7 ms·

UK plans to redefine extremism to include undermining the country

83 points by intunderflow 3y ago

sylware 3y ago
So self-critisism will become extremist? Oo
Jigsy 3y ago
The UK still loves nebulous laws, I see.
Cheyana 3y ago
So, dust off the gallows?
IronWolve 3y ago
They are already arresting people for standing and silently praying, the least violent form protest. They arrest thousands each year for social media postings. So continuing wrong think is a natural extension to mind crime laws. UK Doesn't have free speech laws or modern privacy laws (personal data somewhat, but the government is excluded)
- rewmie 3y ago
  > They are already arresting people for standing and silently praying (...) Do you mind sharing a source supporting this claim?
  - oliwarner 3y ago
    I think they're referring to Catholics protesting outside abortion clinics with designated "safe access". In law these are areas you're not allowed to harass, film, engage patients or doctors. These goons and their placarded, photographed "silent prayer" are attempting to force a loophole to ensure they can still get to people. Whatever your thoughts on abortion, it's clear that their prayers are not the reason they were arrested. https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/22/those-arrests-for-silent-prayer-are-not-all-they-seem/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/22/those-arrests-for-s...
    - stephenbez 3y ago
      It seems pretty clear that silent prayer was in fact the reason why Vaughan-Spruce was arrested: https://news.yahoo.com/british-woman-arrested-praying-silently-200714572.html https://news.yahoo.com/british-woman-arrested-praying-silent... > When she stood in front of the building by herself, Vaughan-Spruce reportedly did not carry a poster, candles for a vigil, or graphic pictures that might be deemed disturbing to local residents, according to the video > When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station. The article you link to talks about a different person, who was arrested for holding a sign saying "Praying for freedom of speech."
      - oliwarner 3y ago
        No. It was protest by a seasoned pro-life protester outside an abortion clinc designated as a protected public place. She might be protesting the law, she might be protesting abortions, but she was protesting in an area where it's been forbidden. She's been to court, been acquitted, had other charges dropped and since then been told to jog on again since, so make of the laws what you will… But the original reply here was suggesting people were being arrested for praying, which barely represents a fraction of reality.
- vivekd 3y ago
  I feel the same thing is happening in my country, Canada. And no I'm not just referring to recent politically charged event ls during the pandemic. Stuff like hearings against Judge Donald McLeod after he criticized racial bias in immigration and law enforcement. Or hearings against justice of the peace Julie Lauzon after she wrote a news article critical of the bail system. This kind of standard where the government arrests or charges people for undermining them is a path to unfettered corruption, overwhelming state power free of criticism and the undermining of democratic institutions. I pray these laws fail and are overwritten and those responsible for them are remembered as enemies of the state
  - unsupp0rted 3y ago
    Or mandatory court-ordered “media training” for Jordan Peterson. I don’t like what you’re saying, so here’s how I’m going to make your life hell until you start saying what I expect you to say.
    - sillywalk 3y ago
      ( full disclosure: I despise Peterson, and think he is an arrogant[1], dishonest grifter ) Except it wasn't court-ordered media training. The College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, ordered him to take a course on not to be such an {expletive} when speaking publicly as a 'Psychologist'. Peterson filed for Judicial review and > "Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression. "The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," ... Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected. "Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote. "Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity." [0] [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-case-decision-1.6943845 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court... [1] "I think I've done demonstrably more than any psychologist has ever produced to increase the prestige and trust of the practice of psychology around the world," Peterson said."
siquick 3y ago
V for Vendetta and Years and Years seem more and more like a warning
- southwesterly 3y ago
  Feels more like instructions with every passing day.
Little_Kitty 3y ago
So, about those pushing for Brexit...
barrysteve 3y ago
McCarthyism again. When social commitment drops the gov will arrest you, but the gov won't do anything when the problems started. Only when they are nearly over.
greatgib 3y ago
The monarchy royal family can probably be considered as UK institutions/values, so get ready to be arrested for offense to the king if you don't agree with monarchy...
TeaDude 3y ago
I'm confused. How do they expect to arrest the entire house of commons?
- shapefrog 3y ago
  There is an awkward infinte loop there - arresting all the lawmakers who are underming the country would undermine the country.
mrangle 3y ago
An empty glove that will be filled by whomever is in power, with zero chance of near-equal application.
g8oz 3y ago
This is straight out of the authoritarian playbook.
- xeonmc 3y ago
  Or out of an Alan Moore comic.
netsharc 3y ago
> The documents state: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.” Members of the current (and well previous several) regime(s) can probably be called extremists, then...
shsbdncudx 3y ago
UK sees 1984 as an instruction manual
Spivak 3y ago
I think this is actually pretty positive, this will always be the de facto law anyway and now they've made it de jure which is if nothing else more honest than the counties that don't. I don't like it one bit to be clear but I can't really expect any system to behave when faced with what they believe is their own destruction. Some group or act that people really believe is a threat to national security and the has a real chance of causing a revolt against the established order will find themselves facing down a government who's loaded their battle short and willing to compromise anything to snuff it out. Making such a thing part of the actual law I think gives assurances to the people when it's invoked that the government hasn't completely broken down and still intends to hold themselves to the law where otherwise people might assume that acting extrajudicially broke the seal.
- oliwarner 3y ago
  The obvious problem is the meaning of interest; how it is defined in law and interpreted practice. There's been some fairly significant extra-legal overreach from the Met in the past 12 months. Giving them something like this won't make things better.
A1kmm 3y ago
I think it is fair to say pluralism is at least nominally a value of the United Kingdom. This proposal seems to be an attempt to undermine pluralism, by proposing to prohibit attempts to undermine values of the United Kingdom. This seems hypocritical because attempting to make such a proposal would be forbidden if the proposal was law.
henriquez 3y ago
Their country is dumb and can’t even stop colonies from rebelling and making an ass of the king or dumping some tea. What a bunch of loser idiots. Extradite me for treason you silly nannies.
RecycledEle 3y ago
I think it's too late. Britain is gone.
DoItToMe81 3y ago
Many Anglo nations, not just the UK, but also Australia and to a lesser extent, Canada, have had a terrifying shift into authoritarianism through these means, where crimes have clauses denying due process and laws are written in such a way as to be open to interpretation and use of arbitrary punishment.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
Take a step back and ask yourself why the government should define "extremism" in the first place.
pbjtime 3y ago
Isn't that just a fancy way to put "disagreeing with us"?
toltek 3y ago
The UK state is dying and that's the reason it's acting so aggressively. It feels cornered, it's starving and pressuring its people is how it's trying to get back some of the control it used to have. It's a lot like an old insane farmer who tries to get its sheep, who are already in a very poor shape, to perform by beating them up.
RiOuseR 3y ago
[dead]
petre 3y ago
Too bad Nigel Farage got away with it /s

