London Bridge Incident
Comments
-
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.
Depends on your definition of 'extreme' though, doesn't it? If you can realise your extreme views via the democratic process, then does that still make them extreme?
It does if the primary aim to is to rid the country of the democracy that allowed you to get elected. In any case we live in liberal democracies to avoid exactly this kind of thing happening.
As i said, if people vote for the abolition of democracy, then that's fine. People 'getting what they vote for' is what democracy is all about. Ironic, but there we are.
That's simply wrong. We live in liberal democracies in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority. We don't live in simple democracies.
So you value a liberal democracy, but reserve the right to get upset if you don't like the result?
No, I value a liberal democracy. I don't think you really understand what that is.0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:The OP said asking for something was not extreme. I and some other posters pointed out that it depends what they're asking for.
Like I said earlier - 'asking' for anything is not extreme. For everything else, we already have the incitement laws.
I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was extreme. The two are not synonymous.0 -
nickice wrote:An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.
Extreme is a relative term and weakens an argument.0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.
The 'phoney war' came after war had been declared, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say there was 'no state of total war' - the word 'total' is a bit superflous there.
Again, I don't think you understand what total war was. And ISIS have declared war on the UK. Inasmuch as a non-recognised state can anyway.0 -
nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.
Depends on your definition of 'extreme' though, doesn't it? If you can realise your extreme views via the democratic process, then does that still make them extreme?
It does if the primary aim to is to rid the country of the democracy that allowed you to get elected. In any case we live in liberal democracies to avoid exactly this kind of thing happening.
As i said, if people vote for the abolition of democracy, then that's fine. People 'getting what they vote for' is what democracy is all about. Ironic, but there we are.
That's simply wrong. We live in liberal democracies in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority. We don't live in simple democracies.
So you value a liberal democracy, but reserve the right to get upset if you don't like the result?
No, I value a liberal democracy. I don't think you really understand what that is.
You were doing so well, up to that point. So a democracy is fine, but only if it gives you the result you want? If my interpretation is wrong, then put it right.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:nickice wrote:An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.
Extreme is a relative term and weakens an argument.
It certainly is a relative term. Normal views held by one person can be deemed extreme by others. Do you think supporting the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in the UK would be considered extreme by the majority of the population?0 -
Imposter wrote:Alex99 wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:
No, asking that no media outlets ever show drawings of Mohammed is extreme. It's got nothing to do with disrespecting individuals. No idea should be above criticism.
'Asking' for anything is not extreme, it's perfectly reasonable. You seem to have unusual ideas about what constitutes 'extremism'.
I can think of some things to ask for that I'm sure you would consider to be extreme. If I say to you, I have a particular belief (e.g. Elvis is still alive and is the real brains behind Team Sky) and that it must be above criticism, Isn't that extreme?
Not really. How you react when your belief inevitably 'is' criticised defines how extreme your views are and how far you are prepared to go to uphold them. A balanced individual will engage in dialogue, not violence.
The nature of the belief is part and parcel with the reaction. Extreme belief, extreme reaction. Are there examples of this being uncoupled?0 -
nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.
The 'phoney war' came after war had been declared, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say there was 'no state of total war' - the word 'total' is a bit superflous there.
Again, I don't think you understand what total war was. And ISIS have declared war on the UK. Inasmuch as a non-recognised state can anyway.
Actually, I think it's you who doesn't understand. The 'phoney war' was the 'quiet' period immediately after war was declared, while German forces were still engaged in Poland and before the BEF launched its land offensive. We were still 'at war', regardless of whether it was total war or not. Take the correction and move on.0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.
Depends on your definition of 'extreme' though, doesn't it? If you can realise your extreme views via the democratic process, then does that still make them extreme?
It does if the primary aim to is to rid the country of the democracy that allowed you to get elected. In any case we live in liberal democracies to avoid exactly this kind of thing happening.
As i said, if people vote for the abolition of democracy, then that's fine. People 'getting what they vote for' is what democracy is all about. Ironic, but there we are.
That's simply wrong. We live in liberal democracies in order to avoid the tyranny of the majority. We don't live in simple democracies.
So you value a liberal democracy, but reserve the right to get upset if you don't like the result?
No, I value a liberal democracy. I don't think you really understand what that is.
You were doing so well, up to that point. So a democracy is fine, but only if it gives you the result you want? If my interpretation is wrong, then put it right.
We don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a liberal democracy. The two are different. The reason liberal democracies exist is to avoid a situation where 51% of the population can vote to do whatever they like to the other 49%. It's why the US has a constitution and the UK has protections for minorities.0 -
nickice wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'd like to intern anyone calling for internment. The right to a fair trial is one of those British values that I think is worth fighting for.
