Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Greens: it should not be a crime to belong to groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda watch

Announcements
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    I guess if you support the views of ISIS become a member but don't actually take part in any of their activities their isn't too much wrong with that, but lets face it no ones joins ISIS to write a polite letter to the government. People join these groups to do or in some way enable illegal and damaging activities, so she is just splitting hairs in my opinion, putting any time at all into drafting this policy and pushing it through would be a huge waste of time.

    Besides if someone did join one of these organisations with the sole intention of carrying out law abiding activities there's still quite a strong chance that they will be coerced into doing other stuff. Best just leave the line where it is IMO, if you move it then it creates a grey area.
    Natalie Bennet has aimed more venom towards UKIP than ISIS. What does that insinuate..
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I don't know... there might be people who are sort of drawn to the ideas of such groups - people who have problems in their life, who feel like they don't belong anywhere, fall in with the wrong crowd, and who subsequently want to find out more, only to discover that these groups are way too extreme for them. So, they never actually stir up hatred. They never commit violence. They never assist those groups in their acts of violence. Yet, they'll be seen as criminals nonetheless.

    I don't think criminalising these people is helpful. Doing so might actually tip them over the edge into extremism. It would be more helpful to help them find a constructive goal in life. It would also be helpful to figure out why those groups have any appeal at all. I certainly don't have the answer there...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Freedom of speech: unfortunately it goes both ways.
    I agree with Bennett.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    I don't know... there might be people who are sort of drawn to the ideas of such groups - people who have problems in their life, who feel like they don't belong anywhere, fall in with the wrong crowd, and who subsequently want to find out more, only to discover that these groups are way too extreme for them. So, they never actually stir up hatred. They never commit violence. They never assist those groups in their acts of violence. Yet, they'll be seen as criminals nonetheless.

    I don't think criminalising these people is helpful. Doing so might actually tip them over the edge into extremism. It would be more helpful to help them find a constructive goal in life. It would also be helpful to figure out why those groups have any appeal at all. I certainly don't have the answer there...
    Or.... there might be people who are sort of drawn to the ideas of such groups - people who have problems in their life, who feel like they don't belong anywhere, fall in with the wrong crowd, and who subsequently want to find out more, only to discover that these groups are exactly what they are looking for to express their anger to society. So, they actually stir up hatred. They support and commit violence. They assist those groups in their acts of violence. They'll be seen as criminals nonetheless.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    That's one of the stupidest things I've read all week, people who condone Islamic radicalism are so bizarre.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Personally i'm usually open to thinking outside the box and while i think socialists in their economic policy are naive, i can understand that they are looking for vaguely credible alternatives.

    But this policy is not vaguely credible at all. It is i think the single most dangerous policy of any party in politics today. I find it offensive that you can legally endorse an enemy of the state.

    It smacks of naivety.. if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone.. tell that to Nigeria and Mali, places infested with Islamists for no reason other than them wishing them harm.
    The single most dangerous policy of any party in politics today? Seriously? I personally think that austerity plans that disproportionally affect the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society are far more dangerous. People are dying because of the botched projects of our own government...
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Or.... there might be people who are sort of drawn to the ideas of such groups - people who have problems in their life, who feel like they don't belong anywhere, fall in with the wrong crowd, and who subsequently want to find out more, only to discover that these groups are exactly what they are looking for to express their anger to society. So, they actually stir up hatred. They support and commit violence. They assist those groups in their acts of violence. They'll be seen as criminals nonetheless.
    Well, once they do stir up hatred, or support or commit violence, or assist those groups in their acts of violence, then they are criminals and should be seen as such.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So under the Green policy if you make a donation to ISIS or Al Queda I think you are probably committing a crime.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    lol, they dun'goofed.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    The single most dangerous policy of any party in politics today? Seriously? I personally think that austerity plans that disproportionally affect the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society are far more dangerous. People are dying because of the botched projects of our own government...
    Yes. The message it sends is morally repugnant. That so long as you don't kill, you can actively fund and cheer on terrorists that then take a suicide bomb to your daughters school. It has been a very long time since any policy has emoted me, but the idea of not even appeasing terrorists, but actually supporting and condoning these groups is something i find truly offensive. The western world has the strength of being civil while at the same time believing in justice, law and order.. such a policy scoffs at those values. It is hideous and i would sooner vote Miliband than allow this policy to come to fruition.

    People are dying because they are depressed or infirm and unable to cope with changes resulting from policy (nobody has actually starved or froze to death). It's no good worrying about how welfare policy will affect people if at the same time your allowing the breeding of home grown terrorists who take a gun to your children's school in support of an Irish state or Jihad.

    (Original post by Kittiara)
    Well, once they do stir up hatred, or support or commit violence, or assist those groups in their acts of violence, then they are criminals and should be seen as such.
    What do you think people will do at these group meetings? They won't be causally discussing the merits, they'll be stirring up support for their next attack, praising their success against the infidels, advising each other on where they can store their devices.

    We have gone 10 years without a large attack.. do you think we'll last 10 years with this policy.

