Grazza Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 This comply flies in the face of the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights (specifically article 9, touches upon other parts too). You can't detain people you think might be dangerous unless you have proof they're going to commit an actual act (as opposed to "we think they might do in the future"). I have to say, why not? What would actually happen? As for what they "might do", I agree, but the criteria would be set more strictly than that. Flying Islamic flags, visiting jihadist websites, supporting jihad, engaging in jihadi conversations... all things that may be sub-criminal, but should be actionable offences. British law evolved over centuries to suit the indigenous population. It's not enough to deal with the problem we now have - an uncomfortable fact, but the truth. These are unprecedented times that - just like war - cannot be limited by the usual process of law and order. And why are we just doing it for those that are radical Islamists? What about other radicals? If I recall correctly, more terrorists attacks are committed in America by non-Muslims per year, they just don't tend to get labelled correctly (and I believe more Americans are killed by children with guns than terrorists because of course). And that's terrible, but it's none of our business. Every nation state has the right to set its own levels of crime and punishment. As for the other point, there is nothing non-Islamic that is motivating mass murder. Non-Muslim radicalism doesn't strain our resources.
sumo73 Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) I worked in Southwark for many years and commuted to London Bridge and walked through Borough Market every day. Spent many lunchtimes and evenings in both the Barrowboy and the Globe It's weird but it feels a lot more personal because I know the area so well. I used to work in Southwark Bridge Road and commute to and from London Bridge every day as well but that's largely irreverent for me here. I feel bad about what happened in London but also in Manchester and I've never been to Manchester before. I do realise people feel a connection to a place but the real issues are the lost of life due to these attacks and how do we stop these attacks from happening again wherever that is. People don't want to hear excuses or more talking from politicians, they want to see something being done about this but as I said before it can't be some kind of knee jerk reaction to things. My girlfriend has already been told where she works is a possible future terror attack spot in London and as I said my friend which I talked about earlier is already worried about possible reprisals against him and his family because they are Muslim. And I'm sure there are other people who can give similar stories. We either hide in our houses or continue with our lives and we will continue through this. Every single time this happens, they are known to the police. Regarding the attack just one of the attackers was known to police so how do you police someone that is off radar that you don't know about? Pestneb already mentioned previously about the minority report but the idea behind it is arresting someone before they might commit a crime which they may or may never do. We have serious overcrowding in prisons here and some prisons are places where people become radicalised, so the whole thing is a mess. We have had so many clues about who the enemy is, and our justice system has not been able to do anything about it. Cutting police numbers plus under funding prisons in the UK has been a mistake and I blame the government in part for this mess. If you have less police you are less able to enforce the law, collect intelligence... Saving money is one thing but it often results in a poorer service overall. The government and others also need to look into programmes like Channel, Prevent... and see how they can be improved. Edited June 7, 2017 by sumo73
Ashley Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) I have to say, why not? What would actually happen? As for what they "might do", I agree, but the criteria would be set more strictly than that. Flying Islamic flags, visiting jihadist websites, supporting jihad, engaging in jihadi conversations... all things that may be sub-criminal, but should be actionable offences. British law evolved over centuries to suit the indigenous population. It's not enough to deal with the problem we now have - an uncomfortable fact, but the truth. These are unprecedented times that - just like war - cannot be limited by the usual process of law and order. And that's terrible, but it's none of our business. Every nation state has the right to set its own levels of crime and punishment. As for the other point, there is nothing non-Islamic that is motivating mass murder. Non-Muslim radicalism doesn't strain our resources. D'oh typo. Meant to say "completely" not "comply". Well it would depend on how sustained it is, but could lead to sanctions etc the same way we put them on places like North Korea. All the things you list are "actionable" in the sense they are things that we can say "that has been done", but unto themselves they're not criminal (but obviously result in being watched by MI5). Although May certainly wants to (blindly) restrict access to the web. What exactly do you mean by "engaging in jihadi conversations"? America was just an example, but Jo Cox and Mohammed Saleem prove non-Muslim radicalism do strain our resources. Not as much, sure, but you're getting into a territory where our civil liberties are being taken away with potentially little if any benefit. Edit For what it's worth, May's latest speech seems to suggest she'd look to giving more power to detain based on suspicion. On the other hand, we've certainly had a lot of Terrorism-rated legislation in the last 17 years. It seems collective governments have legislated a lot, but done little to actually make a difference. See thread: [tweet]871426882385870848[/tweet] Edited June 6, 2017 by Ashley
Grazza Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 Well it would depend on how sustained it is, but could lead to sanctions etc the same way we put them on places like North Korea. That's a good point. On the other hand (and I admit this is optimistic), the Western world may be waiting for someone to show them how we can deal with this shared problem. All the things you list are "actionable" in the sense they are things that we can say "that has been done", but unto themselves they're not criminal (but obviously result in being watched by MI5). Although May certainly wants to (blindly) restrict access to the web. What exactly do you mean by "engaging in jihadi conversations"? If you have said in email conversations, for example, that you support an international caliphate. Any clear declaration that you support the other side. Just to clarify, when I said "actionable" I meant sub-criminal offences that nonetheless warrant action. America was just an example, but Jo Cox and Mohammed Saleem prove non-Muslim radicalism do strain our resources. Not as much, sure, but you're getting into a territory where our civil liberties are being taken away with potentially little if any benefit. They were awful, but we've always had to cope with single acts of crime. We can't achieve perfection, but we do our best. I'd argue it is even more difficult for police to have a handle on non-Muslim extremism when they are so occupied with Islamism. We cannot afford to follow as many people as we need to, which is the heart of the issue. As for the second point, this is precisely why we need new laws that do just target Islamic extremism. Clamping down specifically on radical Islam won't infringe on our human rights. It will mean that you can still criticise the government, but you can't rally support for jihad. Any new laws need to be specifically for that, not vaguely worded so as to trap us all in the net.
Recommended Posts