Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, domestic terrorists?

Associate
Joined
12 Sep 2003
Posts
492
Location
Swansea, UK
These organisations are using disruptive tactics to gain mainstream media attention for their agendas. I totally support the agenda they are both fighting for, but are they going too far?

I think they should be viewed as domestic terrorists, disrupting domestic infrastructure should absolutely put them in this category. Can you imagine Islamic extremists pushing sharia law in this manner being allowed to disrupt for so long? If we let these protests continue without applying serious repercussions for those involved it opens up the door for other organisations to do the same to push their agenda/message.

Has your support for these organisations increased with these protests or is your support waning, I know mine is waning.

The crown prosecution service defines terrorism as
Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
That can't be the whole definition of terrorism - as quoted it seems to be really broad... wouldn't that also cover strike action, peaceful protest, etc... Surely the action has to be violent in some way.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
7,867
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
I'd say No as it'd be a hard sell legally even if a lot of the public may agree, mainly due to the current wording of "action or threat of action" when XR etc only being static/passive protest such a blocking roads etc. However, if "disrupting domestic infrastructure" was applied to the current definition of Terrorism sometime in the future then they (XR etc) could be looking at some serious jail time.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Sep 2005
Posts
4,299
No because they are not using violence to achieve political aims. They are a bunch of **** heads though and many of their actions will have lost public support rather than gain it.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,824
Sometimes you have to take extreme measures to get attention for an issues but it is debatable that is what is required here.

Obviously traffic hold ups can happen for other reasons but for me these recent protests have an unacceptable chance of endangering innocent lives, disrupting emergency services, disrupting people who might be on their way to an emergency appointment or to help an elderly family member who might be in need i.e. had a bit of a fall, etc. or even just people on their way to pick up kids from school and stuff like that.

I think it is a fine line with some of the recent protests even if maybe not intended to cause these kinds of problems.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2006
Posts
12,456
Location
Sufferlandria
That can't be the whole definition of terrorism - as quoted it seems to be really broad... wouldn't that also cover strike action, peaceful protest, etc... Surely the action has to be violent in some way.

This makes change.org and similar sites some of the most prolific terrorist organisations in the UK.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
74,028
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
These organisations are using disruptive tactics to gain mainstream media attention for their agendas. I totally support the agenda they are both fighting for, but are they going too far?

I think they should be viewed as domestic terrorists, disrupting domestic infrastructure should absolutely put them in this category. Can you imagine Islamic extremists pushing sharia law in this manner being allowed to disrupt for so long? If we let these protests continue without applying serious repercussions for those involved it opens up the door for other organisations to do the same to push their agenda/message.

Has your support for these organisations increased with these protests or is your support waning, I know mine is waning.

The crown prosecution service defines terrorism as

Can we quote the rest of the paragraph? If you were to cut it off, why not just stop at "Terrorism is the use or threat of action"? eh?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism

Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Examples include:

  • serious violence against a person or damage to property,
  • endangering a person's life (other than that of the person committing the action),
  • creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public,
  • action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn't actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack. Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.

Protest, as in walking around on the street with a sign shouting does not pose a threat to your life?

It might disrupt your daily routine but you are not threatened by some flags and shouting are you?

Also, have to point out that the legislation includes these above but not limited to offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) and Terrorism Act 2006 (TA 2006)..
 
Associate
OP
Joined
12 Sep 2003
Posts
492
Location
Swansea, UK
Can we quote the rest of the paragraph? If you were to cut it off, why not just stop at "Terrorism is the use or threat of action"? eh?
"Examples include:"
This doesn't mean those listed are the only examples, just a limited subset. Plus, disrupting infrastructure is equivalent to "disrupt an electronic system"

Protest, as in walking around on the street with a sign shouting does not pose a threat to your life?
Road blocks stopping/delaying a fire engine or ambulance attending an emergency would
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
This doesn't mean those listed are the only examples, just a limited subset. Plus, disrupting infrastructure is equivalent to "disrupt an electronic system"


Road blocks stopping/delaying a fire engine or ambulance attending an emergency would
I don't think that's the legal definition of terrorism. It's just a public information website.

The legalese is probably very different.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2006
Posts
12,456
Location
Sufferlandria
This doesn't mean those listed are the only examples, just a limited subset.

By your logic the Labour Party are a terrorist organisation:
H3CpUGv.png
They are using an action (making a facebook post) which is designed to influence a government organisation ("We're calling on Boris Johnson to cancel the cut")
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
74,028
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
This doesn't mean those listed are the only examples, just a limited subset. Plus, disrupting infrastructure is equivalent to "disrupt an electronic system"


Road blocks stopping/delaying a fire engine or ambulance attending an emergency would

Then they will take each individual on a case by case basis.

But my point is that you are cherry picking a link to bend to your agenda from the get-go, which puts your whole argument into the bin.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,494
Location
Gloucestershire
That can't be the whole definition of terrorism - as quoted it seems to be really broad... wouldn't that also cover strike action, peaceful protest, etc..
Yes.

Our terrorism laws are ******* insane. Remember, they were used against Icelandic banks during the credit crunch and against the MP expenses whistleblower.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
12 Sep 2003
Posts
492
Location
Swansea, UK
By your logic the Labour Party are a terrorist organisation:
They are using an action (making a facebook post) which is designed to influence a government organisation ("We're calling on Boris Johnson to cancel the cut")

You're being incredibly terse there, these organisations are disrupting peoples way of life and day to day activities. The facebook post like you have quoted has no notable/potential consequences.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Aug 2006
Posts
4,107
Location
In a world of my own
Some of you may remember that a good few years ago lorry drivers blockaded fuel refineries for some sort of protest. Their leaders were visited by MI5 who told them they were at risk of bring the country to a halt (we have enough fuel at a time for three days apparently) and as such they would be held under the terrorism act and spend the next 20 years in jail. The protests stopped overnight. I suggest something similar for these plebs.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2014
Posts
5,225
Sometime being a dick relies on other people being kind and accepting your behaviour. All it takes is one car to run someone over and the protesters would see sense and move themselves off the road.
 
Caporegime
Joined
24 Oct 2012
Posts
25,024
Location
Godalming
Nothing says "we need to fight pollution" like forcing hundreds, if not thousands of cars to stand idling in a city centre for hours on end.

I support their cause, I just think that they undermine their entire MO with their frankly stupid approaches. No, i don't know what the correct approach is.
 
Back
Top Bottom