FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > New Radicalisation Powers to be unveiled today
New Radicalisation Powers to be unveiled today
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
David Cameron is to set out a string of new powers to tackle radicalisation, saying the UK has been a "passively tolerant society" for too long.
The PM will tell the National Security Council a counter-extremism bill will be in the Queen's Speech on 27 May.
The bill will include new immigration rules, powers to close down premises used by extremists and "extremism disruption orders".
Previously the Conservatives were unable to secure the backing of their then Liberal Democrat coalition partners for the measures.
According to the BBC's Home Affairs Correspondent there could be some opposition in the new Parliament on the grounds that some of the plans could infringe people's right to free speech.
Ministers want tools to marginalise, restrict and silence these voices because disrupting their influence may buy time to intervene and bring someone back from the edge before it's too late.
Interesting too that they are saying it is difficult to find a definitive definition of extremism. To enable them to ban these people from expressing their views on social media, as it may be open to a legal challenge for impeding on their human rights.
I have to say, I am glad we have free speech in this country. But there is a line that needs to be drawn. If you are inciting others, via your words, to fight against this country. That is a step too far and needs to be stopped.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"David Cameron is to set out a string of new powers to tackle radicalisation, saying the UK has been a "passively tolerant society" for too long.
The PM will tell the National Security Council a counter-extremism bill will be in the Queen's Speech on 27 May.
The bill will include new immigration rules, powers to close down premises used by extremists and "extremism disruption orders".
Previously the Conservatives were unable to secure the backing of their then Liberal Democrat coalition partners for the measures.
According to the BBC's Home Affairs Correspondent there could be some opposition in the new Parliament on the grounds that some of the plans could infringe people's right to free speech.
Ministers want tools to marginalise, restrict and silence these voices because disrupting their influence may buy time to intervene and bring someone back from the edge before it's too late.
Interesting too that they are saying it is difficult to find a definitive definition of extremism. To enable them to ban these people from expressing their views on social media, as it may be open to a legal challenge for impeding on their human rights.
I have to say, I am glad we have free speech in this country. But there is a line that needs to be drawn. If you are inciting others, via your words, to fight against this country. That is a step too far and needs to be stopped.
"
well its a good job they are repealing the human rights act..... all very good timing. so what the definition of extremism? didnt he refer to "conspiracy theories" as non violent extremism? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
When does opposition become extremism? It's a slippery slope.
With the plans to curb the unions will a call to vote be seen as inciting extreme action?
Or is this just that you can speak as long as you aren't Muslim?
How much will this actually be able to stop anyone from sending or receiving messages given the number of media platforms that now exist? People managed to spread their messages over 100 years ago without the sophisticated social media we now have.
We already have laws in place. Use them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It needs something to remove the fear people have of challenging views that are abhorrent. There's a simmering anger that could be dangerous otherwise.
With these kinds of legal powers though there always has to be a thought about how they could be used in the hands of somebody else in power.
People should be free to say what they want - providing those listening can do the same. It doesn't always seem that way.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When does opposition become extremism? It's a slippery slope.
With the plans to curb the unions will a call to vote be seen as inciting extreme action?
Or is this just that you can speak as long as you aren't Muslim?
How much will this actually be able to stop anyone from sending or receiving messages given the number of media platforms that now exist? People managed to spread their messages over 100 years ago without the sophisticated social media we now have.
We already have laws in place. Use them.
"
Difficult to clampdown on something you can't even define. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
my question is will they be bolded enough to use it both ways.... i mean, we have for pretty far right extreme groups in this country that hold abhorrant views, and they are allowed to march most weekends in the country...
or are they going to use it to demonise one section of society......
i am guessing they will only see extremism on one side..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *he tactile technicianMan
over a year ago
the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands |
"David Cameron is to set out a string of new powers to tackle radicalisation, saying the UK has been a "passively tolerant society" for too long.
The PM will tell the National Security Council a counter-extremism bill will be in the Queen's Speech on 27 May.
The bill will include new immigration rules, powers to close down premises used by extremists and "extremism disruption orders".
Previously the Conservatives were unable to secure the backing of their then Liberal Democrat coalition partners for the measures.
According to the BBC's Home Affairs Correspondent there could be some opposition in the new Parliament on the grounds that some of the plans could infringe people's right to free speech.
Ministers want tools to marginalise, restrict and silence these voices because disrupting their influence may buy time to intervene and bring someone back from the edge before it's too late.
Interesting too that they are saying it is difficult to find a definitive definition of extremism. To enable them to ban these people from expressing their views on social media, as it may be open to a legal challenge for impeding on their human rights.
I have to say, I am glad we have free speech in this country. But there is a line that needs to be drawn. If you are inciting others, via your words, to fight against this country. That is a step too far and needs to be stopped.
"
Bring back the seditious meetings act! William Pitt didn't worry about the freedom of speach, and frankly for security reasons I don't think the majority of people in the UK worry either |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"my question is will they be bolded enough to use it both ways.... i mean, we have for pretty far right extreme groups in this country that hold abhorrant views, and they are allowed to march most weekends in the country...
or are they going to use it to demonise one section of society......
i am guessing they will only see extremism on one side....."
I disagree, I've seen huge police clampdowns on far right groups when they have anything organised. As it should be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It needs something to remove the fear people have of challenging views that are abhorrent. There's a simmering anger that could be dangerous otherwise.
With these kinds of legal powers though there always has to be a thought about how they could be used in the hands of somebody else in power.
People should be free to say what they want - providing those listening can do the same. It doesn't always seem that way.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"When does opposition become extremism? It's a slippery slope.
With the plans to curb the unions will a call to vote be seen as inciting extreme action?
Or is this just that you can speak as long as you aren't Muslim?
How much will this actually be able to stop anyone from sending or receiving messages given the number of media platforms that now exist? People managed to spread their messages over 100 years ago without the sophisticated social media we now have.
We already have laws in place. Use them.
"
I think that's going to be the whole problem. People, who want to, will always find a way to get their views across. It will no doubt go more underground. Is that good or bad? I'm undecided. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"my question is will they be bolded enough to use it both ways.... i mean, we have for pretty far right extreme groups in this country that hold abhorrant views, and they are allowed to march most weekends in the country...
or are they going to use it to demonise one section of society......
i am guessing they will only see extremism on one side....."
You wouldn't believe the amount of monitoring that goes on with right wing groups.
After Lee Rigby a majority of the security forces were actually monitoring anti-muslim activities in order to prevent any retaliation attacks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"well its a good job they are repealing the human rights act..... all very good timing. so what the definition of extremism? didnt he refer to "conspiracy theories" as non violent extremism?"
Yes. He specifically mentioned jews but i've no doubt that government ones would also be classed in this.
Secrecy is a very big deal to governments as you can see from the arrest of Manning, etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"David Cameron is to set out a string of new powers to tackle radicalisation, saying the UK has been a "passively tolerant society" for too long.
The PM will tell the National Security Council a counter-extremism bill will be in the Queen's Speech on 27 May.
The bill will include new immigration rules, powers to close down premises used by extremists and "extremism disruption orders".
Previously the Conservatives were unable to secure the backing of their then Liberal Democrat coalition partners for the measures.
According to the BBC's Home Affairs Correspondent there could be some opposition in the new Parliament on the grounds that some of the plans could infringe people's right to free speech.
Ministers want tools to marginalise, restrict and silence these voices because disrupting their influence may buy time to intervene and bring someone back from the edge before it's too late.
Interesting too that they are saying it is difficult to find a definitive definition of extremism. To enable them to ban these people from expressing their views on social media, as it may be open to a legal challenge for impeding on their human rights.
I have to say, I am glad we have free speech in this country. But there is a line that needs to be drawn. If you are inciting others, via your words, to fight against this country. That is a step too far and needs to be stopped.
"
I would put peoples right not to be blown up or killed in the street first. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