I don't think we're there yet but the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (some may find it difficult to believe but I have an LLM in Human Rights law) does actually support internment in emergency situations. Whether we're in such a situation is another question. In any case, being interred is not the same as being sent to prison without trial.
The 11th teenager this year was murdered as well on Sat night. Perhaps teenagers in London should be interned too.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... uth-london
I'm fairly sure that we are a long way from the emergency situation that the ECHR envisages would be necessary for internment.
There is only a politic difference between interment and prison without trial.0 -
nickice wrote:TheBigBean wrote:nickice wrote:An extreme view is an extreme view and it should be called as such.
Extreme is a relative term and weakens an argument.
It certainly is a relative term. Normal views held by one person can be deemed extreme by others. Do you think supporting the establishment of an Islamic theocracy in the UK would be considered extreme by the majority of the population?
If it was done democratically, then no problem. And if it was achieved democratically, then we would all have had a say in it.0 -
nickice wrote:
We don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a liberal democracy. The two are different. The reason liberal democracies exist is to avoid a situation where 51% of the population can vote to do whatever they like to the other 49%. It's why the US has a constitution and the UK has protections for minorities.
You might want to think more deeply about that, in the context of the Brexit vote?0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.
The 'phoney war' came after war had been declared, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say there was 'no state of total war' - the word 'total' is a bit superflous there.
Again, I don't think you understand what total war was. And ISIS have declared war on the UK. Inasmuch as a non-recognised state can anyway.
Actually, I think it's you who doesn't understand. The 'phoney war' was the 'quiet' period immediately after war was declared, while German forces were still engaged in Poland and before the BEF launched its land offensive. We were still 'at war', regardless of whether it was total war or not. Take the correction and move on.
There is no correction to be made. The term 'total war' was used by another poster and I was correcting him on a point of fact not opinion (namely that internment took place during total war and not before). As for the UK being in a state of war, we are. ISIS (who some might even call a de facto state) have declared war on the West. They have been very clear about this.0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:
We don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a liberal democracy. The two are different. The reason liberal democracies exist is to avoid a situation where 51% of the population can vote to do whatever they like to the other 49%. It's why the US has a constitution and the UK has protections for minorities.
You might want to think more deeply about that, in the context of the Brexit vote?
Not a Brexit fan but it was the Government that set the terms of the vote. A vote for Brexit was not a vote for rejection of liberal democracy in much the same way as only just winning a general election is not a rejection of liberal democracy.0 -
nickice wrote:Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:
If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.
Comparing a few mentally ill people blowing us up to the total war of WW2?
If you're against it on principle, you should always be against it. If you're not, then there must be some point where it's acceptable. And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.
And do you have any evidence at all that ISIS recruits are mentally ill?
Well, we happily band about the term nutters...Anyone who is happy to commit these kinds of acts, mass murder in cold blood, would seem to have some kind of mental issue to me.
I'm not necessarily against internment. But again, it needs to be fully thought through, and we need balance in our reactions. If we start locking up masses of UK Muslims, we will inevitably start locking up some who are innocent. We will then feed more of the "us and them" mentality.
This isn't to mention the fact that our prisons are already quite full, and the prison service is near breaking point.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:
We don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a liberal democracy. The two are different. The reason liberal democracies exist is to avoid a situation where 51% of the population can vote to do whatever they like to the other 49%. It's why the US has a constitution and the UK has protections for minorities.
You might want to think more deeply about that, in the context of the Brexit vote?
Not a Brexit fan but it was the Government that set the terms of the vote. A vote for Brexit was not a vote for rejection of liberal democracy in much the same way as only just winning a general election is not a rejection of liberal democracy.
But you just provided a perfect counter to your own claim that we live in a liberal democracy, that's all. By your own definition, we cannot therefore be living in a liberal democracy, because the Brexit result came up with precisely the kind of result that you say a liberal democracy is designed to prevent.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:nickice wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'd like to intern anyone calling for internment. The right to a fair trial is one of those British values that I think is worth fighting for.
I don't think we're there yet but the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (some may find it difficult to believe but I have an LLM in Human Rights law) does actually support internment in emergency situations. Whether we're in such a situation is another question. In any case, being interred is not the same as being sent to prison without trial.
The 11th teenager this year was murdered as well on Sat night. Perhaps teenagers in London should be interned too.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... uth-london
I'm fairly sure that we are a long way from the emergency situation that the ECHR envisages would be necessary for internment.
There is only a politic difference between interment and prison without trial.
Like I said, I don't think we're there yet but it certainly doesn't help when you compare knife deaths (something that can certainly be reduced with normal policing) to Islamic extremism which, given the scale of the problem, is very difficult to control.
