6 ms·

Yeah, Cameron was talking about how they have (in the UK) groups who openly* support ISIS and terrorism, and who are known to have contact with terrorists, but

Yeah, Cameron was talking about how they have (in the UK) groups who openly* support ISIS and terrorism, and who are known to have contact with terrorists, but the UK gov't heretofore can't do anything about because they can't prove they've broken any laws. *As in, will give interviews to the media.

EliRivers 11y ago
Isn't that the point of having laws? If the UK government thinks people shouldn't be able to openly support ISIS and terrorism, then make it illegal.
- Tenoke 11y ago
  That's pretty much exactly what they are doing from what I understood. My charitable read of the quote was that it is, in fact, about that change.
  - anon1385 11y ago
    It's far broader than that: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/13/theresa-may-s-plans-are-a-threat-to-british-values http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/13/theresa-may-s-pla... >The details are still not clear and won't get much clearer until the Queen's Speech – or probably afterwards. But we do know three things: 1) that the definition of an extremist is being expanded 2) that the process for how someone is officially designated as an extremist is shrouded in mystery, and 3) that the list of restrictions which applies to them once they have been designated an extremist is now extremely broad and intrusive. >What is an extremist? >Towards the end of the last parliament, Theresa May started expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremism'. Those who spread or incite hatred on the basis of gender, race or religion were included, as were those who undertook harmful activities "for the purpose of overthrowing democracy". Groups which sought to "undermine democracy" or "use hate speech in public places" were also included. >This morning the Home Office sent me this statement, which is similar but different. "The government defines extremism as 'the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.” >How are we designated extremists? >Extremists will find themselves on the national extremism database. This database is shrouded in secrecy. We know it is managed by the Met police, and there is no judicial oversight over who is put on there. We know the security agencies are very secretive about who is on it and what is held about them. There was a long battle between Big Brother Watch, the Met and the Information Commissioner's Office over simply releasing details about how many people were on the database and what information about them was held. >What we do know is that it includes people who no rational person would consider an extremist. One Green councillor who organised a public meeting about the transportation of animals from Calais to Dover is understood to be on it. Jenny Jones, the green peer, is understood to be on it. >What happens when you’re considered an extremist? >The proposals going into the Queen's Speech next month will be very broad. Police will be able to apply to the high court to limit the "harmful activities" of extremists. These "harmful activities" include anything with a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or creating a "threat to the functioning of democracy". >In response, the high court can grant a ban on broadcasting or a requirement for the so-called extremist to submit all publications for the web, social media or print to the police in advance for authorisation.
    - lotsofmangos 11y ago
      So if, The government defines extremism as 'the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'. then surely 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'. is by their own definition extremism.
- throwawayaway 11y ago
  typically what happens then is that the organisation makes a political wing to act as a presentable face to the terrorist wing.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    Sinn Féin...
