Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)
    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.
    Except it would not meet 2(d) as blogging about it does not actually post any risk
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except it would not meet 2(d) as blogging about it does not actually post any risk
    If the authorities (which is us, I guess) thought it would be a serious risk to public health and it was written in a way attempt to influence Government, then it would. That's the point.

    Solely using the definition of terrorism to justify any bill does not make sense because the definition is too broad.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    If the authorities (which is us, I guess) thought it would be a serious risk to public health and it was written in a way attempt to influence Government, then it would. That's the point.

    Solely using the definition of terrorism to justify any bill does not make sense because the definition is too broad.
    The actual definition is not broad at all your misrepresentation of it is though
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    The actual definition is not broad at all your misrepresentation of it is though
    Would you mind telling that to David Anderson QC, a previous Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation who's example I have just used?

    I didn't realise you were a greater authority on the definition of terrorism than an individual who's job it was to look into it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Would you mind telling that to David Anderson QC, a previous Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation who's example I have just used?

    I didn't realise you were a greater authority on the definition of terrorism than an individual who's job it was to look into it.
    1. It’s best to link to something that isn’t an advocacy piece.
    2. The example given is irrelevant to political violence.
    3. Your source also doesn’t seem to suggest violently shutting down events for political reasons isn’t terrorism in fact it seems to suggest that violence aimed at groups for political reasons would be terrorism, so if I grant you your argument then for you to be consistent you should be accepting that North London Antifa are a terrorist organisation and voting aye.

    I’ll debate your topic when when you submit a bill on it but if you use your source be consistent here
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)
    If the authorities (which is us, I guess) thought it would be a serious risk to public health and it was written in a way attempt to influence Government, then it would. That's the point.

    Solely using the definition of terrorism to justify any bill does not make sense because the definition is too broad.
    Except we are not the one that would make the call whether it constitutes a "serious risk..." it would be the courts who would almost certainly go for the "ha, no" approach as no reasonable person would consider a BLOG to be a threat, the sorts of people who would not get vaccinations because of said blog would be those who weren't going to anyway. Regardless you're distracting from the motion: does violence against those with different views based on politics to push your own agenda constitute terrorist acts?
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Dafios9128)
    Some notes would be appreciated
    For bills yes, for motions like this, no. That's why this is written completely in joe's style and not like a bill.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    A dictionary is not a political bible.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    1. It’s best to link to something that isn’t an advocacy piece.
    2. The example given is irrelevant to political violence.
    3. Your source also doesn’t seem to suggest violently shutting down events for political reasons isn’t terrorism in fact it seems to suggest that violence aimed at groups for political reasons would be terrorism, so if I grant you your argument then for you to be consistent you should be accepting that North London Antifa are a terrorist organisation and voting aye.

    I’ll debate your topic when when you submit a bill on it but if you use your source be consistent here
    I fear a response to this would sound rude, I'll respond in a day giving you time to reconsider my previous responses and edit this.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except we are not the one that would make the call whether it constitutes a "serious risk..." it would be the courts who would almost certainly go for the "ha, no" approach as no reasonable person would consider a BLOG to be a threat, the sorts of people who would not get vaccinations because of said blog would be those who weren't going to anyway. Regardless you're distracting from the motion: does violence against those with different views based on politics to push your own agenda constitute terrorist acts?
    Whether it would be or would not be is irrelevant, the point is that the current broad definition allows individuals to be subject to anti-terrorism powers when they probably should not be. That is without even mentioning the negative implications of these state of affiars such as possible abuse. That, with all this in mind, using the definition of terrorism solely to justify this bill (or indeed any other) does not make sense.

    As for the motion, no. I do not agree with it.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    I welcome Jarred's take on this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I fear a response to this would sound rude, I'll respond in a day giving you time to reconsider my previous responses and edit this.



    Whether it would be or would not be is irrelevant, the point is that the current broad definition allows individuals to be subject to anti-terrorism powers when they probably should not be. That is without even mentioning the negative implications of these state of affiars such as possible abuse. That, with all this in mind, using the definition of terrorism solely to justify this bill (or indeed any other) does not make sense.

    As for the motion, no. I do not agree with it.
    Why not do you think groups using political violence against their opponents are not terrorist groups?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Why not do you think groups using political violence against their opponents are not terrorist groups?
    Antifa is neither a group or a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Why not do you think groups using political violence against their opponents are not terrorist groups?
    Calling Antifa terrorists is like calling UKIP terrorists. A small minority of Antifa members happen to use violent means to attempt to reach their ends. It is not something which is institutionally supported by Antifa.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Aye!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Calling Antifa terrorists is like calling UKIP terrorists. A small minority of Antifa members happen to use violent means to attempt to reach their ends. It is not something which is institutionally supported by Antifa.
    I called a specific group of Antifa not the whole Antifa movement
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    Using this situation as an example is silly. section 2B states "(b)involves serious damage to property," knocking over a bin does not consitute "Serious damage".
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I fear a response to this would sound rude, I'll respond in a day giving you time to reconsider my previous responses and edit this.



    Whether it would be or would not be is irrelevant, the point is that the current broad definition allows individuals to be subject to anti-terrorism powers when they probably should not be. That is without even mentioning the negative implications of these state of affiars such as possible abuse. That, with all this in mind, using the definition of terrorism solely to justify this bill (or indeed any other) does not make sense.

    As for the motion, no. I do not agree with it.
    This definition that is so broad that you have to make up offences to claim it broad such as kicking bins and writing blogs? Given that this actually rather focused definition in insufficient what do you propose in its place? Do you support the use of violence as a legitimate form of protest, in particular as a first resort?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazzer1998)
    Using this situation as an example is silly. section 2B states "(b)involves serious damage to property," knocking over a bin does not consitute "Serious damage".
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This definition that is so broad that you have to make up offences to claim it broad such as kicking bins and writing blogs? Given that this actually rather focused definition in insufficient what do you propose in its place? Do you support the use of violence as a legitimate form of protest, in particular as a first resort?
    I didn't say anything about kicking and knocking, I said damage.

    As for the blog example, it was first used by a previous Independent Reviewer of Terorrism Legislation. His justification is compelling and I consider him a greater authority on the matter than yourself. It's about interpretation and the definition as it stands allows for that. Hell, even our Government recognises the broad definition of terrorism!

    I stand by the fact that using this broad definition solely to justify any bill is not good enough.

    As for the NL Antifa group that interrupted Carl Benjamin, I thought their little spat was unhelpful and counterproductive to whatever they wanted to achieve as individuals. I do not think they are terrorists and I do not think they should be subject to anti-terrorism powers.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I didn't say anything about kicking and knocking, I said damage.

    .
    That is irrelevant, you can still damage a bin by kicking or knocking it which again does'nt constitute "serious damage". Try again.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)

    As for the NL Antifa group that interrupted Carl Benjamin, I thought their little spat was unhelpful and counterproductive to whatever they wanted to achieve as individuals. I do not think they are terrorists and I do not think they should be subject to anti-terrorism powers.
    You have'nt answered Jammy's question.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Do you support the use of violence as a legitimate form of protest, in particular as a first resort?
 
 
 
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

1,252

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?

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.