Radicalization

[whiskeryron]

Is it now time for parliament to declare that radicalization should be made illegal in the UK ? There are people here who are actively encouraging terrorist activities & recruiting to undermine the very fabric of what was once our democratic & peace loving nation & I for one strongly object to it & nothing seems to be being done to halt the situation. What are other ABers thoughts on this ?

WR.

[Canary42]

Yes indeed, our peace-loving character has been betrayed by recent invasions of foreign countries and the subsequent slaughter of hundreds of innocent women and children therein.

[jake-the-peg]

There are already laws around incitement

What specific additional laws do you want?

Do you want laws to stop people like Choudry going on TV and saying things like he understands why people want to murder British soldiers.

You want to ban people from saying things you don't want to hear?

That would be a very dangerous set of laws.

Throughout history dictators have used fear and anger to suppress hard won freedoms.

Passing laws to restrict people's free speech makes us more like the sort of people we're fighting

[Milvus]

You want a government to decide what people can think and on what basis they can organise. That doesn't give us democracy or free speech.

[Milvus]

Sorry Jake I was still typing when your response came in. I agree with your points

[jake-the-peg]

Well we're making some assumptions - perhaps Ron has a specific idea that isn't already covered but falls short of of free speech.

I guess you could make it an offense to radicalize someone but it'd be damn hard to define and even harder to prove and chance are it'd be covered by the incitement laws

[New Judge]

Quite agree, canary.

Just when we are going to learn to mind our own business and not get involved in matters we cannot hope to properly influence is a question which should warrant urgent attention. But instead even today we have the Foreign Secretary banging his chest and making preliminary arrangements to become embroiled in yet another conflict which we do not properly understand and siding with a faction about which we know virtually nothing. It’s but a short step from there to sending in a few troops “to assist the Syrian opposition” (whoever they might be) and another short step to Syrians making their way to Europe to seek revenge for our inappropriate actions. There was a very appropriate quote from a mother whose family had been bombed out somewher in Syria: "I son't like this government, but has anybody paused to think how the rebels might behave if they gain power?"

We cannot influence these conflicts in the long term (as will be adequately demonstrated if and when we leave Afghanistan) and, as tragic as they are, we should keep well out of them. Outlawing “radicalisation” smacks of stable doors and horses I’m afraid.

[Milvus]

So NJ are you suggesting that we leave unprotected people to suffer from corrupt regimes so that we remain safe? Or, that by our government removing the right of free thought and free speech we create just that type of regime here?

[New Judge]

Yes I am suggesting the first, Milvus (for the reasons I have already outlined). It is the UK government's first priority to consider the safety and wellbeing of UK citizens. If we can help others without compromising that responsibility all well and good but if we cannot (and I believe we cannot when it comes to places such as Syria) then they must be left to get on with it.

I don't quite understand how it's an "either/or" to keep out of places such as Syria or to moderate free thought and speech as the two are not connected or mutually exclusive. However, that aside, there is a fine line between allowing free thought and speech and allowing encouragement and incitement to commit serious criminal acts. It is government's job to define that line and to apprehend those who cross it, once again with the safety and security of UK citizens foremost (i.e. in your words "so that we can remain safe").