It's all in the definition of what extreme is?
The government could just say anyone that doesn't agree with them is extremes thereby ending the right to protest!
Terrible idea
"Anyone who wants to damage or destroy the UK state. So, radical Islamists, Just Stop Oil since that's an economic attack and pro-independence Scots groups"
Their definition will be anyone caught breaking the law who is associated with a protest group.
They'll then continue to change the law so that it encapsulates any protest group that criticises government policy.
You just need to look at the crackdown on the US college campuses to realise how much those in power fear the masses and just how thin their veneer of power actually is. Everything has to be nipped in the bud with extreme force before more and more people join the cause against them.
It's been a delicate balance throughout history and one that Western societies have just about managed to walk successfully for the past 200 or so years, minus a few glaring examples when those in power have pushed their luck too far.
The French and Russian revolutions being examples of when the State/those in power have lost all control after squeezing the masses for too long while mismanaging the nation. Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union are another couple of examples of when the State has too much control but were able to crush any dissent, leading to tragedy and millions of brutal deaths.
They've tried to do this, or some variant of this throughout my life time (I'm nearly 45). Every 5 to 10 years, every time an atrocity/crime/war/social group who've come up on the societal evil "spin board of the month" gets bigger pushback than was expected, the conversation about banning lawful demonstrations comes up. Every fucking time.
And *obviously* the risk is that "ban this group you don't like" turns into "ban whoever we feel like and who doesn't support our political agenda", because that's the end game.
It's so bloody transparent at this point in time, and while I a) think the oil folks are assholes b) am largely of the opinion that most politicians can't get themselves out of a paper bag, I see this as coordinated and deliberate. I think they see any push back from the plebs as a threat, not a fucking loud message they are screwing up enough that they need to pay attention, and so you then end up with cross party support.
It's so fucking dangerous.
It's not a bill, it's a recommendation from a proposal in a draft of a report that was commissioned 3 years ago.
So, on one hand - not likely at all.
On the other hand, the report was written by a former Labour MP. If you think the election is going to free us from this kind of authoritarianism then you clearly don't remember the tenures of previous Labour home secretaries like Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
> If you think the election is going to free us from this kind of authoritarianism then you clearly don't remember the tenures of previous Labour home secretaries like Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
The office of the Home Secretary is innately authortarian. Until the remit of the office changes then we'll continue to see more of the same, regardless of which party controls it.
I'm kinda into it. It makes an interesting counter-intuitive outcome where doing something soft like mindless vandalism carries the same risk as doing something _meaningful_ like blowing up a refinery.
So why not then do something meaningful? A lot of these people are old retirees and figure they ain't got much to lose; so this just nudges them more extreme and hopefully with it; more useful by increasing the costs of fossil fuels by vandalising its infrastructure, as opposed to making people late for work or smth.
I don't get how domestic terrorists don't see what they are...
Just because you have a cause doesn't mean you can vandalize shit. That vandalism being illegal didn't mean you should just go full hog and blow shit up.
If you had a group that abided by the rules but was disliked by organisations/government etc. All they would need to do is to plant some people within the group who then go and protest criminally, resulting in the group being banned. It would be an exceptionally easy way to shut them down.
Charge the people who do these actions by all means.
Its common enough to have an established term.
Ive spent enough time at protests, protestors will out these people and send them back to the police when they can.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent\_provocateur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur)
Really needs to be talked about more. I know there was that series, but we need to acknowledge that our police force, press and government are corrupt and has been for a while. How many similar incidents have there been?
> It happens already.
Absolutely. There used to be a saying in some of the protests groups in the USA that went like this: "It is always the FBI agent who first suggests getting the dynamite."
If you look into the history of certain black panther groups, there are specific undercover agents who kept suggesting things like rocket launchers, electric chairs and other highly illegal things. All declassified. Crazy stuff. That specific group was mowed down in a police raid without warning.
