Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, domestic terrorists?

Keltyx

Keltyx

Keltyx

Associate
Joined
12 Sep 2003
Posts
493
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...

This makes change.org and similar sites some of the most prolific terrorist organisations in the UK.
 
Keltyx said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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)..
 
Raymond Lin said:
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:"
Click to expand...
This doesn't mean those listed are the only examples, just a limited subset. Plus, disrupting infrastructure is equivalent to "disrupt an electronic system"

Raymond Lin said:
Protest, as in walking around on the street with a sign shouting does not pose a threat to your life?
Click to expand...
Road blocks stopping/delaying a fire engine or ambulance attending an emergency would
 
Keltyx said:
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
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the legal definition of terrorism. It's just a public information website.

The legalese is probably very different.
 
Keltyx said:
This doesn't mean those listed are the only examples, just a limited subset.
Click to expand...

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")
 
Keltyx said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
FoxEye said:
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..
Click to expand...
Yes.

Our terrorism laws are ******* insane. Remember, they were used against Icelandic banks during the credit crunch and against the MP expenses whistleblower.
 
touch said:
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")
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom