IRGC - has the UK determined they are a terrorist organisation?

You mean they got it right on this in your opinion? Do you think your opinion is the only opinion which counts and everyone should fall in line?! As you know, there are many opinions out there and you seem to be backing shutting down discussion.

Anyway - your comment about the bill - can you link the draft bill/your sources?

And yes the UN is supposed to be neutral!! Not so very weird. In fact, I don't think it is either, sadly, but it is supposed to be.

You have very strong views about something you don't have any real information about, is that what you are saying? About a situation you don't yourself fully understand? You think it is "right" but you are not sure what exactly the position is as you haven't seen the draft bill, you are relying on a media report?

Do you fully support "new criminal offences for people who “support, assist and obtain material benefits” from groups formally listed as state-supported threats" as per your highlighted wording? The Oxford student I was referring to is Arwa Elrayess - she also says she has faced harassment because of incorrect reporting about what she actually said, as well as the reports says she is now facing criminal action. I didn't say I couldn't be bothered - I said that I didn't have her name to hand.

I think a bit of caution is needed, and that the baby is not thrown out with the bath water. Remember the UK legitimised the NI terrorists for example - yet now we'd be looking at criminal charges for anyone who said that British soldiers should leave NI? It isn't as black and white as you think, I don't think.

I have now seen Sharon's comment and replied. I hadn't seen it before. Are you going to respond to my other comments, about the IRGC and Iran? Because what you and Sharon are saying doesn't make much sense given Iran's stated role and position and how the IRGC fits with that. I asked for a link to the draft bill, that might make better sense.

The student - you will need to google the name as I don't have it to hand - I am surprised you haven't heard of it - I read it as a news piece online.

Sharon didn't say any of that, I dont think, unless I missed it? I think that Iran has said openly that it has backed Hezbollah, and the IRGC is basically the military arm in Iran, acting in accordance with Iran's laws and to defend Iran - and that Iran only acts in defence by law. And the same thing applies - will the UK seek to proscribe all state backed groups of other states, applying objective criteria?

Apparently there is an Oxford student who is Palestinian who has said that Hamas was defending Palestine against Israel, and this student is now apparently going to be taken to court under anti terrorist legislation. When I was at university most history/politics students I knew were socialist/communist/supported revolutionaries/etc - they were able to debate their opinions - they ironically mostly went on to work in well paid jobs and left behind the idealism or changed their minds. It was a rite of passage. Why the fear now about students debating these issues? Do you think it is a positive thing that students are taken to court instead of the university asking them to rein it in when it gets out of hand?

Do you not think the expert in the linked video might have a point?

In my day, terrorist were civilians who blew up vehicles and buildings to use terror to get politics to change. The problem with countries proscribing other countries is that the proscribing gets caught up in making partisan alliances, which, we know from history, often leads to world wars.

Also, if you set completely objective criteria you might well find yourself having to proscribe a lot more countries than origiinally intended. And to be completely independent about all this, you should really have a neutral third party doing the proscribing - along the lines of a UN sort of entity.

If your know your history, alliances/proscribing type behaviour led to wwi and wwII, along similar lines. George Orwell wrote about this sort of thing in Homage to Catalonia, and Ponsonby in relation to wwI, they both also said that not everything in the media is necessarily true.

If you think the end justifies the means without limit and you think it is worth having armed conflict across the globe, then I can see why you might support it all without question. If not, as I said, i think the expert had a point.

Not related to this thread, but do you think that the EU has got it right in relation to everything?

Great news, finally in line with a large number of other countries.

Great news that the IRGC will shortly be a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK as well as the EU, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Israel, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, the United States, Honduras and the Dominican Republic.

Agreed. It's a big step that this Tackling State Threats Bill can get passed in the next Parliament - about time we in the UK caught up with the EU.

I've not seen the speech but tackling terrorism and the promotion of hatred must be one of the most important things to tackle.

A key measure outlined in the King's speech today is the Tackling State Threats Bill which contains new powers to ban state-linked groups such as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clypj215wgpo

Bloody quicker than the Tories managed it.