This is a really, really good thread by Dennis Kavanagh setting out why recent events resemble nascent terrorism:
twitter.com/jebadoo2/status/1616931012268937216?s=46&t=Y33w2yeBdzDFDImXXD48cA
"Shall we just see where we are members of the jury?
(i) A sign calling for the decapitation of "terfs" with MPs posing in front of it, they now claim to be unaware of such
(ii) A tweet calling for a car to drive into a group of women meeting to exercise freedom of speech
(ii.Cont.) Said women have now been advised of the need for private security in consequence of that threat
(iii) The author of said threat entertains what appear to be violent misogynist fantasies about killing a children's author and a sitting MP (female of course)
(iv) An SNP MP asked if intimidation of a labour MP was acceptable or if she felt any sympathy - answer "no"
(v) A Labour male MP spitting rage at another female MP to the point the speaker had to tell him to calm down
(vi) Said male MP then crossed the chamber to sit proximate to the female conservative MP in question to the point a male conservative MP was moved to sit near her as he interpreted this as an aggressive invasion of her space in a debate, ironically, about such issues
(vii) Male MP along with colleagues then attends a demo sharing a platform with a person convicted of serious violent matters.
(vii) Meanwhile lawful gatherings of women frequently attract balaclava clad persons with threatening signs
(viii) Such gatherings are occasionally marked by said persons allegedly possessing knives (Brighton) who are then arrested
(ix) The extremist ideology associated with said persons frequently posts violent memes and threats on social media particularly directed towards women
(x) Ideology also used dehumanising language such as "terfs" and, like a religion, construes any disagreement as "hate"
Member of the jury may regard the above as far beyond the embryonic indications of a a violent extremist force, my suggestion is that this is nascent terrorism. I say that because, properly analysed, there is no other description for three reasons thus:
1 - A terrorist will use or threaten violence to terrify people into compliance or frighten them out of public discourse. Their intention is to wield fear as a weapon in order to obtain silence or compliance. We have unanswerable evidence this is the case here.
2 - A terrorist operates on the belief their god/values/cause is so morally superior to any dissent it cannot be questioned and opposition must be crushed and treated as hate/heresy. That is true here you may think.
3 - A terrorist cannot accept the normal functioning of democracy, the use of proper legislation, like s.35, or public votes or free speech. They subvert normal parliamentary procedures and frighten MPs by their snarling or spitting or take to the streets threatening decapitation
In consequence, you may have little difficulty in concluding that these 10 examples are not a coincidence, they are a malign constellation, 10 things related to one truly despicable idea which must be defeated.
They are evidence of nascent terrorism."