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Unfortunately that solves nothing. Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. It's the equivalent of taking pain killers to cure cancer. The biggest problem we face in Western society is the proliferation of extremist conservative agendas in the halls of power. The only way to solve all the issues we face with extremism whether it be in the guise of Western conservatism, Islamism, Neo-Liberalism or anything other toxic ideology is to focus on tolerance and education. Western foreign policy (colonialism) over the past centuries has created the situation we find ourselves in. When you create the conditions for cancer to prosper then you have to deal with the consequences. Instead of altering our policies we double up on them and then wonder why people hate us. We create conditions where people have nothing to lose (for example Iraq/Syria) and their only options are to fall back into impulsive/conformist organizational structures because that gives them some sort of security and purpose. Too many people have been ostracized by the contemporary world and we do nothing to help them, instead our political policy is to kick them while they are down. In my mind what David Cameron represents is as toxic as what ISIS represent however since it affects me much more in my daily life I would say it is a far greater danger to my way of life than ISIS will ever be.
  - vixen99 11y ago
    Can you give an example of the 'far greater danger' to you in your daily life?
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      The Great Recession....
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - EliRivers 11y ago
    Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. True, but that's not always a bad thing. Some things that are pushed underground happen a lot less. Murder, for example, is banned. Instances of it are (often) vigorously investigated, and the perpetrators dealt with (to varying degrees of effectiveness). I suspect that if murder was not banned, it would happen a lot more.
anon1385 11y ago
>can't do anything about because they can't prove they've broken any laws. Yes, that's how the rule of law works.
- themartorana 11y ago
  It seems so simple, yet it is the antithesis of all secret government policies in the western world for a while.
- LLWM 11y ago
  Yes, that's why he's challenging how the rule of law works. Otherwise people wouldn't be so obsessed with this quote. Surely when it comes to a topic like this, you could come up with some reasons why a change to the status quo is bad other than "that's not how we do it now"?
sillygoose 11y ago
"Just look at what these loonies are doing! We can't have people openly supporting the slaughter of innocent people and baby seals. They are undermining the values we hold dear, and corrupting the youth with their hateful message! Obviously, we need to place certain limits on free speech" What? Of course you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't misuse it!
- smitherfield 11y ago
  There is no right to free speech in the UK. You can go to prison for a racist tweet, for example, which is a whole lot less reasonable than putting a great deal of scrutiny on people who go on the TV news and talk about how they want to become terrorists (e.g. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis-supporter_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis... http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-walsh-supporters-of-terror.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-wal... ). Which is absolutely ridiculous and would never be tolerated in the US, the only country in which there's anything approaching an absolute right to free speech.
  - Coding_Cat 11y ago
    Still, the quote from David Cameron almost suggest an extra-legal approach, and definitely insinuates increased spying on it's own citizens. The whole "terrorists propaganda" issue could be dealt with by introducing new laws, as things should go in a rule-of-law, perhaps one which classifies certain groups as hate-groups and bans the promotion of their ideals, I believe similar laws exist in many places in Europe.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    You are correct - but I also vividly remember a message playing as I went through security in a US airport a couple of years ago saying that things like inappropriate jokes etc. could result in arrest.
    - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
Zenst 11y ago
Indeed and in this case the laws get flaugnted, the laws that protect free speech and human rights being abused. Interestingly in the Boston area churches etc openly collected money for the IRA upto 9/11 and then perspective of what there money was supporting was clear. But with ISIS, I do not think anybody can be in doubt about what any money for them is supporting. Still laws be them TAX laws, have loop-holes and they get abused, not by the common people who they were done to protect but by those without ethics.

