Van hits 6 on London bridge.

[Ambarii]

Either way it's still bad, and an incredibly dangerous precedent.

Considering all the things I think of on a regular basis and DON'T do because I'm not stupid, pretty sure most of us would go to jail if thoughts were a way to be someone that commits a crime.

No one suggested that thoughts should be a crime. I am, however, suggesting that self-decalred jihadists and other extremists that espouse violent rhetoric be put in prison.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Considering all the things I think of on a regular basis and DON'T do because I'm not stupid, pretty sure most of us would go to jail if thoughts were a way to be someone that commits a crime.

No one suggested that thoughts should be a crime. I am, however, suggesting that self-decalred jihadists and other extremists that espouse violent rhetoric be put in prison.

I thought Britain already did this.

[Mattopilos II]

Yes and no... there is a point where you basically get into 1984 territory for the sake of "preventative measures". They can do more, but what out of those options will be most constructive in the future?
And yeah, that is a fair point. Kinda hard to stop a car like you can a man running at you and being noticeable. I mean, you can stop the car, but that will cost lives, maybe even more than waiting for them to blunder and crash.

None, almost none of the "preventative measures" work, short of the old school infiltrate and destroy measures that domestic intelligence agencies still do.

But Britain does not fight the ideological battle. Many in Britain, and the British State itself, are content with the rise of Islamic conservatism in their communities, because that's the "tolerant" thing to believe in and whatever.

I think there is a problem with the form of "tolerance" they suggest there. They fail to act on the most vulnerable people to radicalization (second gen. Muslims), they fail to integrate them into the local community and culture (thinking letting them have any laws they want is fine), and so on. Their 'tolerance' is some destructive and useless form, where Muslims have to literally recreate their old culture to live there... that speaks of failures in their system.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No one suggested that thoughts should be a crime. I am, however, suggesting that self-decalred jihadists and other extremists that espouse violent rhetoric be put in prison.

I thought Britain already did this.

Only if they're Irish Catholic

[The Greater Aryan Race]

But if you actively plot to cause death and disorder in contravention of the existing constitutional order, have you not already cut yourself off from society and made yourself an enemy?

I don't know about the U.K., but in the US conspiracy crimes are a thing.

The UK used to have criminal conspiracy as a common law offence but since the Criminal Law Act 1977, only two forms of conspiracy have been retained: conspiracy to defraud, and that of conspiracy to corrupt public morals or to outrage public decency. Otherwise,attempted terrorism as an offence remains governed by the common law on attempts (which is seriously problematic enough already).

If there is to be a new criminal conspiracy offence for terrorism, Parliament must legislate accordingly.

But if you actively plot to cause death and disorder in contravention of the existing constitutional order, have you not already cut yourself off from society and made yourself an enemy?

You do realize any sort of law like this could easily be abused to discriminate against all Muslims, right?

All Muslims? Come now, if the government tried to use such a law to justify some sort of nationwide discriminatory campaign against Muslims only, it would be to their detriment. And no one in Parliament or the Cabinet is stupid enough (yet) to even contemplate targeting Muslims only, I'm all for new and revamped criminal laws that apply to all forms of religious violence, not just Islam or any other single faith.

[Olerand]

None, almost none of the "preventative measures" work, short of the old school infiltrate and destroy measures that domestic intelligence agencies still do.

But Britain does not fight the ideological battle. Many in Britain, and the British State itself, are content with the rise of Islamic conservatism in their communities, because that's the "tolerant" thing to believe in and whatever.

I think there is a problem with the form of "tolerance" they suggest there. They fail to act on the most vulnerable people to radicalization (second gen. Muslims), they fail to integrate them into the local community and culture (thinking letting them have any laws they want is fine), and so on. Their 'tolerance' is some destructive and useless form, where Muslims have to literally recreate their old culture to live there... that speaks of failures in their system.

And yet... Granted, Britain does now more than it used to do in the 1990s and early 2000s, but it's still far from really grasping the problem and resolving itself to doing something.

[Alizeria]

Here we go again. Enoch was right.

[Nakena]

You do realize any sort of law like this could easily be abused to discriminate against all Muslims, right?

Hypothetically speaking, how many dead and wounded before that gets put on the table?

A lot. The problem of the west with radical islamism (and islam as a whole) lies in it's widespread inability to understand that there are people on this world who are fundamentally different wired and are not be delighted by western freedom, lifestyle and neither appeased by multiculturalism.

All their measures that have been deployed so far are ultimatively being shaped by this underlaying way of thought. The next level are then knee-jerk reactions about islam as a whole, which are in fact more than anything else a sign of ideology failure.

Here we go again. Enoch was right.

This.^^

[Mattopilos II]

Here we go again. Enoch was right.

Do you mind elaborating for those not exactly well read on this "Enoch"?

[Ambarii]

No one suggested that thoughts should be a crime. I am, however, suggesting that self-decalred jihadists and other extremists that espouse violent rhetoric be put in prison.

