To not want my human rights torn up?

[futuristic1]

I thought we weren't going to let them change the way we live?

Well, haven't we got some oh-so-constructive double-thinkers here! How enlightened you are.

'Aren't you glad you have free speech? It could be taken away from you, and then what would you do?'

Oh dear. Free speech is one thing. Voicing extremist radical views is another .

The Problem: Tories cut police resources.

The Result: The people are no longer safe.

Tory Answer: Quash human rights.

There's free soeech and then there's inciting to physical acts of violence, murder and hatred. If those hate preachers returned to their country of origin or (if they were born and grew up in the Uk) emigrated to an Islamic country with Sharia Law and all that that entails, their lives would be better, surely? So, go. Just go and lead your strict religious lives elsewhere if you cannot live peacefully here in the UK under our law and order.

Where are you going to send the BNP stirrers of hatred too? 'Final Solution', 'oh that was a mistake' Katie Hopkins? No one seems able to answer this.

I suspect a few posters on this thread would welcome them into their homes with open arms Peregrina

'Aren't you glad you have free speech? It could be taken away from you, and then what would you do?'

Where do you have free speech? Certainly you dont have it on MN. Quite often comments are deleted, posters banned, threads removed. All because MN decides they dont like what is being said. We can do the same to religious extremists.

Let's not forget that human rights are not there to protect criminals from justice, they're there to protect the people from the government.

If you start letting the government (any government) chip away at the checks in place to prevent it from gaining too much power, it sets a bad precedent and potentially opens the floodgates. This is why people compare it to Nazi Germany - these are similar to the first little pebbles in the avalanche that, last time it occurred, ended in the Holocaust.

And Eleanor - you may be interested in this Atlantic article on what ISIS wants. It's from 2015 and rather long, but very illuminating.

TLDR: creating terror is part of their medieval death cult apocalypse strategy. Deport all the people you like, it won't change that part of their sick and twisted ideology.

Eleanor That seems intuitive doesn't it? That those who wish to live in a Shariah state could be free to emigrate to one? But unfortunately the aim is to implement one here, by violent and forceful means, as stated in parts of the Quran, if you choose to read it literally.

Where do you have free speech? Certainly you dont have it on MN. Quite often comments are deleted, posters banned, threads removed. All because MN decides they dont like what is being said. We can do the same to religious extremists.

Nope, free speech is your right to not have the government prevent you from or punish you for attacking it verbally. It's not the right to say whatever you want on whatever platform you choose. MN has the perfect right to delete whatever they want, because they're not the government. Free speech is the right to opinion without governmental persecution. It does not require that people listen to you.

This is why people compare it to Nazi Germany - these are similar to the first little pebbles in the avalanche that, last time it occurred, ended in the Holocaust.

It's always worth reminding ourselves too that they were an educated, cultured nation. People who we might have expected to question and not allow it to happen. But it did.

Andrew‏*@AndrewStoneman*

Can May explain which Human Rights laws prevented her acting on intelligence about terrorists involved in W/M, Mncr & L/B attacks?

Isis want to disrupt our rights, our freedoms and our democracy. 3 attacks later and May is saying lets not deal with this robustly and find out why this happened. Lets just scrap the human rights act, fundamental to our democracy. And she will be voted in tommorow. ISIS must be pissing themselves.

Free speech is the right to opinion without governmental persecution. And that is where we have been going wrong. We should not allow religious extremists free speech, they use it to kill our children. So harping on about Germany in the last century when the internet didn't even exist is just sticking your head in the sand. We need to lock up/deport religious extremists, we shouldn't have to wait until they have incited someone to kill our children.

Plinky
Thank you for posting that link, it's a really interesting article.

And that is where we have been going wrong. We should not allow religious extremists free speech, they use it to kill our children.

I totally agree, and that's why we do have limits to free speech - hate speech laws. All that shouting fire in a crowded theatre stuff.

It's not that we don't have the powers to deal with these people - we do - we don't have the resources, as has been pointed out many times on this thread. And the blame lies firmly at Theresa's feet.

I think so too Pentapus, answered a lot of questions I had!

I'm sure I could write a piece on the idea of 'enough is enough' and the 'instant society'.

We don't have much patience in politics nor in long term political thinking in the UK in 2017.

The UK and US are world leaders in the 'instant society'. Where things happen just like that, and things are black and white and can be solved by amazingly simple solutions.

If only.

As for extremism, violence behaviour is already illegal, last time I checked. They are designated as terrorist groups. Indeed many Islamic extremist groups are already proscribed for promoting violence.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/612076/20170503_Proscription.pdf]]

This comes under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Section 1. –
^(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),^
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial][3] or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

It's not that we don't have the powers to deal with these people
Its exactly like we dont have the power to deal with these people, there are extremist Imams going into mosques and preaching. They should be banned, but they are able to skirt around the edge of the law and so evade breaking it. Which is why we need to make the law stricter.

1. Someone earlier said deport/arrest all the imams. So are you saying ALL Muslim religious leaders are ISIS?

1. Where and how do you deport British people?

1. Why can no one Tory admit the size of police cuts contributed to the terror situation? I'd have so much more respect if they admitted they'd cocked up. But they won't. They actually intend to cut more. There's another 17% cut planned for the Met next year. Whilst CT departments in the police have more funding, unfortunately as their officers are simply officers from the same force posted to that department, the low numbers on frontline everyday threat to life means CT can't be fully staffed. Also, CT relies on so many 'normal' crimes - nothing in the police happens in isolation. Despite experienced police officer warnings they kept doing it. And they'll carry on because it is ideology and not what is best for ALL the people.

Which is why we need to make the law stricter.

What laws are you calling for?

1. Someone earlier said deport/arrest all the imams. So are you saying ALL Muslim religious leaders are ISIS? Nope.

2. Where and how do you deport British people?
You deport non British extremists, with house arrest etc for the British extremists.

3. Why can no one Tory admit the size of police cuts contributed to the terror situation?

When someone proves a link between the terror situation and police numbers.

What laws are you calling for?
I would like to see laws making it easier and faster to deport/detain etc anyone preaching or spreading in any way extreme religious views or views that could lead to extreme religious views. Not just the views that spread hatred or attempt to incite violence.

I would like to see laws making it easier and faster to deport/detain etc anyone preaching or spreading in any way extreme religious views or views that could lead to extreme religious views.

Could you explain what you mean by extreme religious views and how they differ from those that spread hatred or incite violence?