I can't be bothered to trawl through the links or give this any thought whatsoever on my own. What's the big deal about this?
The Government is giving itself the power to ban anyone it likes from speaking at Universities and other public institutions if they hold views deemed to be "extreme", regardless of whether or not they are inciting violence or otherwise breaking existing laws.
The Government is giving itself the power to ban anyone it likes from speaking at Universities and other public institutions if they hold views deemed to be "extreme", regardless of whether or not they are inciting violence or otherwise breaking existing laws.
Can there be no middle ground? It sounds like something's gotta be done about extremism.
Can there be no middle ground? It sounds like something's gotta be done about extremism.
I think what we already have is fine as a middle ground. It's already illegal to incite violence or racial/religious hatred. Any person who goes into a university and tells students to kill westerners or join ISIS can already be prosecuted, as could anyone who even without inciting violence decided to try and promote intolerance of white people, homosexuals etc. This Bill goes much further though - anyone deemed to be extreme can be banned with no recourse. This could, going on precedent (the scheme is already in place but is non-compulsory), include people making arguments such as that Palestinians are suffering genocide, Israel should not exist as a state in its current form, or that there may be viable and desirable alternatives to democracy. It threatens to severely curtail academic freedom, and create a very dystopian system where certain thoughts aren't allowed to be expressed.
The Government is giving itself the power to ban anyone it likes from speaking at Universities and other public institutions if they hold views deemed to be "extreme", regardless of whether or not they are inciting violence or otherwise breaking existing laws.
The Government is giving itself the power to ban anyone it likes from speaking at Universities and other public institutions if they hold views deemed to be "extreme", regardless of whether or not they are inciting violence or otherwise breaking existing laws.
+ The need to monitor and report students
+ Practically cannot host any outside speaker because of the 14-day requirement
I think what we already have is fine as a middle ground. It's already illegal to incite violence or racial/religious hatred. Any person who goes into a university and tells students to kill westerners or join ISIS can already be prosecuted, as could anyone who even without inciting violence decided to try and promote intolerance of white people, homosexuals etc. This Bill goes much further though - anyone deemed to be extreme can be banned with no recourse. This could, going on precedent (the scheme is already in place but is non-compulsory), include people making arguments such as that Palestinians are suffering genocide, Israel should not exist as a state in its current form, or that there may be viable and desirable alternatives to democracy. It threatens to severely curtail academic freedom, and create a very dystopian system where certain thoughts aren't allowed to be expressed.
'in future, apparently, it will be forbidden for anyone at a university to argue that democracy is wrong in principle (goodbye Plato), or to give a talk that fails "to respect individual liberty" or to offer "mutual respect and tolerance (to) different faiths and beliefs"' Lord Macdonald, QC, Warden of Wadham
since when have people even been free? We are bound to the laws of physics, to material needs, to the corporate capitalist world. Freedom went a long time ago, we are only relatively unshackled at all times for our own good they say
The Government is giving itself the power to ban anyone it likes from speaking at Universities and other public institutions if they hold views deemed to be "extreme", regardless of whether or not they are inciting violence or otherwise breaking existing laws.
Seems far enough.
Why would you invest in an organisation that Costs you money elsewhere policing something.
The Government is giving itself the power to ban anyone it likes from speaking at Universities and other public institutions if they hold views deemed to be "extreme", regardless of whether or not they are inciting violence or otherwise breaking existing laws.
This is about I-socs inviting hate preachers isn't it?
what's the academic benefit of hosting a social society hate fest on your campus?
Yes I understand the concept of "hate preacher" but hate is a relative thing. Eventually "hate" might become whatever we say it is. If you challenge groups of people who have various forms of power over you perhaps you are "hating". It's a great Orwellian type technique a bit like "euthanising" who we think needs to be "euthanised" for their benefit but it's actually for ours (the Nazi explanation for dealing with the mentally insane). We are protecting you from "hate" for your own benefit because hate such a nasty thing but it's actually to prevent exposure to things we don't want you to know about.
Why would you invest in an organisation that Costs you money elsewhere policing something.
I'd dispute the policing costs here for a start - if a speaker was inciting people to commit criminal activity then that is already illegal, whereas this legislation stops them from simply talking about ideas. If there were some costs they'd likely be pretty minimal from if speakers encouraged, for instance, lawful protest. For a start, that's a pretty crucial part of our democracy that it's perfectly right we should facilitate. Secondly, there is a benefit to having these debates. If you talk to someone with extreme views and engage with them, you have an opportunity not only to show other people that they're wrong but also to change the mind of the extremists themselves. Most of these people are, one way or another, marginalised by society: criminalising their opinions will just make this worse and give them encouragement if they hold anti-western views, whereas it is far harder to oppose something which includes and values you.
Well Islamic extremism does stem from Islamism. Tackling the problem at the roots seems to be a better approach than a reactive one. Although I do worry that the legislation is too broad, won't achieve what it intends, and will probably be used for other purposes in future. Sounds a bit McCarthy-ish to me.