Cavegirl Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 The government are currently holding a review of their PREVENT policy which aims to tackle terrorism in the UK. The previous emphasis of this policy has been on preventing cases of violent extremism, but the government now want to focus on non-violent groups and individuals that hold extremist or radical views. Here's a quote from a BBC article: "One of the things we were very clear about here at the Home Office", Theresa May explained this weekend, "was we needed to look at extremism, not just violent extremism"...We are looking at a set of values we believe we have here in the UK and those people opposed to those values are people who the Government won't be funding or engaging with". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13665156 At the moment the focus appears to be on Islamic groups, but if these 'thought crime' policies are followed through it would naturally lead to the exclusion of many different groups from statist political debate. I see this policy being dangerous and unfair in many different ways. I think however, one of its most harmful outcomes could be the dilution of radical thinking which is well known historically to be the main spark of innovation and change in society. Some may not want that change, but nobody wants a society that is state prevented from changing surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 whos defines whats extreme? somebody on the extreme of something doesnt just have to be violent, where do we draw the line? how do we prevent? kill the children of known extremists? is it in the genes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Yes, and if they are arrested for using "unlawful language and having extremist views" they shouldbe tried and IF found guilty be deported without the right of appeal the same day as the court case against them ends. Regards Angel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 You want to make thoughts illegal? Don't be absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Yes, and if they are arrested for using "unlawful language and having extremist views" they shouldbe tried and IF found guilty be deported without the right of appeal the same day as the court case against them ends. Where would you deport British people holding unacceptable views to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 and IF found guilty be deported without the right of appeal the same day as the court case against them ends. what happens if they are english?? and cant be deported anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Define English?. Regards Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Where would you deport British people holding unacceptable views to? Birmingham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Umpley Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 i hope i never live anywhere where your viewpoint can be illegal. actions yes. thoughts and opinions never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 whos defines whats extreme? somebody on the extreme of something doesnt just have to be violent, where do we draw the line? how do we prevent? kill the children of known extremists? is it in the genes? I think extreme in this case is any view that threatens 'UK national interests' to use the catch all term that politicians are so fond of. I would argue in fact that very few extremists are violent in any way- in fact a strong pacifist would likely be classed as an extremist by the government just as the Conscientious Objectors were during WWII. I would suggest that the line is crossed when there's an intent to do harm, but I think the government itself should be much more accountable to that line also. Here's Tony Blair suggesting that we should criminalise children pre-birth, I imagine Teresa May sympathises with this view- you can't make this stuff up!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.