EliRivers 11y ago

Isn't that the point of having laws? If the UK government thinks people shouldn't be able to openly support ISIS and terrorism, then make it illegal.

Tenoke 11y ago
That's pretty much exactly what they are doing from what I understood. My charitable read of the quote was that it is, in fact, about that change.
- anon1385 11y ago
  It's far broader than that: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/13/theresa-may-s-plans-are-a-threat-to-british-values http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/13/theresa-may-s-pla... >The details are still not clear and won't get much clearer until the Queen's Speech – or probably afterwards. But we do know three things: 1) that the definition of an extremist is being expanded 2) that the process for how someone is officially designated as an extremist is shrouded in mystery, and 3) that the list of restrictions which applies to them once they have been designated an extremist is now extremely broad and intrusive. >What is an extremist? >Towards the end of the last parliament, Theresa May started expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremism'. Those who spread or incite hatred on the basis of gender, race or religion were included, as were those who undertook harmful activities "for the purpose of overthrowing democracy". Groups which sought to "undermine democracy" or "use hate speech in public places" were also included. >This morning the Home Office sent me this statement, which is similar but different. "The government defines extremism as 'the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.” >How are we designated extremists? >Extremists will find themselves on the national extremism database. This database is shrouded in secrecy. We know it is managed by the Met police, and there is no judicial oversight over who is put on there. We know the security agencies are very secretive about who is on it and what is held about them. There was a long battle between Big Brother Watch, the Met and the Information Commissioner's Office over simply releasing details about how many people were on the database and what information about them was held. >What we do know is that it includes people who no rational person would consider an extremist. One Green councillor who organised a public meeting about the transportation of animals from Calais to Dover is understood to be on it. Jenny Jones, the green peer, is understood to be on it. >What happens when you’re considered an extremist? >The proposals going into the Queen's Speech next month will be very broad. Police will be able to apply to the high court to limit the "harmful activities" of extremists. These "harmful activities" include anything with a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress, or creating a "threat to the functioning of democracy". >In response, the high court can grant a ban on broadcasting or a requirement for the so-called extremist to submit all publications for the web, social media or print to the police in advance for authorisation.
  - lotsofmangos 11y ago
    So if, The government defines extremism as 'the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs'. then surely 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'. is by their own definition extremism.
throwawayaway 11y ago
typically what happens then is that the organisation makes a political wing to act as a presentable face to the terrorist wing.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Sinn Féin...
rorykoehler 11y ago
Unfortunately that solves nothing. Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. It's the equivalent of taking pain killers to cure cancer. The biggest problem we face in Western society is the proliferation of extremist conservative agendas in the halls of power. The only way to solve all the issues we face with extremism whether it be in the guise of Western conservatism, Islamism, Neo-Liberalism or anything other toxic ideology is to focus on tolerance and education. Western foreign policy (colonialism) over the past centuries has created the situation we find ourselves in. When you create the conditions for cancer to prosper then you have to deal with the consequences. Instead of altering our policies we double up on them and then wonder why people hate us. We create conditions where people have nothing to lose (for example Iraq/Syria) and their only options are to fall back into impulsive/conformist organizational structures because that gives them some sort of security and purpose. Too many people have been ostracized by the contemporary world and we do nothing to help them, instead our political policy is to kick them while they are down. In my mind what David Cameron represents is as toxic as what ISIS represent however since it affects me much more in my daily life I would say it is a far greater danger to my way of life than ISIS will ever be.
- vixen99 11y ago
  Can you give an example of the 'far greater danger' to you in your daily life?
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    The Great Recession....
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Banning something has never done anything but push it underground. True, but that's not always a bad thing. Some things that are pushed underground happen a lot less. Murder, for example, is banned. Instances of it are (often) vigorously investigated, and the perpetrators dealt with (to varying degrees of effectiveness). I suspect that if murder was not banned, it would happen a lot more.

anon1385 11y ago

>can't do anything about because they can't prove they've broken any laws. Yes, that's how the rule of law works.

themartorana 11y ago
It seems so simple, yet it is the antithesis of all secret government policies in the western world for a while.
LLWM 11y ago
Yes, that's why he's challenging how the rule of law works. Otherwise people wouldn't be so obsessed with this quote. Surely when it comes to a topic like this, you could come up with some reasons why a change to the status quo is bad other than "that's not how we do it now"?

sillygoose 11y ago

"Just look at what these loonies are doing! We can't have people openly supporting the slaughter of innocent people and baby seals. They are undermining the values we hold dear, and corrupting the youth with their hateful message! Obviously, we need to place certain limits on free speech" What? Of course you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't misuse it!

smitherfield 11y ago
There is no right to free speech in the UK. You can go to prison for a racist tweet, for example, which is a whole lot less reasonable than putting a great deal of scrutiny on people who go on the TV news and talk about how they want to become terrorists (e.g. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis-supporter_news http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2455xy_bbc-interviews-isis... http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-walsh-supporters-of-terror.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/08/26/ctw-dnt-paton-wal... ). Which is absolutely ridiculous and would never be tolerated in the US, the only country in which there's anything approaching an absolute right to free speech.
- Coding_Cat 11y ago
  Still, the quote from David Cameron almost suggest an extra-legal approach, and definitely insinuates increased spying on it's own citizens. The whole "terrorists propaganda" issue could be dealt with by introducing new laws, as things should go in a rule-of-law, perhaps one which classifies certain groups as hate-groups and bans the promotion of their ideals, I believe similar laws exist in many places in Europe.
- arethuza 11y ago
  You are correct - but I also vividly remember a message playing as I went through security in a US airport a couple of years ago saying that things like inappropriate jokes etc. could result in arrest.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago

Zenst 11y ago

Indeed and in this case the laws get flaugnted, the laws that protect free speech and human rights being abused. Interestingly in the Boston area churches etc openly collected money for the IRA upto 9/11 and then perspective of what there money was supporting was clear. But with ISIS, I do not think anybody can be in doubt about what any money for them is supporting. Still laws be them TAX laws, have loop-holes and they get abused, not by the common people who they were done to protect but by those without ethics.