's Right to Privacy(2000-21S), holds that "in recent years, serious incursions have been made by governments, powerful commercial interests, law enforcement agencies, and the courts on the rights of persons to their privacy."

In the Canadian criminal justice system, again, in spite of the Charter Freedoms, individuals continue to be subjected to discrimination based on DSM IV diagnosis within the context of part XX.1of the Criminal Code of Canada, [5]. This part sets out provisions for, among other things, court ordered attempts at "treatment" before individuals receive a trial as described in section 672.58 of the Criminal Code.

Also provided for are external court ordered "psychiatric assessments" that may involve detention and the selective procurement of anecdotal accounts, psychiatric records, and records of past diagnosis and treatment. This process as it occurs in the Canadian Province of Ontario is illustrated in the publication The Forensic Mental Health System In Ontario. In the setting of a bail hearing in Ontario anecdotal evidence may be adduced about the mental health history of family members of an accused as in R. v. Foley, Newmarket, Ontario, 2005.

With a finding of "Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder"as described in section 672.34 of the Code [6] lifelong restrictions on freedom, mandatory treatment, and indefinite detention subject to periodic non-judicial review are possible. Section 672.23 of the Criminal Code states that the decision as to whether or not an individual will be subjected to a test of fitness for trial is at the discretion "of the court of its own motion or on application of the accused or the prosecutor" implying that the test is not universally applied.

[edit] In The United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, legislation to enable the proactive detainment of people considered to display anti-social behaviours who have not yet committed a crime has been passed. These Anti-Social Behaviour Orders prohibit behaviours and actions. These actions and behaviours are not necessarily illegal to normal citizens, and typically include things like prohibition from an area of a town, or not being allowed to congregate with other people of a similar age. However, they have also been known in some instances to include injunctions against 'being sarcastic', or saying the word "grass". This has caused great concern among human rights activists.

[edit] Technology and thoughtcrime

Just as technology played a significant part in the detection of thoughtcrime in Nineteen Eighty-Four — with the ubiquitous telescreens which could inform the government, misinform and monitor the population — a number of technologies have been developed to try to detect thought and emotional states. Networks of CCTV cameras are being connected to image-recognition software that intends to detect possible wrongdoers by looking for signs of anxiety. Other technologies range from lie detectors, the penile plethysmograph which was used to try to detect "homosexual or pedophile thoughts", and on to more modern attempts to use magnetic resonance imaging to try to detect brain chemical activity supposedly corresponding to memory or thoughts. All of these technologies have been proposed at one time or another as a way of detecting "bad thoughts".

Research by Canadian scientist Julie Thorpe might allow people to use their very brainwave patterns as personal identifiers, replacing PINs, cards and other common forms[7].

[edit] In the media

  • Frank Zappa and his band, the Mothers of Invention satirized the concept often, as a recurrent theme in their music, beginning as early as their first album, Freak Out! (1966) — where he pointedly asks the question "Who are the Brain Police?" — as well as in several later efforts such as Joe's Garage (1979) and 1985's Porn Wars.
  • Philip K. Dick's story Minority Report and the 2002 movie by Steven Spielberg demonstrates the consequences of a world in which possible crime (called Pre-Crime) is punished in advance.
  • Coldplay's song Spies depicts the general society illustrated in 1984 as well as the concept of thoughtcrime (with references to the Thought Police) and lack of freedom. It includes lines such as "I awake to see that no one is free. We're all fugitives, look at the way we live. Down here, I cannot sleep from fear, no. I said, which way do I turn? I forget everything I learn." and "And if we don't hide here, they're going to find us, and if we don't hide now, they're going to catch us when we sleep, and if we don't hide here, they're going to find us."
  • One episode in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes finds Calvin once again objecting to compulsory education. In the middle of one of Ms. Wormwood's lectures, Calvin cries out: "This is a big fat waste of my time!" The final panel shows Calvin trying to escape the room, screaming "HELP! IT'S THE THOUGHT POLICE!"
  • Rock musician Neil Young draws a likeness between the Bush administration and Orwell's thought police in his 2006 political protest album Living With War (referring to the war in Iraq). In the title song, Young sings, "I raise my hand in Peace / I never bow to the laws of the thought police".

[edit] See also

Nineteen Eighty-Four v • d • e 
By George Orwell
Characters Winston Smith | Julia | O'Brien | Big Brother | Emmanuel Goldstein
Places Oceania | Eastasia | Eurasia | Airstrip One | Room 101
Classes Inner Party | Outer Party | Proles
Ministries Ministry of Love | Ministry of Peace | Ministry of Plenty | Ministry of Truth
Concepts Ingsoc | Newspeak | Doublethink | Goodthink | Crimestop
Two plus two | Thoughtcrime | Prolefeed | Prolesec
Miscellaneous Thought Police | Telescreen | Memory hole | The Book
Newspeak words | Two Minutes Hate | Hate week
Adaptations 1956 film | 1984 film | 1953 TV programme | 1954 TV programme
Opera
Parody Me and the Big Guy


[edit] Further reading

  • Kretzmer, David and Kershman, Hazan Francine (Eds.) (2000) "Freedom of Speech and Incitement Against Democracy". Kluwer Law International, The Hague, Netherlands. ISBN 90-411-1341-X

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/o/Thoughtcrime.html"
In other languages