So, do people really think they are contributing by putting this (somewhat out of context) quote everywhere the UK government is mentioned during the last week? I am honestly curious.
It would be the equivalent of Obama publicly stating on TV that Americans have been "getting a bit too uppity with the free speech" and "we are about to change all that!"
So... What Cameron is saying is that... too long have we been passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law. We need to reject that approach, be more careful and watch out. He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
Myself, I think that quotes like this are the empty calories of politics, like Hilary's "what difference does it make" (which was about prioritizing embassy safety over discovering the perpetrators of the incident in the ultra short term) or Bush's "is our children learning" (which, if you haven't watched the video for that, was an awkward rendition of "that question is: are children learning?")
DISCLAIMER. (UN)DESIRABILITY OF AND ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF ANY POLICIES ARE LEFT AS AN EXERCISE TO THE READER.
A less tolerant government has never historically lead to a more tolerant populace other than in the very short term.
>He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
What makes you so sure?
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/27/twitter-joke-tria...
There's also the position that they (the government) are somehow uniquely positioned to be able to do this better than anyone else, and yet keep failing at it.
These are crimes, and therefore they have broken the law. Conspiring or inciting others to commit crimes is illegal in the UK.
WTF? This statement doesn't have a modicum of sense in it. Seeking to kidnap or murder in the context of terrorism[1] is an inchoate offence[0] that is definitely against the law in UK.
I am at total loss why would you defend Cameron on that. I am not from UK and I've been able to find relevant statutes and laws in 5 minutes. I am really interested, can you elaborate?
Relevant precedent[1]:
R v Barot [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 31. Conspiracy to murder. Appellant trained as a terrorist and proposed terrorist attacks in America and Britain. One attack contemplated in Britain was to fill three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives and detonate them in an underground car park with the expectation of causing hundreds of casualties. Guilty plea. A life sentence with a minimum term of 40 years should, save in quite exceptional circumstances, represent the maximum for a terrorist who set out to achieve mass murder but caused no physical harm. Minimum term reduced to 30 years.
[0]http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/inchoate_offences/#a01 [1] http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/solicit...
So skip the soundbites and the Two Minutes' Hate, as a rule; surely there's plenty to indict him with otherwise.
As long as soundbite as a talking point/ persuasion vessel doesn't misrepresent wider context of the statement(in this case it doesn't), I think it's fine to use them.
Don't you agree?
(In particular, I think this is about using intercept material to target people without letting it anywhere near a court.)
*As in, will give interviews to the media.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, that's how the rule of law works.
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!
Of course, it's not like a psychopath could lie convincingly so that he could proceed with his evil plans, so I guess they can't actually let anyone in, ever.
Sure, sometimes someone is suspicious because he's actually up to no good. But that doesn't mean detaining people on various subjective suspicions is a good idea.
Yes, and that's.. what? Not acceptable, but not resisted anyway? Do you think "putting scrutiny"[1] on people who support terrorism is fine, but imprisoning people for a tweet is not?
[1] Violating the right to free speech
What Western person in their right mind would proudly proclaim his support for actual terrorists? Do you think there are enough people in the UK to find that many people deranged in that particular way, or do you think some of them might be paid to act like it?
Free speech is limited in the US too, whenever it gets too inconvenient to the ruling class: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/14-speci...
One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.
The IRA, for example, was well funded through donations to give one of the most recent examples. The ANC is another one that springs to mind:
"'The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation ... Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land" - Margaret Thatcher, 1987
Going back a bit further, many European countries actively tried stopping recruitment to the International Brigades fighting against Franco in the Spanish civil war, up to and including imprisoning people.
Irgun is another example: A zionist military organization with several massacres to its name that was considered a terrorist organization by Britain at the time, as well as by some important contemporary Jewish organizations. Irgun is one of the direct predecessors to the Israeli Likud party, that has been part of most Israeli governments since th late 70's.
There's a long range of causes that various subsets of Western civil society have given support to that have been considered terrorist by contemporary authorities.
Some of them are still seen as terrorists in retrospect, some of them are seen as heroes and freedom fighters. Some are seen as either/both depending on who you ask.
Usually, a "terrorist" is anyone who poses a threat to the established ruling elites somewhere. But we're told we need to be very afraid of some desert loonies somewhere in Hellholeistan. Naturally then, we need governments to protect us by snooping in on everything we do anywhere. For safety.
Quite a lot, as it happens: The ANC did that.
Who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organisation that tried to blow up the UK cabinet?
Well, quite a lot of people proclaimed support for the IRA.
Who in their right mind would proudly proclaim their support for an organisation that attacks a village and kills over a 100 civilians?
Quite a lot, given that a lot of people from Irgun (Deir Yassin massacre) have been central to the leadership of Israel.
The thing is, a lot of atrocities will seem necessary, or at least excusable, to those who see themselves as freedomfighters, whether or not the future will be kind to them.
I don't expect the future will be kind to IS, and the past is littered with terrorist groups - and freedomfighters - who are still hated and detested, and many of the ones "we" tend to see as freedom fighters today still have dirty hands and/or are seen as terrorists by others, so who knows...
I agree with the second part of your comment, though. It's played up because it's convenient to have enemies. Doesn't mean I don't think e.g. IS needs to be countered, but I don't think it'll get countered by snooping - on the contrary, it will fuel the paranoia of those that are intrigued by their cause.
To take a personal example: In my youth I was member of a marxist group. The knowledge that Norwegian intelligence services carried out extensive surveillance of the members of lots of left wing organizations (highly illegally, as it happens - but while the extent of their illegal surveillance was first "discovered" years later, everyone in the organisations in question knew about it; just that nobody believed them) did not deter me. On the contrary: It made me more certain my decision was correct: It was evidence of the oppression I was against.
The organisation in question was (and is) fully legal, participating in elections, and does not (and did not) advocate violence in any way, but I don't believe the overall principle is different: If someone is considering a cause opposed by government, then surveillance will not stop most of them, but spur them on and prove to them that they can not trust their own government.
Well maybe they weren't in their right minds?
> If someone is considering a cause opposed by government, then surveillance will not stop most of them, but spur them on and prove to them that they can not trust their own government.
You can both believe in your cause, and distrust your government, but while being scared shitless of speaking out. So, I wouldn't say that surveillance works against governments.
There's a certain point before which awareness of mass-surveillance may cause negative sentiment towards the government, especially without being managed effectively with propaganda, but after another point.. you're in North-Korea.
It's also worth noting that governments don't give us our rights - they're inherent in our nature as human beings.
When a government declares that its citizens have the right to free speech, they mean it with the caveat of "as long as they're not a threat to our continued rule". The fact that's exactly how they operate can be seen throughout history.
Because I can point to US citizens spending time in prison for similar online messages.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/12/tech/social-media/facebook...
other arrests:
http://www.wired.com/2007/12/xbox-live-trash/
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/02/16/xbox-live-threats-lea...
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.
Well consider that Thatcher's "no such thing as society" quote was actually in the context of calling on people to take positive action to look after their neighbours and their community rather than waiting for someone else e.g. society to do it for them. Yet her opponents twisted it to imply the exact opposite.