83 points by intunderflow 3y ago

sylware 3y ago

So self-critisism will become extremist? Oo

Jigsy 3y ago

The UK still loves nebulous laws, I see.

Cheyana 3y ago

So, dust off the gallows?

IronWolve 3y ago

They are already arresting people for standing and silently praying, the least violent form protest. They arrest thousands each year for social media postings. So continuing wrong think is a natural extension to mind crime laws. UK Doesn't have free speech laws or modern privacy laws (personal data somewhat, but the government is excluded)

rewmie 3y ago
> They are already arresting people for standing and silently praying (...) Do you mind sharing a source supporting this claim?
- oliwarner 3y ago
  I think they're referring to Catholics protesting outside abortion clinics with designated "safe access". In law these are areas you're not allowed to harass, film, engage patients or doctors. These goons and their placarded, photographed "silent prayer" are attempting to force a loophole to ensure they can still get to people. Whatever your thoughts on abortion, it's clear that their prayers are not the reason they were arrested. https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/22/those-arrests-for-silent-prayer-are-not-all-they-seem/ https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/22/those-arrests-for-s...
  - stephenbez 3y ago
    It seems pretty clear that silent prayer was in fact the reason why Vaughan-Spruce was arrested: https://news.yahoo.com/british-woman-arrested-praying-silently-200714572.html https://news.yahoo.com/british-woman-arrested-praying-silent... > When she stood in front of the building by herself, Vaughan-Spruce reportedly did not carry a poster, candles for a vigil, or graphic pictures that might be deemed disturbing to local residents, according to the video > When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station. The article you link to talks about a different person, who was arrested for holding a sign saying "Praying for freedom of speech."
    - oliwarner 3y ago
      No. It was protest by a seasoned pro-life protester outside an abortion clinc designated as a protected public place. She might be protesting the law, she might be protesting abortions, but she was protesting in an area where it's been forbidden. She's been to court, been acquitted, had other charges dropped and since then been told to jog on again since, so make of the laws what you will… But the original reply here was suggesting people were being arrested for praying, which barely represents a fraction of reality.
vivekd 3y ago
I feel the same thing is happening in my country, Canada. And no I'm not just referring to recent politically charged event ls during the pandemic. Stuff like hearings against Judge Donald McLeod after he criticized racial bias in immigration and law enforcement. Or hearings against justice of the peace Julie Lauzon after she wrote a news article critical of the bail system. This kind of standard where the government arrests or charges people for undermining them is a path to unfettered corruption, overwhelming state power free of criticism and the undermining of democratic institutions. I pray these laws fail and are overwritten and those responsible for them are remembered as enemies of the state
- unsupp0rted 3y ago
  Or mandatory court-ordered “media training” for Jordan Peterson. I don’t like what you’re saying, so here’s how I’m going to make your life hell until you start saying what I expect you to say.
  - sillywalk 3y ago
    ( full disclosure: I despise Peterson, and think he is an arrogant[1], dishonest grifter ) Except it wasn't court-ordered media training. The College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, ordered him to take a course on not to be such an {expletive} when speaking publicly as a 'Psychologist'. Peterson filed for Judicial review and > "Three Ontario Divisional Court judges unanimously dismissed Peterson's application, ruling that the college's decision falls within its mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest and does not affect his freedom of expression. "The order is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics; it has a minimal impact on his right to freedom of expression," ... Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" — an argument the court rejected. "Dr. Peterson sees himself functioning as a clinical psychologist 'in the broad public space' where he claims to be helping 'millions of people,"' Schabas wrote. "Peterson cannot have it both ways: he cannot speak as a member of a regulated profession without taking responsibility for the risk of harm that flows from him speaking in that trusted capacity." [0] [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-case-decision-1.6943845 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court... [1] "I think I've done demonstrably more than any psychologist has ever produced to increase the prestige and trust of the practice of psychology around the world," Peterson said."

