Obeying the law is no longer sufficient to avoid state interference
Regis Magnae
Posts: 6,810
Forum Member
✭
Mr Cameron will say the new powers will make it harder for people to promote extremist views.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'," he will say.
"It's often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that's helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance."
The Conservative government will "conclusively turn the page on this failed approach," he will add, saying the UK must confront "head-on the poisonous Islamist extremist ideology".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802
The measures taken might be necessary, but the above phrase is a little odd.
0
Comments
Isn't that like saying that if you hold a neutral view (some may say a reasonable or rational view) then that means you are guilty of encouraging terrorism?
Remember,..if you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear.
People that hold this view are often misguided and innocently naive in my opinion.
The quote above from Regis does seem rather odd if it has been reported correctly.
https://netpol.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/netpol-submission-to-home-office-consultation-on-police-powers.pdf
Wow, those LibDems had more influence than I realised!
All we need now is a prison camp that "detainees" can be sent too. maybe somewhere in Scotland could work for us.
It's like the Conservatives actually like conflict, fear and violence. (they probably do)
Do what we meant, not do what we said.
I also refer to the discussions on aggressive tax avoidance where the Righteous argue that because it keeps to the letter of the law that its OK.
Could they be prosecuted under their own hate laws?
Of course, they are called laws. What Cameron is saying is that even if you obey the law, you could still be in trouble.
He's cracking down on tolerance and people who obey the law, which are apparently failed approaches.
It is odd because it's badly phrased. Cameron is saying...
" From now on if you obey the law we won't leave you alone"
Ah, guilty until proven innocent - just like sanctions
That's exactly what I'm thinking.
Extreme in what way? Extreme depending on how far one's views deviate from a Tory outlook?
Would somebody be perceived as an extremist if the government took our country to war and people protested heavily against that?
As long as somebody isn't advocating violence or physical harm towards somebody else then they are doing nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned.
Once we start punishing people for freedom of expression who aren't encouraging violence towards anybody in any form, then this country has a serious problem.
That bit about holding a neutral opinion between two views sounds very disturbing.
It needs to be made absolutely clear from the outset what they perceive as extremism. They can't just make it up as they go along.
Well in the past when Cameron has talked about non-violent 'extremism' he's metioned things like people disagreeing with the official line on 9/11.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-nafeez-mosaddeq-ahmed/david-cameron-extremism_b_5919516.html
If that's the case he's going to have to lock up half the internet. This sounds like a massive assault on free speech and the right to hold an opinion to me. Scary stuff.
Of course, just about any wordview can be used as a justification for violence by people who are sufficiently crazy or fanatical, so Cameron's argument is ridiculous. Go after those who actively encourage violence, not those who hold certain worldviews. (Who gets to decide which worldview is acceptable and which one is not?)
The U.S. First Amendment is still the gold standard for the regulation of speech (or the lack thereof).
It's very disturbing and wide open to abuse. ANY view can be used to justify violence. Supporting the British government could be seen as "support for violence against Iraq and Libya" if it comes down to it. Unless someone outright calls for us to use unlawful violence or actually carries it out themselves why should we be punishing them? They are as entitled to their world view as we are to ours.
As someone who opposed the wars in Libya and Iraq I'm worried this kind of thing could be used to target me. It's not a stretch to think that a government this paranoid and obsessive about punishing dissenting views could twist opposition to a war into "supporting our enemies by arguing we should leave them alone to do all sorts of terror activities"
That's highly debatable, but it's also not the issue. My point was that the First Amendment in the U.S. would prohibit the kinds of restrictions on speech proposed by Cameron. Such restrictions could still be passed by various legislatures, of course, but they would eventually be struck down by the courts -- which is why the First Amendment is a good thing for the U.S. to have.
Oh Yes. I recall how everyone on here was so supportive of the BNP's right to free speech. Sauce for the goose, I reckon.
here you go
16 pages
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2
Act was dated 2000 - sounds a bit like a labour thing to me....
I can't really understand the shock and surprise at this, it's just Tories being Tories, what else did people expect,
so far we have this attack on free speech and freedom to express an opinion dropped on us, we have had the intention to interfere with legal and democratic union ballots, the reintroduction of the snoopers charter, (and they haven't even started on the sub human benefit dependant yet)
anyone seen any sign of their promises to Scotland getting a mention? or this 'promise'?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32506490
his promise to introduce a law to force him not to break his promise?
no sign of him keeping that promise just yet,
I think that his promise to make a law to force him to keep his promise will be the first promise he breaks,