3 ms·

Out of interest, are you a lawyer? I'm really struggling to see how you can interpret the language of the page you linked to include non-violent activism. Could

Out of interest, are you a lawyer? I'm really struggling to see how you can interpret the language of the page you linked to include non-violent activism. Could you tell me specifically which sections of that legislation you think apply here?

threw902309 7y ago
Targeting critical infrastructure to get what you want is definition of terrorism.
- samcday 7y ago
  I just want to say I hear you and think there could very well be some interesting nuances that we could discuss. But I have a policy of not engaging with throwaway accounts. If you want to send me an email and discuss this further, then great! My email is in my profile. Or if you want to repost this comment from a non-throwaway account, even better!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dfawcus 7y ago
1a -> 2d : creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public 1b : the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation 1c: the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause So XR is an ideological and/or political cause, intended to influence Governments, and this threat to fly drones over airports in and of itself risks the public. Assume a failure and/or crash of the drone, and all the bad "accidental" things which could arise. One could certainly argue that the statute is "wrong", and that this sort of action should be treated as some other criminal offence. However I believe it is capable of being argued as terrorism under that definition. Hence anyone so charged could be subject to pre-trial detention of up to 28 days, and then may have to convince a jury that they should engage in Nullification. Part of the complaints about that Act when passed was specifically that it covered stuff which did not involve violence (2b - 2e). Note that the criteria in Section 1 (2) are logically OR'ed - only one of 2a through 2e has to be satisfied. If you believe you may need advice from a Lawyer, I suggest you consult one.
- pas 7y ago
  Did they create a serious risk?
  - dfawcus 7y ago
    That would be a fact for the Jury to decide. I'd rather expect it to conclude they did. Forget about planes flying (or not). How much does one of these drones weigh? How much damage or injury would one cause if it falls upon someone or some equipment within the airport grounds? Think of the various flammable liquids in various parts of the airport. We have rules (and licensing conditions) about flying drones in general, simply because of the serious risk some of them can entail. They came in within the last few years.
- samcday 7y ago
  When I asked if you were a lawyer, I was genuinely curious. I figured if you were linking legislation without actually pointing out specifics, then it might be because your point was so blatantly obvious that only a dummy would not see it as self evident ;) I disagree with your assessment. I myself am certainly not a lawyer, but the way I interpret that language is for something to be considered an act of terrorism it has to meet a criteria from section [1] AND section [2]. I agree that the planned drone demonstration meets 1c, but I don't think it meets any of the criteria from section 2. If you're suggesting that because they're disrupting transportation activity then they are somehow creating serious risk to the health and safety of the public, then I wonder what you think of any kind of large scale protest march that closes down the majority of main roads in a capital city? Is that terrorism too?
  - bronco21016 7y ago
    I think you have to consider how transportation activity is being disrupted. It’s being disrupted because the risk of a collision between a drone and airliner carrying many people is considered a grave safety threat to hundreds of lives. A low altitude crash of an airliner poses serious risk of a large number of deaths both of the passengers and people on the ground. A large, non violent, protest blocking the streets probably doesn’t create the same risk of large numbers of deaths.

threw902309 7y ago

Targeting critical infrastructure to get what you want is definition of terrorism.

samcday 7y ago
I just want to say I hear you and think there could very well be some interesting nuances that we could discuss. But I have a policy of not engaging with throwaway accounts. If you want to send me an email and discuss this further, then great! My email is in my profile. Or if you want to repost this comment from a non-throwaway account, even better!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dfawcus 7y ago

1a -> 2d : creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public 1b : the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation 1c: the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause So XR is an ideological and/or political cause, intended to influence Governments, and this threat to fly drones over airports in and of itself risks the public. Assume a failure and/or crash of the drone, and all the bad "accidental" things which could arise. One could certainly argue that the statute is "wrong", and that this sort of action should be treated as some other criminal offence. However I believe it is capable of being argued as terrorism under that definition. Hence anyone so charged could be subject to pre-trial detention of up to 28 days, and then may have to convince a jury that they should engage in Nullification. Part of the complaints about that Act when passed was specifically that it covered stuff which did not involve violence (2b - 2e). Note that the criteria in Section 1 (2) are logically OR'ed - only one of 2a through 2e has to be satisfied. If you believe you may need advice from a Lawyer, I suggest you consult one.

pas 7y ago
Did they create a serious risk?
- dfawcus 7y ago
  That would be a fact for the Jury to decide. I'd rather expect it to conclude they did. Forget about planes flying (or not). How much does one of these drones weigh? How much damage or injury would one cause if it falls upon someone or some equipment within the airport grounds? Think of the various flammable liquids in various parts of the airport. We have rules (and licensing conditions) about flying drones in general, simply because of the serious risk some of them can entail. They came in within the last few years.
samcday 7y ago
When I asked if you were a lawyer, I was genuinely curious. I figured if you were linking legislation without actually pointing out specifics, then it might be because your point was so blatantly obvious that only a dummy would not see it as self evident ;) I disagree with your assessment. I myself am certainly not a lawyer, but the way I interpret that language is for something to be considered an act of terrorism it has to meet a criteria from section [1] AND section [2]. I agree that the planned drone demonstration meets 1c, but I don't think it meets any of the criteria from section 2. If you're suggesting that because they're disrupting transportation activity then they are somehow creating serious risk to the health and safety of the public, then I wonder what you think of any kind of large scale protest march that closes down the majority of main roads in a capital city? Is that terrorism too?
- bronco21016 7y ago
  I think you have to consider how transportation activity is being disrupted. It’s being disrupted because the risk of a collision between a drone and airliner carrying many people is considered a grave safety threat to hundreds of lives. A low altitude crash of an airliner poses serious risk of a large number of deaths both of the passengers and people on the ground. A large, non violent, protest blocking the streets probably doesn’t create the same risk of large numbers of deaths.