Actually, we're not that far from the situation where internment would be acceptable. The internment in Northern Ireland was not found to breach some parts of the ECHR (though it did breach others especially regarding ill treatment). Like I said, I don't think we're there yet but I'd never take it off the table completely.0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:
We don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a liberal democracy. The two are different. The reason liberal democracies exist is to avoid a situation where 51% of the population can vote to do whatever they like to the other 49%. It's why the US has a constitution and the UK has protections for minorities.
You might want to think more deeply about that, in the context of the Brexit vote?
Not a Brexit fan but it was the Government that set the terms of the vote. A vote for Brexit was not a vote for rejection of liberal democracy in much the same way as only just winning a general election is not a rejection of liberal democracy.
But you just provided a perfect counter to your own claim that we live in a liberal democracy, that's all. By your own definition, we cannot therefore be living in a liberal democracy, because the Brexit result came up with precisely the kind of result that you say a liberal democracy is designed to prevent.
No, I didn't. If the vote had been a referendum on mass deportations of a minority group who were also British citizens then that would breach the idea of a liberal democracy. A vote for Brexit was a vote to leave a political union. I repeat, you don't have a clear idea of what a liberal democracy is.0 -
nickice wrote:I repeat, you don't have a clear idea of what a liberal democracy is.
I probably don't. But I think you just proved that you don't have one either. Probably because there isn't one, as your own evidence appears to demonstrate.0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I repeat, you don't have a clear idea of what a liberal democracy is.
I probably don't. But I think you just proved that you don't have one either. Probably because there isn't one, as your own evidence appears to demonstrate.
If the best you can do is to say liberal democracies don't exist, let's end this now.0 -
nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I repeat, you don't have a clear idea of what a liberal democracy is.
I probably don't. But I think you just proved that you don't have one either. Probably because there isn't one, as your own evidence appears to demonstrate.
If the best you can do is to say liberal democracies don't exist, let's end this now.
Pretty sure I didn't say that. But you seem to be struggling to define what one actually is, in as much as the first time you tried to describe one, you contradicted yourself.
Maybe just drop the word 'liberal' and move on?0 -
Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:Imposter wrote:nickice wrote:I repeat, you don't have a clear idea of what a liberal democracy is.
I probably don't. But I think you just proved that you don't have one either. Probably because there isn't one, as your own evidence appears to demonstrate.
If the best you can do is to say liberal democracies don't exist, let's end this now.
Pretty sure I didn't say that. But you seem to be struggling to define what one actually is, in as much as the first time you tried to describe one, you contradicted yourself.
Maybe just drop the word 'liberal' and move on?
What was the contradiction? Look up what it is if you don't believe me.0 -
Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:
If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.
Comparing a few mentally ill people blowing us up to the total war of WW2?
If you're against it on principle, you should always be against it. If you're not, then there must be some point where it's acceptable. And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.
And do you have any evidence at all that ISIS recruits are mentally ill?
Well, we happily band about the term nutters...Anyone who is happy to commit these kinds of acts, mass murder in cold blood, would seem to have some kind of mental issue to me.
I'm not necessarily against internment. But again, it needs to be fully thought through, and we need balance in our reactions. If we start locking up masses of UK Muslims, we will inevitably start locking up some who are innocent. We will then feed more of the "us and them" mentality.
This isn't to mention the fact that our prisons are already quite full, and the prison service is near breaking point.
So there is no evidence they're mentally ill. Thinking that only a mentally ill person would do that kind of thing is not evidence of mental illness. Do you know how many completely normal Germans participated in the mass murder of Jews in WW2? The whole 'they're just mentally ill' argument is lazy and not supported by the evidence. We call them nutters in the same way we call hard guys nutters. We're not saying they're mentally ill.0 -
nickice wrote:Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:
If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.
Comparing a few mentally ill people blowing us up to the total war of WW2?
If you're against it on principle, you should always be against it. If you're not, then there must be some point where it's acceptable. And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.
And do you have any evidence at all that ISIS recruits are mentally ill?
Well, we happily band about the term nutters...Anyone who is happy to commit these kinds of acts, mass murder in cold blood, would seem to have some kind of mental issue to me.
I'm not necessarily against internment. But again, it needs to be fully thought through, and we need balance in our reactions. If we start locking up masses of UK Muslims, we will inevitably start locking up some who are innocent. We will then feed more of the "us and them" mentality.
This isn't to mention the fact that our prisons are already quite full, and the prison service is near breaking point.
So there is no evidence they're mentally ill. Thinking that only a mentally ill person would do that kind of thing is not evidence of mental illness. Do you know how many completely normal Germans participated in the mass murder of Jews in WW2? The whole 'they're just mentally ill' argument is lazy and not supported by the evidence. We call them nutters in the same way we call hard guys nutters. We're not saying they're mentally ill.