    It's no good allowing it so that people become informed, if 100 people join and 90 people decide it's wrong then that's still 10 killers you've allowed to be created who will then go to your hospitals, schools, army bases ect... hundreds dead for the price of 90 reformed people.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    So under the Green policy if you make a donation to ISIS or Al Queda I think you are probably committing a crime.
    Membership fees... nothing wrong with those.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jambojim97)
    Freedom of speech: unfortunately it goes both ways.
    I agree with Bennett.
    Freedom of speech stops when what your saying becomes a threat to others. ISIS actively seeks the deaths of anyone who does not agree with them. Membership of such a group is not a freedom of speech issue, do not confuse it as such.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittiara)
    I don't know... there might be people who are sort of drawn to the ideas of such groups - people who have problems in their life, who feel like they don't belong anywhere, fall in with the wrong crowd, and who subsequently want to find out more, only to discover that these groups are way too extreme for them. So, they never actually stir up hatred. They never commit violence. They never assist those groups in their acts of violence. Yet, they'll be seen as criminals nonetheless.

    I don't think criminalising these people is helpful. Doing so might actually tip them over the edge into extremism. It would be more helpful to help them find a constructive goal in life. It would also be helpful to figure out why those groups have any appeal at all. I certainly don't have the answer there...
    I agree with this - however I'd have hoped that this is taken into account when the decision as to whether to charge someone is made.

    I can't say I agree with this policy. There are clearly some things we don't want people dabbling in. Joining very dangerous terrorist groups is probably high up on the list.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    But the IRA are not terrorist.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Yes. The message it sends is morally repugnant. That so long as you don't kill, you can actively fund and cheer on terrorists that then take a suicide bomb to your daughters school. It has been a very long time since any policy has emoted me, but the idea of not even appeasing terrorists, but actually supporting and condoning these groups is something i find truly offensive. The western world has the strength of being civil while at the same time believing in justice, law and order.. such a policy scoffs at those values. It is hideous and i would sooner vote Miliband than allow this policy to come to fruition.
    I'm not comfortable with it, either. I don't think that it's a case of condoning those groups, though. I think it's about being careful who we criminalise. It's something that should be very, very carefully considered - be too harsh and we could actually drive people further into the arms of terrorists, be too lenient and we have a disaster on our hands. In practice, I don't think this policy will work, because of the risks involved. However, whilst groups like the ones mentioned are extreme examples, the principle of not criminalising people for their views, but rather their actions, is one I agree with.

    People are dying because they are depressed or infirm and unable to cope with changes resulting from policy (nobody has actually starved or froze to death). It's no good worrying about how welfare policy will affect people if at the same time your allowing the breeding of home grown terrorists who take a gun to your children's school in support of an Irish state or Jihad.
    I think that we can worry about both at the same time. Someone has died as a result of sanctions that meant he was unable to store his medication properly. And government policy has driven people to suicide. Some may have had mental health problems beforehand, but the fact that they've been tipped over the edge rather than receive the help and support they needed is of great concern to me.

    These are unnecessary deaths. Because of our own government. And that is just part of the unnecessary suffering that's being inflicted on hundreds of thousands of citizens every year. I have witnessed some of it with my own eyes - severely disabled people scoring zero points in the (then) Atos test, left without any money for weeks on end, then waiting months for a highly stressful appeal, on not enough to cover the bills, thus sending them into debt, adding more stress. It's damaging to people's health, and it should be criminal, but because the government is doing it, it's legal. And people are cheering it on because of propaganda.

    What do you think people will do at these group meetings? They won't be causally discussing the merits, they'll be stirring up support for their next attack, praising their success against the infidels, advising each other on where they can store their devices.

    We have gone 10 years without a large attack.. do you think we'll last 10 years with this policy.

    It's no good allowing it so that people become informed, if 100 people join and 90 people decide it's wrong then that's still 10 killers you've allowed to be created who will then go to your hospitals, schools, army bases ect... hundreds dead for the price of 90 reformed people.
    I have no idea if there are meetings, let alone what goes on at them. As I mentioned above, though, I don't think that this policy can work in practice, and it wouldn't surprise me if it were either scrapped or, at the very least, revised.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I agree with this - however I'd have hoped that this is taken into account when the decision as to whether to charge someone is made.

    I can't say I agree with this policy. There are clearly some things we don't want people dabbling in. Joining very dangerous terrorist groups is probably high up on the list.
    Aye, as I said to Rakas, I don't think that it will work in practice. The risks are too great. And these groups are very extreme - sickeningly extreme. I do think that we need to figure out how groups like Isis can appeal to anyone. The things they do, I cannot comprehend why people would even consider joining them. But they do. So what's driving them?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catholic_)
    Natalie Bennet has aimed more venom towards UKIP than ISIS. What does that insinuate..
    Well UKIP are basically the British version of ISIS. Makes sense to target those who are a closer threat to us.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I would also like to point out that just because these groups are illegal doesn't mean they don't exist. Terrorist groups don't tend to care about legalities. Nor does making them legal mean they will increase. Far right groups like the BNP are actually on the decrease even though they are legal.

    Does making it legal actually make the problem of ISIS existing worse? It exists anyway. The whole thing seems similar to drugs if you ask me. Sure heroin distribution is largely harmful but the illegality of it doesn't get rid of the problem. The problem is there regardless of whether it is legal or not.

    (Original post by Izzyeviel)
    Well UKIP are basically the British version of ISIS.
    They really aren't.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    What planet is that woman on?

    #TreeHuggers
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I would also like to point out that just because these groups are illegal doesn't mean they don't exist. Terrorist groups don't tend to care about legalities. Nor does making them legal mean they will increase. Far right groups like the BNP are actually on the decrease even though they are legal.

    Does making it legla actually make the problem of ISIS existing worse? It exists anyway. The whole tihng seems simlar ot drugs if you ask me. Sure heroine distribution is largely harmful but the illegality of it doesn't get rid of the problem.



    They really aren't.
    They really are.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.