Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)
    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.
    You have claimed the definition to be so broad as to cover nearly everybody and used that as the justification to dismiss the definition (and fail to propose a better one as requested) and yet when challenged on this you have been coming up with offences that would not be covered. Immediately with 1(a) the majority of the population are cleared, most of what will be left will be people fighting and the likes, 1(b) and especially 1(c) will clear most of these people.

    If the definition is so broad and terrible how should it be defined?
    Do you support violence as a first resort against those you disagree with?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You have claimed the definition to be so broad as to cover nearly everybody and used that as the justification to dismiss the definition (and fail to propose a better one as requested) and yet when challenged on this you have been coming up with offences that would not be covered. Immediately with 1(a) the majority of the population are cleared, most of what will be left will be people fighting and the likes, 1(b) and especially 1(c) will clear most of these people.

    If the definition is so broad and terrible how should it be defined?
    Do you support violence as a first resort against those you disagree with?
    Forgive me for thinking hyperbole would be understood around here. Putting that aside, the fundamental point remains. If the University lecturer or the anti-vaxxer blogger meets the definition of terrorism it is too broad and using that definition alone does not constitute adequate justification. As for a better proposal, I've already said how I hope to release a bill soon that addresses the matter.

    Also, no. I do not support violence as a first resort.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Forgive me for thinking hyperbole would be understood around here. Putting that aside, the fundamental point remains. If the University lecturer or the anti-vaxxer blogger meets the definition of terrorism it is too broad and using that definition alone does not constitute adequate justification. As for a better proposal, I've already said how I hope to release a bill soon that addresses the matter.

    Also, no. I do not support violence as a first resort.
    Why are you talking about that stuff when the motion is about political violence aimed at groups because they disagree?

    For the sake of this motion alone I’m happy to grant you it’s too broad but focus on the motion itself on political violence not a blog but actual violence
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Why are you talking about that stuff when the motion is about political violence aimed at groups because they disagree?

    For the sake of this motion alone I’m happy to grant you it’s too broad but focus on the motion itself on political violence not a blog but actual violence
    Oh, I was discussing the definition because your initial response to me was, "Despite perfectly matching the definition of a terrorist organisation"

    Other than that, I have already expressed my thoughts on NL Antifa's recent activities.

    Thank you for accepting my points on the broad nature of the definition.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I will be voting for this motion in the lobbies, and I urge my honourable friends across the house to join me in doing so. There is no place for violence or hate speech from any political position in this country.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Oh, I was discussing the definition because your initial response to me was, "Despite perfectly matching the definition of a terrorist organisation"

    Other than that, I have already expressed my thoughts on NL Antifa's recent activities.

    Thank you for accepting my points on the broad nature of the definition.
    Can you explain how a group who goes around committing terrorist acts aren’t a terrorist group seeing as though you said no to the motion?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    Can you explain how a group who goes around committing terrorist acts aren’t a terrorist group seeing as though you said no to the motion?
    I don't consider their little incident at King's College a terrorist attack. Besides, judging the short video clip from a mobile phone, the violence looks as though it was started by one of Carl's own men. NL Antifa appeared to only want to no platform Carl, which they appear to have suceeded in doing. They set off fire alarms and ran into the room. I don't see how any reasonable person would consider that a terrorist act. Even if it was the case that NL Antifa went into that with an appetite to fight, I would hardly consider it any more than an exception to the rule as opposed to their modus operandi. Something strengthened by the fact that this entire bill seems to have been brought on by a single icident with a single video.

    Let's face it, you're attempting petty ideological point scoring to further the narrative that the left are inherently violent or something of that tone. It's ridiculous.

    This bill needs to be annihilated in Division and I urge all members to vote against it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    I don't consider their little incident at King's College a terrorist attack. Besides, judging the short video clip from a mobile phone, the violence looks as though it was started by one of Carl's own men. NL Antifa appeared to only want to no platform Carl, which they appear to have suceeded in doing. They set off fire alarms and ran into the room. I don't see how any reasonable person would consider that a terrorist act. Even if it was the case that NL Antifa went into that with an appetite to fight, I would hardly consider it any more than an exception to the rule as opposed to their modus operandi. Something strengthened by the fact that this entire bill seems to have been brought on by a single icident with a single video.

    Let's face it, you're attempting petty ideological point scoring to further the narrative that the left are inherently violent or something of that tone. It's ridiculous.

    This bill needs to be annihilated in Division and I urge all members to vote against it.
    I am not and you should apologise for misrepresenting what this MOTION is about.

    Here we have a group that has been violent in the past, have been violent very recently and are encouraging violence in the future against people they disagree with and that is what a terrorist organisation does.

    The fact that you are trying to tie antifa to all lefties is a spit in the face of the decent ones like we have in this house.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    I am not and you should apologise for misrepresenting what this MOTION is about.
    ?

    (Original post by Joep95)
    Here we have a group that has been violent in the past, have been violent very recently and are encouraging violence in the future against people they disagree with and that is what a terrorist organisation does.
    Tell us about their violent pass.

    (Original post by Joep95)
    The fact that you are trying to tie antifa to all lefties is a spit in the face of the decent ones like we have in this house.
    ?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    I called a specific group of Antifa not the whole Antifa movement
    And what evidence do you have that that group of Antifa institutionally supports political violence?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Forgive me for thinking hyperbole would be understood around here. Putting that aside, the fundamental point remains. If the University lecturer or the anti-vaxxer blogger meets the definition of terrorism it is too broad and using that definition alone does not constitute adequate justification. As for a better proposal, I've already said how I hope to release a bill soon that addresses the matter.

    Also, no. I do not support violence as a first resort.
    For the millionth time you are being hyperbolic and not using the definition of terrorism at all, you are dropping qualifiers from the definition to make a false point.
    Once again, the anti-vaxxer wouldn't be definied a terrorist because they don't actually pose a health risk and the lecturer wouldn't be a terrorist because there is not severe damage. I know you liberals are dense and can't admit you're wrong when proven wrong, I prefer the ones that run away instead of resorting to ad nauseum argument.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Division!

    Clear the lobbies!


    Posted by SpeakerBot
 
 
 
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

1,954

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.