Should terrorist religious fanatics be allowed to settle within the UK

[talltim]

That looks like you've tried to adapt Martin Niemöller's famous 'First They Came' confessional about not speaking out when the Nazi's successively persecuted certain groups.

But surely you're not comparing loss of EU freedom of movement to persecution?

Your second point looks to me to be based on an outright falsehood since we have self-evidently not lost our right to protest (as evidenced for example by the frequency with which you and others protest against the Government on these very forums, or by the go-slow protest against fuel duties that is taking place today as I write this on some motorways).

Your third point looks to me like pure scaremongering since (unless there is something unusual about your life that I'm not aware of) no-one is proposing to take away your liberty.



I believe you are correct on that point. According to The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/isis-beatle-aine-davis-will-be-returned-to-brit

 

[Dent]

Your second point looks to me to be based on an outright falsehood since we have self-evidently not lost our right to protest (as evidenced for example by the frequency with which you and others protest against the Government on these very forums, or by the go-slow protest against fuel duties that is taking place today as I write this on some motorways).

Posting on this forum, which the relevant people in the government are extremely unlikely to even read, is hardly an effective means of pretest. People have already been arrested in an attempt to stifle the fuel protest.

 

[BrokenSam]

One for the human rights lawyers I think, they will be all over it if the authorities try to take action to manage the risk this individual poses. Remember, his right to a family life will trump your right not to be killed by him.

I'd put down the Daily Mail mate. Read Secret Barrister books and educate yourself.

 

[najaB]

I don't think you can go around revoking citizenship, regardless of how severe the crime is.

Citizenship can be revoked, what governments aren't allowed to do is make someone stateless.

So a dual UK-[insert other country] citizen can have their UK citizenship revoked if they already have citizenship of another country. What is slightly less clear is if it okay to revoke UK citizenship based on potential citizenship of another country. Most people agree that it is allowed if there is an inviolate right to citizenship of that other country, even if they haven't already claimed it.

The Shamima Begum case is, almost certainly, a violation of international law (though, only in a specific and very limited way) - the UK has stripped her of citizenship on the grounds that she might be eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship by descent, despite being born and raised in England. The key point here though is that she doesn't has to apply for citizenship and Bangladesh has (AFAIK) declined that application.

 

[nw1]

The ways you are allowed to protest have very much been curtailed recently. And not only limited, but left up to the whims of the Home Secretary.

I suspect that if there was an anti-government, anti-austerity or pro-immigration protest, more police would be in attendance than if there was an anti-Labour or anti-immigration protest.

Really, we need someone bland and middle of the road as the Home Secretary, more than any other cabinet position. Of all the cabinet roles, it seems to me, the one most open to abuse and the personal prejudices of the post holder influencing the laws of the land. And this applies whatever government is in power.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Posting on this forum, which the relevant people in the government are extremely unlikely to even read, is hardly an effective means of pretest.

But it is a form of protest, and so gives the lie to those ridiculous (but oft repeated) statements along the lines of that the Government has somehow destroyed our right to protest. There are many authoritarian countries across the World where expressing opinions on public forums in the way that is the norm here on this forum would quickly result in either the authorities removing the posts or the people who wrote them being tracked down and arrested: That is what it really means when you have no right to protest. Thankfully the situation in the UK is totally different because free speech is embedded in our culture and generally completely respected by the Government and our institutions.

Besides, posting here is a way of convincing others of your point of view, and therefore of making a small contribution to eventually effecting change, or to persuading other people to change how they vote the next time there's an election.

People have already been arrested in an attempt to stifle the fuel protest.

Yes, I did wonder when I mentioned about the fuel protests whether that was a good example, since it was bordering on whether that was a legitimate protest type. For me the key thing is, are you primarily trying to get your point across (while being considerate to other people who happen to be in the area) or are you primarily just disrupting other people's lives. The former is fine and should not generally be restricted, the latter is not OK, to my mind is not a legitimate form of protest, and is what the measures in the Police, Crime and Sentencing Bill seems to have been aimed at. With hindsight, I think the motorway go-slow largely falls into the latter category - the protesters are basically deliberately stopping other people from going about their lives.

I think you're misinterpreting the police's actions when you say 'to stifle the fuel protest' - the arrests aren't to stop people protesting per se: They are to stop people from disrupting the motorway.

 

[talltim]

Steve Bray was affected on the first day the bill came into law. He might be a bit annoying, but he doesn’t stop anyone doing anything.

 

[kristiang85]

educate yourself.

I must say, this is one of the most unhelpful phrases in modern discourse, as at the same time it manages to make the writer look both condescending and not willing/unable to put forward their argument, and basically saying 'only read what I think you should agree with'. I know this might not be not what you intended, but the phrase has become so oversaturated it really adds nothing to any argument.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people in the country have the feeling that the human rights laws kowtow to criminals more often than not, and as it sounds like you have some knowledge on the subject, surely its better to post some examples. Otherwise we just end up in this spiral of social media hysteria (because no real information is ever offered) and end up with extremist politics on either side when it comes to voting.

 

[najaB]

But it is a form of protest, and so gives the lie to those ridiculous (but oft repeated) statements along the lines of that the Government has somehow destroyed our right to protest.

Again... nobody notices the salami is smaller after the first slice is cut.

 

[rapmastaj]

But it is a form of protest

You're right, in China or North Korea, even posting freely on a forum like this would not be possible. There are certainly countries that are much more authoritarian than the UK. But the only way we have gained rights is by fighting for them. If we wait until the situation here gets as bad as it is in China before speaking out in defence of our rights it will be far too late.

 

[jon0844]

You're right, in China or North Korea, even posting freely on a forum like this would not be possible. There are certainly countries that are much more authoritarian than the UK. But the only way we have gained rights is by fighting for them. If we wait until the situation here gets as bad as it is in China before speaking out in defence of our rights it will be far too late.

Isn't it great that the Government might soon be able to see if we're on this forum, as every ISP will be forced to keep detailed Internet usage in case a bunch of agencies ask for it.

And, yes, you can use a VPN - but there are already stories of some ISPs actively seeking to block VPNs - as in, if one is detected then you'll have your connectivity blocked. If that becomes the norm, I wonder what people will think of that?

 

[BrokenSam]

I must say, this is one of the most unhelpful phrases in modern discourse, as at the same time it manages to make the writer look both condescending and not willing/unable to put forward their argument, and basically saying 'only read what I think you should agree with'. I know this might not be not what you intended, but the phrase has become so oversaturated it really adds nothing to any argument.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people in the country have the feeling that the human rights laws kowtow to criminals more often than not, and as it sounds like you have some knowledge on the subject, surely its better to post some examples. Otherwise we just end up in this spiral of social media hysteria (because no real information is ever offered) and end up with extremist politics on either side when it comes to voting.

Why would I put forward my argument when far smarter people like the Secret Barrister can who knows far more about the subject matter than you or I?

I suggest if people really wanted the answer they would look for it. Just smells of reinforcing prejudice.

 

[AlterEgo]

He’s now been arrested and charged with “terrorism offences” several weeks after his return. It’ll be interesting to see exactly what he is accused of and how long the case takes.

IS 'Beatle' Aine Davis charged with terrorism offences after returning to UK | ITV News

Aine Davis, who was allegedly a member of an Islamic State cell known as The Beatles, has been charged with terrorism offences. | ITV National News

www.itv.com