4 ms·
Where do you even start. Firstly, this is just a law Amber Rudd wants to make, it's not anywhere close to being made into actual law, it's very unlikely it will
by fredley 9y ago
Where do you even start. Firstly, this is just a law Amber Rudd wants to make, it's not anywhere close to being made into actual law, it's very unlikely it will be. It's probably more a bit of signalling/posturing by Amber Rudd to appear as the "Tough on extremists" candidate in the forthcoming Tory leadership (and hence Prime Ministerial) election.
Secondly, even if this law was passed, it would never be actively used against the public. It would be used to throw more charges at people they have arrested already, or to have some charges to throw at people who they have arrested but can't charge. It's a handy catch-all (along with vague bans on pornography) that criminalises many normal people who have internet-connected devices. It means they can haul you over at Heathrow, search your device and say "Ah! You've looked at this naughty thing! Too bad!", for example - giving the state an easy way to reject people they don't like much more easily.
A lot of this approach stems from Theresa May herself, who spent many years as Home Secretary struggling to deport Anjem Choudary.
- pricechild 9y ago> it would never be actively used against the public. > or to have some charges to throw at people who they have arrested but can't charge. I don't understand who else it would be used against?
- fredley 9y agoSorry for not being clearer, I'm trying to distinguish between active and passive use of the law. Active implying trying to track down those who are breaking it vs. passive implying using it against those who have been reprimanded already.
- robert_foss 9y agoSo your argument is that the law is not likely to pass and if it does pass it will be selectively enforced? Selective enforcement of laws are terrible in the sense that they don't actually dissuade anyone from breaking them. So if it isn't about preventing crimes, but rather about piling this charge ontop of other ones, isn't that missing the point a bit?
- kthejoker2 9y agoYou seem to think your second point means people should be less concerned? Creating laws that criminalize "normal" people and let the government punish people "they don't like" is literally the stuff of Orwell and Kafka.