B1507 – Extinction Rebellion (Proscription Of) Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1

What is this thread about?
This is a bill in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). It's a piece of proposed legislation that is currently being debated, and there's a good chance that the House will later vote on whether to pass it into TSR law. All are welcome and encouraged to ask questions about the bill's content and join in the debate – you don't have to be in a party or be an MP to do so.

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


B1507 – Extinction Rebellion (Proscription Of) Bill 2019, LiberOfLondon MP

Extinction Rebellion (Proscription Of) Bill 2019

An Act to proscribe the terrorist organisation Extinction Rebellion.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Amendment of the Terrorism Act 2000.
(1) Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is, upon this Act receiving Royal Assent, amended to include the organisation Extinction Rebellion.

2: Extent
This Act extends to the United Kingdom.

3: Commencement
The provisions of this Act come into force upon this Act receiving Royal Assent.

4: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the Extinction Rebellion (Proscription Of) Act 2019.

NotesUnder §1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, Extinction Rebelion are a terrorist organisation as they ”use… action [in a way] designed to influence the government for the purpose og advancing a political… objective. Their ”action… involves serious damage to property” under §1, clause 2b of the Terrorism Act 2000, meaning that they can be classified as terrorists.
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Nay. Not a very convincing case at all as to why we should recognise Extinction Rebellion as a terrorist organisation. I've personally seen Extinction Rebellion protest and from my experience, it was one of the most peaceful protests ever even if it caused havoc for the Met Police in terms of providing security and for Londoners getting around London. The matter of fact is that they're an organisation who are trying to raise awareness about the climate emergency which the irl government is failing to act on.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
The proscription mechanism in TSR-land has been changed, such that there are now tiers - instead of a single schedule to differentiate between threats, but placing Extinction Rebellion on the lowest tier is something I would support. They are beginning to cross the line between protesting for a genuine cause, and causing disruption for disruption's sake.

EDIT: Bill bringing in the change here: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...84&postcount=1
Last edited by ns_2; 4 weeks ago
1
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
Aye - they’re a dangerous communist threat to western civilisation.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
Rather an extreme reaction. Sure, they're a bunch of fruitcakes but proscription is a bit much and so far "serious damage to property" has not been resorted to
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by ns_2)
The proscription mechanism in TSR-land has been changed, such that there are now tiers - instead of a single schedule to differentiate between threats, but placing Extinction Rebellion on the lowest tier is something I would support. They are beginning to cross the line between protesting for a genuine cause, and causing disruption for disruption's sake.
Make them them only illegal rather than super illegal!

EDIT: Somebody clearly didn't understand I was taking the piss out of them and their stupid bills
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 4 weeks ago
1
TheRadishPrince
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
I'm not a fan of them as a whole by any means but this is excessive. The major act that it, as an organisation, has arranged is to block roads and places of the like and that's far from what I'd call terrorists, just very in your face protestors with controversial opinions.

I would also like to point out that it's convenient that the writer of the Bill and his associated party are staunchly opposed to representing any Environmental stance in policy - I have a feeling the writer is influenced more by dislike of their cause and is merely hunting for excuses to ban them which are not substantial enough.
3
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 weeks ago
#8
Nay, not enough in the bill to support this, in my view.
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by TheRadishPrince)
I'm not a fan of them as a whole by any means but this is excessive. The major act that it, as an organisation, has arranged is to block roads and places of the like and that's far from what I'd call terrorists, just very in your face protestors with controversial opinions.

I would also like to point out that it's convenient that the writer of the Bill and his associated party are staunchly opposed to representing any Environmental stance in policy - I have a feeling the writer is influenced more by dislike of their cause and is merely hunting for excuses to ban them which are not substantial enough.
Hear Hear!
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by TheRadishPrince)
I'm not a fan of them as a whole by any means but this is excessive. The major act that it, as an organisation, has arranged is to block roads and places of the like and that's far from what I'd call terrorists, just very in your face protestors with controversial opinions.

I would also like to point out that it's convenient that the writer of the Bill and his associated party are staunchly opposed to representing any Environmental stance in policy - I have a feeling the writer is influenced more by dislike of their cause and is merely hunting for excuses to ban them which are not substantial enough.
You can hardly say that all they have done is arrange road blocks when they have also threatened to shut down Heathrow, glued themselves to trains, several involved have stated intent to cause criminal damage so they have to go to court
0
yaseen1000
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
Nay ,we shouldn’t be trying to stop the extinction rebellion for highlighting and campaigning for better environmental policies. Instead we should be working with them , by banning them the government will most likely provoke members of the extinction rebellion and in the short term make things worse.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by yaseen1000)
Nay ,we shouldn’t be trying to stop the extinction rebellion for highlighting and campaigning for better environmental policies. Instead we should be working with them , by banning them the government will most likely provoke members of the extinction rebellion and in the short term make things worse.
Not exactly painting a very good picture, not that they paint a very good picture of themselves in the first place, although lunatics rarely do
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
Absolutely not.

I am relieved to see this is a private members bill and not the produce of any party here.
I hope the proposer will appreciate from the responses so far that this item is not worth sending to Division.
0
abucha3
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
Nay, I think we need tougher laws on protests and the disruption that these cause to normal working people trying to go about their business, but classifying this group as a terrorist organisation sends out the wrong message and is not fair.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by abucha3)
Nay, I think we need tougher laws on protests and the disruption that these cause to normal working people trying to go about their business, but classifying this group as a terrorist organisation sends out the wrong message and is not fair.
The problem isn't how stringent the laws are but how well they're enforced, afaik pretty much all their protests have been illegal, or at the very least not strictly legal
1
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
ER have used dangerous tactics to get their points across. The system for placing groups was changed a few months ago so I would be in favour of putting them on to a lower tier.
1
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
I do not believe there is a convincing enough case for them to labelled as terrorists. Where they cause damage, treat it as a criminal matter as it should and stop using terrorism legislation for everything you disagree with, or any protest movement that causes inconvenience and sure, some damage at times.

People have the right to protest.
2
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I do not believe there is a convincing enough case for them to labelled as terrorists. Where they cause damage, treat it as a criminal matter as it should and stop using terrorism legislation for everything you disagree with, or any protest movement that causes inconvenience and sure, some damage at times.

People have the right to protest.
That right, however, is not unlimited
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
That right, however, is not unlimited
I agree, hence I believe any overstepping of the mark is a criminal matter for the courts to decide.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
I agree, hence I believe any overstepping of the mark is a criminal matter for the courts to decide.
And with some of these loons the courts are actually part of the reason, they do what they do specifically to have to go to court because they believe that will somehow make people pay attention.
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

803

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

Do you have grade requirements for your sixth form/college?

At least 5 GCSEs at grade 4 (65)
14.41%
At least 5 GCSEs at grade 5 (70)
15.52%
At least 5 GCSEs at grade 6 (86)
19.07%
Higher than 5 GCSEs at grade 6 (181)
40.13%
Pass in English and Maths GCSE (21)
4.66%
No particular grades needed (28)
6.21%

Watched Threads

View All