I thought Britain already did this.

To a very minor extent. This is primarily due to a lack of surveillance. I would like the government to do more about cracking down on jihadists. I'd also like to see this happen in other places besides Britain.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And how is that?

Do you really not see how your idea could very quickly spiral out of control?

Who decides what extremism is? How long are they incarcerated? Does it only apply to Islam or does it apply to other religions as well? What about extreme political positions like those on the far right and far left?

There's a fucking huge potential for abuse there.

Reposting in case it got lost with the bottom page.

[Kubra]

With the current political environment, I would have to agree. There is a tug-of-war there politically that is hurting the possibility of Muslim integration into society, as well as preventative measures from radical acts of violence from religious extremists.

Not exactly what I meant. I meant more along the lines of it is extremely difficult to find and foil terrorist attacks that utilize such "rudimentary" measures as driving a car into a crowd, or knifing people on the street.

Britain can certainly do more against its home grown Islamists and the increasing radicalization, fundamentalism, and conservatism that is arising in its Muslim communities.

idk man I mean people like to call britain a surveillance state but not looking at a young male who travelled alone to Libya is a pretty serious oversight
like the dude could be named Sir Douglas Melville III but if he under 30 and going to Libya without being employed by VICE it sends a bit of a message

[Olerand]

I don't know about the U.K., but in the US conspiracy crimes are a thing.

The UK used to have criminal conspiracy as a common law offence but since the Criminal Law Act 1977, only two forms of conspiracy have been retained: conspiracy to defraud, and that of conspiracy to corrupt public morals or to outrage public decency. Otherwise,attempted terrorism as an offence remains governed by the common law on attempts (which is seriously problematic enough already).

If there is to be a new criminal conspiracy offence for terrorism, Parliament must legislate accordingly.

That's really funny. The UK still has a law against corrupting public morals and outraging public decency, but doesn't have one against promoting/excusing terrorism. Very... Quaint.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Wonder what the future holds, it doesn't look good to me.

[Mattopilos II]

Wonder what the future holds, it doesn't look good to me.

That hold for the present.

[Olerand]

Here we go again. Enoch was right.

Do you mind elaborating for those not exactly well read on this "Enoch"?

Enoch Powell was a Conservative politician whose career effectively ended in the late 1960s when he made a speech commonly known as the "Rivers of Blood" which predicted the rise of conflict and bloodshed from continued immigration to the United Kingdom.

[Mattopilos II]

Do you mind elaborating for those not exactly well read on this "Enoch"?

Enoch Powell was a Conservative politician whose career effectively ended in the late 1960s when he made a speech commonly known as the "Rivers of Blood" which predicted the rise of conflict and bloodshed from continued immigration to the United Kingdom.

Sounds like an edgy dude.

[Australian rePublic]

Race or ethnicity doesn't matter. The religion of these scumbags is Islam. They were Muslims. The problem here is Islamic findamebtalism

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Here we go again. Enoch was right.

Do you mind elaborating for those not exactly well read on this "Enoch"?

im assuming the white supremacist blogger

[Kubra]

Race or ethnicity doesn't matter. The religion of these scumbags is Islam. They were Muslims. The problem here is Islamic findamebtalism

the meme doesn't work if you don't use fefe

[Olerand]

Enoch Powell was a Conservative politician whose career effectively ended in the late 1960s when he made a speech commonly known as the "Rivers of Blood" which predicted the rise of conflict and bloodshed from continued immigration to the United Kingdom.

Sounds like an edgy dude.

He was 56 when he made that speech. Quite a few decades past the "edgy" stage of life.

[Mattopilos II]

Race or ethnicity doesn't matter. The religion of these scumbags is Islam. They were Muslims. The problem here is Islamic findamebtalism

Race does matter. Ethnicity does matter. Religion does matter. They all fucking matter.

[Mattopilos II]

Sounds like an edgy dude.

He was 56 when he made that speech. Quite a few decades past the "edgy" stage of life.

Oh... so into the grumpy old man stage of life.

[Corrian]

Wonder what the future holds, it doesn't look good to me.

It will be like always. There will likely be a real shitty period, things will get better for a while, then it will all go to shit again a few decades from now due to the next crisis.

[Olerand]

Not exactly what I meant. I meant more along the lines of it is extremely difficult to find and foil terrorist attacks that utilize such "rudimentary" measures as driving a car into a crowd, or knifing people on the street.

Britain can certainly do more against its home grown Islamists and the increasing radicalization, fundamentalism, and conservatism that is arising in its Muslim communities.

idk man I mean people like to call britain a surveillance state but not looking at a young male who travelled alone to Libya is a pretty serious oversight
like the dude could be named Sir Douglas Melville III but if he under 30 and going to Libya without being employed by VICE it sends a bit of a message

Mhm.

Do you mind elaborating for those not exactly well read on this "Enoch"?

im assuming the white supremacist blogger

Who? I thought they meant Enoch Powell.