Hate Crimes? Thought Crimes? Crimethink?

We do it all the time Phat. A theft involving a lot of planning and thought is punished more than an opportuninist theft. Reckless actions are punished less than deliberate actions. If you deliberately attack a vulnerable person because they're easy targets - elderly, disabled, young, pregnant etc etc - expect to be punished more harshly.

Thought crime is a science fiction fantasy - you know, it's not real? We can't do it, so we can't criminalise it. What's more relevant is that we're not doing it. Well yes, and 1000 years ago the only punishment for any crime was death and a for a long time after the local baron could do what the hell he liked to his serfs. But we don't do that stuff anymore. If you punch a gay chap in the face you get prosecuted for common assault. If you punch a gay chap in the face whilst calling him a fucking filthy fag you get prosecuted for common assault aggravated by the fact that the assault was motivated by a hatred of a particular protected group. Motives, thoughts, intent - whatever language you'd like to use, the crimes are being punished more harshly because they show traits that society wishes to erradicate, that is, discrimination on religious, sexual and racial grounds. People can have whatever thoughts they like, but the minute they start acting on those thoughts, they're going to find themselves in trouble. Motive and intent has always been a factor in deciding the level of a punishment. Nope, we don't do that, we punish actions. See above

Correct Incorrect. The purpose of law is to signal society's values and to force compliance to them by a system of punishments. This is a bit garbled - but it's probably correct. Yes it it. The introduction of penalties for actions that are motivated by hatred of particular sections of our society which we have decided need special protection because they are at risk, is exactly what law does - protect it's citizens.

The transgender legislation is interesting. It's pretty hard to imagine circumstances when the pronoun issue would be prosecuted though - it would have to be a deliberate and repeated act, intended to provocate. Although I could see some raving, right-wing Christian idiots wanting to martyr themselves over it. God forbid they ever try to buy a cake!But even so, the law has its heart in the right place, it's trying to ensure that these poor people can live as near normal lives as those of us without these problems and prevent bigotted egits discriminating against and humiliating them.It's really all about the intent of the law and then its application. It's not a problem in itself that laws attempt to change minds.

Well 'they' aren't being consistent. All laws attempt to control and change behaviour - law require people to conform to rules of behaviour, or else. Behaviour is driven by thought, so sure, it's the thought police. But only if you really need to be really, really stupid about it.And where is this 'slippery slope' supposed to lead to? The USA has loads of constitutional laws preventing abuse by law enforcers.

Can you explain what this line-in-the-sand is delineating?

Yes, that one seems a bit bizzarre. It feels like there was a particular incident that the legislators were trying to address. But it seems to me that it would be covered by public order offences - at least it would in the UK. It would be called behaviour likely to cause alarm and distress - nomally a police caution would be enough.But I think the UK is a bit harsher on that sort of 'free speech' stuff than you guys. I doubt whether we'd put up with that outrageous Christian church protesting about gays for instance - Westboro? We don't see why we have to put up with that sort of extreem nastiness.