siquick 3y ago

V for Vendetta and Years and Years seem more and more like a warning

southwesterly 3y ago
Feels more like instructions with every passing day.

Little_Kitty 3y ago

So, about those pushing for Brexit...

barrysteve 3y ago

McCarthyism again. When social commitment drops the gov will arrest you, but the gov won't do anything when the problems started. Only when they are nearly over.

greatgib 3y ago

The monarchy royal family can probably be considered as UK institutions/values, so get ready to be arrested for offense to the king if you don't agree with monarchy...

TeaDude 3y ago

I'm confused. How do they expect to arrest the entire house of commons?

shapefrog 3y ago
There is an awkward infinte loop there - arresting all the lawmakers who are underming the country would undermine the country.

mrangle 3y ago

An empty glove that will be filled by whomever is in power, with zero chance of near-equal application.

g8oz 3y ago

This is straight out of the authoritarian playbook.

xeonmc 3y ago
Or out of an Alan Moore comic.

netsharc 3y ago

> The documents state: “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.” Members of the current (and well previous several) regime(s) can probably be called extremists, then...

shsbdncudx 3y ago

UK sees 1984 as an instruction manual

Spivak 3y ago

I think this is actually pretty positive, this will always be the de facto law anyway and now they've made it de jure which is if nothing else more honest than the counties that don't. I don't like it one bit to be clear but I can't really expect any system to behave when faced with what they believe is their own destruction. Some group or act that people really believe is a threat to national security and the has a real chance of causing a revolt against the established order will find themselves facing down a government who's loaded their battle short and willing to compromise anything to snuff it out. Making such a thing part of the actual law I think gives assurances to the people when it's invoked that the government hasn't completely broken down and still intends to hold themselves to the law where otherwise people might assume that acting extrajudicially broke the seal.

oliwarner 3y ago
The obvious problem is the meaning of interest; how it is defined in law and interpreted practice. There's been some fairly significant extra-legal overreach from the Met in the past 12 months. Giving them something like this won't make things better.

A1kmm 3y ago

I think it is fair to say pluralism is at least nominally a value of the United Kingdom. This proposal seems to be an attempt to undermine pluralism, by proposing to prohibit attempts to undermine values of the United Kingdom. This seems hypocritical because attempting to make such a proposal would be forbidden if the proposal was law.

henriquez 3y ago

Their country is dumb and can’t even stop colonies from rebelling and making an ass of the king or dumping some tea. What a bunch of loser idiots. Extradite me for treason you silly nannies.

RecycledEle 3y ago

I think it's too late. Britain is gone.

DoItToMe81 3y ago

Many Anglo nations, not just the UK, but also Australia and to a lesser extent, Canada, have had a terrifying shift into authoritarianism through these means, where crimes have clauses denying due process and laws are written in such a way as to be open to interpretation and use of arbitrary punishment.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

Take a step back and ask yourself why the government should define "extremism" in the first place.

pbjtime 3y ago

Isn't that just a fancy way to put "disagreeing with us"?

toltek 3y ago

The UK state is dying and that's the reason it's acting so aggressively. It feels cornered, it's starving and pressuring its people is how it's trying to get back some of the control it used to have. It's a lot like an old insane farmer who tries to get its sheep, who are already in a very poor shape, to perform by beating them up.

RiOuseR 3y ago

[dead]

petre 3y ago

Too bad Nigel Farage got away with it /s