Anti-terrorism plans 'will make thoughtcrime a reality'

IronWarrior

IronWarrior

IronWarrior

Soldato
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Posts
4,592
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...sm-plans-criticised-make-thoughtcrime-reality

Anti-terrorism proposals have been unveiled by the UK government that would make it an offence for people to publicly support a banned group even if they did not encourage others to do so.

The move has prompted the human rights group Liberty to accuse the government of trying to “make thoughtcrime a reality”.

Liberty said it was alarmed at the plans to amend existing offences under the planned counter-terrorism and border security bill, details of which were announced on Wednesday.

Fact sheets about the bill, published on the Home Office website, explained – said the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders – the need to “adapt to combatting the threat from international terrorism in a modern digital world”.

The proposed amendments making it easier to target people who support proscribed groups such as Islamic State would include a potential offence of displaying an associated flag or item of clothing.

A key change would be the illegality of making statements supporting a terrorist group while “being reckless as to whether others will be encouraged to support the organisation”. Prosecutors would not have to prove the statements had actually had a recruiting effect on others.

The fact sheet on the subject anticipates possible objections, such as interference with freedom of speech. It stresses that it would not be “unlawful to hold a private view in support of a terrorist organisation”, only to “recklessly express those views, with the risk others could be influenced”.

The fact sheet says: “It is right to criminalise those who make clear expressions of support for terrorist organisations, and who are reckless as to whether that will encourage others to support the organisation.

“This type of activity can lead to a real risk of harm to the public. We believe that radicalisation, be it deliberate or reckless, should be illegal, in order to stop support for these groups and to protect the public.”

Other proposals include one to make it clear in law that it would be an offence to view terrorist material online three or more times, or to communicate banned material to someone who does not understand they are being incited, such as a child or vulnerable person.

Rachel Robinson, Liberty’s policy manager, said: “Blurring the boundary between thought and action by locking people up simply for exploring ideas undermines the foundations of our criminal justice system,” she said. “Terrorists’ primary goal is to undermine our freedom. With proposals like this, the government risks giving them exactly what they want.”

Planned changes include amending the crime of collecting information likely to be useful to a terrorist, to cover repeated viewing or streaming of material online; increasing to 15 years the maximum jail term for “preparatory” crimes such as collecting terrorist information or encouragement of terrorism; and increasing from two to five years the maximum period that fingerprints and DNA samples may be retained on national security grounds where a person has not been convicted of an offence.
Click to expand...

What does GD think of this?

Personally, I think it's terrible and it's just an other foot towards 1984.

These sort of laws wouldn't had stopped previous terrorist attacks and while I agree, openly supporting a terrorist group is despicable and wrong, I don't want to arrest that person because it goes against free speech and free thought.

Now if that person's support for that group, crossed the line to financial or logistical efforts by that person for that group, then we would have problems.

Which I believe is the current situation now.

Aside from that, the biggest concern I have with this bill is viewing "terrorist material online" which could mean, viewing videos could get you arrested and up too 15 years in jail.

I believe our current system is working now, a lot of terrorist attacks have stopped, because members of the community, even their own family have reported the persons to the Police.
 
Surely by publicly supporting a banned group you indicate it's ok to do the same?

Still it's crazy Draconian future for the UK.
 
Imagine this in Northern Ireland, could criminalise a good chunk of the population.

e: and I mean on both communities. Loyalist groups are as proscribed as republican ones.
 
Last edited:
Curbing peoples thoughts instead of encouraging open debate to rationally examine ideas....dangerous stuff.

History shows us it doesn't work, it just makes people more extreme. Have the debates...debates normally lead to middle grounds, consensus and better understanding. You will always get people on the periphery who want to tear the wold down, they have existed forever. In trying to silence them it nearly always has the knock on effect of silencing some rational and valid views also.

Once people see what appear to be moderate views silenced....the knee jerk starts and you have real issues.
 
It may be unimportant now but in a couple of decades when we're all fully integrated into the online system, using virtual money, and paying using the latest Apple chip in our wrist, that thought crime could stop your access to lots of things.
 
What it encompasses in the future is quite worrying.

Wasnt the Iraq war a war on terror, so what happens the next time they start screaming terrorist terrorist terrorist and want to invade a country, could those opposing be caught under an expanded version of this?
 
Amnesia said:
What it encompasses in the future is quite worrying.

Wasnt the Iraq war a war on terror, so what happens the next time they start screaming terrorist terrorist terrorist and want to invade a country, could those opposing be caught under an expanded version of this?
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned about what happens if people voice support for sovereign states that our nation is having a hand in meddling with

The worry for me is, if a lack of support for our nation is considered a vote of support for our nations enemies, when the 2 are far from mutually exclusive because you can refuse to support your nation AND refuse to support your nations enemies

What happens if you sympathise with some aspects and voice that sympathy while condemning the other aspects, will you be labelled a supporter ?

What about support for the Kurds ? They're labelled a terrorist organisation, YET we're actively assisting them in Syria, are the public not allowed to support them whilst the government is but at the same time labelling them as a terrorist organisation ?

This all seems very communist manifesto and incredibly dangerous to liberty and freedom
 
Police do need powers to actually do something about potential terrorists, the type of person that commits atrocities like London Bridge and Manchester. The implementation is important here.
 
Daaaavvveee said:
+1, anything that could help stop any sort of terrorist activity should be done.
Click to expand...

This is an attitude that won't work out in your favour.

"Mr Dave, we're installing a Government camera in your bedroom and bathroom to help stop terrorism. Thank you for your compliance."

The current trajectory of eroding freedoms is counterproductive.
 
In the future expressing any opinion that deviates from how the govt/police expect you to think will be a crime, thats how this is heading. It looks like its there to help keep you safe, but it doesnt. It erodes personal freedoms.
 
We need a constitution like the US has that protects free speech, this was my main concern with the Brexit vote it was a case of better the devil you know, we're not even out of the EU yet and seem to be going full blown 1984. Maybe it's just a ruse to make us all want to go running back. I'd rather join the US as the 51st state than have that happen though, I suspect the EU won't be far behind us what with the rise of the right.
 
They have been angling after this ever since the Macpherson report (And probably for a lot longer)

Macpherson wanted to extend "Hate Crime" laws to cover conversations in private, in your own home, between friends and family.

His disappointment was that, at the time, he couldn't see any practical way of enforcing such laws.

However, now many (And in due course most) peoples homes are now equipped with View-screens Smart media/Alexa etc

It is only a matter of time before the Government will require Google/Amazon to grass you up for saying politically incorrect things criticizing the government and its policies.

All in the interests of protecting freedom and democracy of course... :(
 
mmj_uk said:
We need a constitution like the US has that protects free speech, this was my main concern with the Brexit vote it was a case of better the devil you know, we're not even out of the EU yet and seem to be going full blown 1984. Maybe it's just a ruse to make us all want to go running back. I'd rather join the US as the 51st state than have that happen though, I suspect the EU won't be far behind us what with the rise of the right.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech isn't anything anyone on the right would oppose, the EU does nothing to protect free speech so I'm not sure why you think that has anything to do with this. Leaving the EU means we can actually elect people who are pro-free speech and have them implement laws that will guarantee freedom of speech.
 
Good, as long as we can now beat up all the libertarians without recourse, i'd happily live in social hell.

Trust in reality that the definition of terrorism will become so vague as to be able to be abused and the public will defend that abuse, because apparently it's helping them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom