Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    No.
    Why not?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    No that's ridiculous, Isis etc... are Fascists who have distorted there religion.



    Show me someone being charged with terrorism for punching.
    Show me the legal definition of terrorism.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Show me the legal definition of terrorism.
    It doesn't matter what the definition is, it's all about how lawyers and judges interrupt the law.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Why not?
    They are not a terrorist group.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    They are not a terrorist group.
    Hear, hear.

    The honorable member is correct in his assessment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    They are not a terrorist group.
    Despite perfectly matching the definition of a terrorist organisation
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Despite perfectly matching the definition of a terrorist organisation
    The current definition for terrorism is so broad that it could make criminals of any of us.

    It is something I hope to rectify with a bill in the coming days and I subsequently ask all members of this house to vote against this ridiculous motion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    The current definition for terrorism is so broad that it could make criminals of any of us.

    It is something I hope to rectify with a bill in the coming days and I subsequently ask all members of this house to vote against this ridiculous motion.
    What applying the law is ridiculous?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    What applying the law is ridiculous?
    You assume this bill would be replicated in real life. A protesting Uni lecturer that happens to damage property - say, a bin - would meet the definition of terrorism. Should it follow that we crack down on such individuals and criminalise them this way? The answer is no.

    Again, I urge everyone to stand with me and others to vote against this ridiculous document.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    You assume this bill would be replicated in real life. A protesting Uni lecturer that happens to damage property - say, a bin - would meet the definition of terrorism. Should it follow that we crack down on such individuals and criminalise them this way? The answer is no.

    Again, I urge everyone to stand with me and others to vote against this ridiculous document.
    Hear, hear.

    I look forward to reading your bill my honorable friend.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Antifa run around in balaclavas, decide who is entitled to speak at events, if they disagree they disrupt the event and label them "Facist".... Like a bunch of facists.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    You assume this bill would be replicated in real life. A protesting Uni lecturer that happens to damage property - say, a bin - would meet the definition of terrorism. Should it follow that we crack down on such individuals and criminalise them this way? The answer is no.

    Again, I urge everyone to stand with me and others to vote against this ridiculous document.
    He would not
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMR2018)
    It is a complete generalisation that Antifa are anarcho communists. There may be a few members who use violence for political aims, and they should be punished for terrorism but not the whole group.
    This is one specific chapter that has been involved in using violence for political aims and are preparing to use more not every single antifa group.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    He would not
    Well, he/she would.

    Damaging a University bin whilst protesting meets the definition of terrorism because the protesting would meet section 1(1)(b) and damaging the bin section 1(2)(b).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Well, he/she would.

    Damaging a University bin whilst protesting meets the definition of terrorism because the protesting would meet section 1(1)(b) and damaging the bin section 1(2)(b).
    That happens to damage property does not seem to meet the requirement of serious damage

    If someone is causing serious damage to property in pursuit of political aims then that is terrorism.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    That happens to damage property does not seem to meet the requirement of serious damage

    If someone is causing serious damage to property in pursuit of political aims then that is terrorism.
    It could be interpreted that way, that's the point I'm trying to demonstrate. The definition is too broad.

    Another example would be an anti-vaxxer that blogs about that topic. They would meet the definition of terrorism.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)
    The current definition for terrorism is so broad that it could make criminals of any of us.

    It is something I hope to rectify with a bill in the coming days and I subsequently ask all members of this house to vote against this ridiculous motion.
    Ummm, you do know the current legal definition, right?



    Unless you genuinely believe that basically everybody in the country have done any of the things in section 2 to influence governments or intimidate people for the purpose of advancing political, religious, racial, or ideological causes. Hell, the majority probably haven't done any of the things in subsection 2, let alone for the reasons required to be considered terrorism.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ummm, you do know the current legal definition, right?



    Unless you genuinely believe that basically everybody in the country have done any of the things in section 2 to influence governments or intimidate people for the purpose of advancing political, religious, racial, or ideological causes. Hell, the majority probably haven't done any of the things in subsection 2, let alone for the reasons required to be considered terrorism.
    I am aware of the current definition, yes. In fact, I previously referred to it in a response.

    To further explain the most recent example, the anti-vaxxer that blogs online would meet that definition because it could be seen as a politically-motivated act that is thought to create a serious risk to health or safety of the public that is done to influence Government on the issue. It meets 1(1)(b) and 1(2)(d).

    Again, the definition is too broad.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2018
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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.