The pitfalls of ideology. The murder of children can be 100% compatible with an ideology.0 -
Alex99 wrote:nickice wrote:Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:
If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.
Comparing a few mentally ill people blowing us up to the total war of WW2?
If you're against it on principle, you should always be against it. If you're not, then there must be some point where it's acceptable. And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.
And do you have any evidence at all that ISIS recruits are mentally ill?
Well, we happily band about the term nutters...Anyone who is happy to commit these kinds of acts, mass murder in cold blood, would seem to have some kind of mental issue to me.
I'm not necessarily against internment. But again, it needs to be fully thought through, and we need balance in our reactions. If we start locking up masses of UK Muslims, we will inevitably start locking up some who are innocent. We will then feed more of the "us and them" mentality.
This isn't to mention the fact that our prisons are already quite full, and the prison service is near breaking point.
So there is no evidence they're mentally ill. Thinking that only a mentally ill person would do that kind of thing is not evidence of mental illness. Do you know how many completely normal Germans participated in the mass murder of Jews in WW2? The whole 'they're just mentally ill' argument is lazy and not supported by the evidence. We call them nutters in the same way we call hard guys nutters. We're not saying they're mentally ill.
The pitfalls of ideology. The murder of children can be 100% compatible with an ideology.
Of course it can. We refuse to believe them because WE can't believe that anyone could believe that. This is well worth watching-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e93rcFlMAA 0 -
Imposter wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:I'm not sure there is a domestic answer to all this. Islamist ideology is a problem wherever there are muslims, a minority of them will believe in this radical ideology and a minority of that minority will be willing to carry out attacks.
That said there are some things you'd think might help which we aren't doing. Ban foreign preachers, we can't really complain about people not adopting British values if the people preaching their values to them are not British. Secondly ban faith schools, yes I know this goes far wider than the muslim community but how can we expect integration on the one hand yet segregate kids on the other. Third where some of these radicals have dual nationality strip them of their British citizenship and get rid of them, if they don't like it here then don't stay. Fourth we need to be clearer about what British values are - too many concessions made for religious belief which are not made for other beliefs and that fosters a sense of entitlement.
A major and necessary step forward towards this would be the disestablishment of the Church of England, and the separation of church and state. Good luck with that
Yes it's long overdue. We need to stop privileging religious belief and practices and that has to apply to all religions.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Imposter wrote:
You were doing so well, up to that point. So a democracy is fine, but only if it gives you the result you want? If my interpretation is wrong, then put it right.
A liberal democracy is one that ensures certain basic rights and freedoms not simply majority rules. It combines the concept of will of the people with respect for human rights and the existence of certain institutions - free press, independent judiciary etc - to ensure the outcomes broadly reflect public will whilst respecting those rights.
Being in the EU would generally not be seen as a fundamental right hence a narrow majority vote does not mean we aren't a liberal democracy.
Well you did ask.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
nickice wrote:Alex99 wrote:nickice wrote:Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:Jez mon wrote:nickice wrote:
If you support ISIS you are arguably committing treason. British fascists were interred in WW2. The reason there aren't more attacks is because the security services are foiling them all the time. Yet they continue as we can't watch everyone.
Comparing a few mentally ill people blowing us up to the total war of WW2?
If you're against it on principle, you should always be against it. If you're not, then there must be some point where it's acceptable. And, by the way, at the time of initial internment in WW2 there was no state of total war between the UK and Germany. It wasn't called 'the Phoney War' for nothing.
And do you have any evidence at all that ISIS recruits are mentally ill?
Well, we happily band about the term nutters...Anyone who is happy to commit these kinds of acts, mass murder in cold blood, would seem to have some kind of mental issue to me.
I'm not necessarily against internment. But again, it needs to be fully thought through, and we need balance in our reactions. If we start locking up masses of UK Muslims, we will inevitably start locking up some who are innocent. We will then feed more of the "us and them" mentality.
This isn't to mention the fact that our prisons are already quite full, and the prison service is near breaking point.
So there is no evidence they're mentally ill. Thinking that only a mentally ill person would do that kind of thing is not evidence of mental illness. Do you know how many completely normal Germans participated in the mass murder of Jews in WW2? The whole 'they're just mentally ill' argument is lazy and not supported by the evidence. We call them nutters in the same way we call hard guys nutters. We're not saying they're mentally ill.
The pitfalls of ideology. The murder of children can be 100% compatible with an ideology.
Of course it can. We refuse to believe them because WE can't believe that anyone could believe that. This is well worth watching-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e93rcFlMAA
Indeed, it is hard to believe. But the point keeps being made loud and clear. Also see "why we hate you and why we fight you".0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:That said there are some things you'd think might help which we aren't doing. Ban foreign preachers, we can't really complain about people not adopting British values if the people preaching their values to them are not British.
Like the Pope?0