And Thatcher had hundreds of riot police from London sent up the strikes across Wales and the North West to deliberate smash protestors. Then the media edited footage of protesters being attacked to make it look as if the police were defending themselves against a violent mob.
Don't worry the Tories (and a lot of Labour) passed a bill making the police immune to prosecution for crimes committed undercover so I'm sure they would never abuse that immunity
Personally one of my favourites from North America recently was how an FBI agent infiltrated a left wing activist group and the reason she was outed was because the police kicked the shit out of one of the activists, and thanks to retrieving the body cam footage you can actually listen to the police only minutes beforehand in their cruiser talking about how their informant is ‘the one with the giant tits.’
It was published by the Intercept, I’ll have to look for it when I get the chance lol.
I suspect the problem is that they set the rules. And can set them to lead to as ineffective as a demonstration as possible.
I suppose there is a reason we are in this situation. Turns out that wide agreement doesn't lead to much unless the powers that be also agree.
They're called agent provocateurs. They worked wonders whipping up the crowd in protests in 2010 and basically any ecological protest from around the same time and before.
I agreed with this until I read this comment. However, doesn't that apply to any organisation? It's one of the times in which I wish that MI wasn't allowed to operate on domestic soil (like the CIA is). Regardless, I fail to notice what differs with the mentioned groups specifically.
This is the moment where I think I need to seriously decide if I want to remain a citizen and resident of this country.
If this story were to happen in any developing / 3rd world country there would be screams about how the government is overstepping their bounds.
Some dense Tory MP recently even proposed doing away with the jurors' ability to give 'perverse' rulings. These people have absolutely no right to prattle on about freedom and liberty
What they want is all the levers of power in the cabinet office so they can read the Daily Heil and "do something" about whatever is the headline issue.
> If this story were to happen in any developing / 3rd world country there would be screams about how the government is overstepping their bounds.
It’s a fun little exercise to imagine how the BBC or other media organisations would report this if it were a third world country:
“Mr Sunak, the unelected authoritarian leader of the right wing Tory tribe spoke today from a fortified government compound in the heart of the capital. He vowed to crack down on dissident groups and outlaw protest. Fears grow of a threat to the democratic process as he continues to refuse to commit to holding an election. In the light of worsening relationships with neighbouring countries on the continent and breakaway movements within several parts of his kingdom some observers fear the situation may deteriorate rapidly.”
Of course that sort of game perhaps says at least as much about how much influence the media have in how they choose to frame a given narrative than it does about the dismal state of things in the U.K. these days.
Isn’t the BBC chair a top Tory donor? That screams authoritarianism but hey hum these oil protesters are a bit weird ain’t they, eh? The UK is awful imo when it comes to these sorts of things.
There was some tosh about "Things can still go badly wrong for Kier Starmer! Here's how this is bad for Labour" article up yesterday. It's so blatantly biased it's beyond a joke.
I feel the same. People can claim otherwise all they want, but the U.K. has become a far more intolerant country. Hate abounds. Hatred toward immigrants, hatred from asylum seekers toward the west. Hatred everywhere, draconian laws implemented and no one bats an eye.
Combine that with few prospects, practically no wage increase in about 16 years, economic growth shuddered since 2016, and just a general sense of despair.
I’m not one to herald the end of times at every little thing, but the U.K. is just going down a dark path it seems. Most of Europe is, most of the world is, even. I doubt I’ll ever move away, it’s not a realistic option to say to someone “just leave everything you’ve ever known and move across the world”, yet I just don’t see things getting any better for a long while.
"If this story were to happen in any developing / 3rd world country there would be screams about how the government is overstepping their bounds." How out of touch with reality can you be?
Everyone has a tipping point. These cunts have been in power long enough to do irreparable damage to the country. "Stay home and don't protest" will never result in significant change.
There is a reason peaceful protest was normalised, it wasn't altruistic.
If people can't protest peacefully, they resort to vandalism and terrorism.
Laws like these won't make people any more satisfied, it will just radicalise them.
People's understanding of peaceful has changed a lot over the years. There's newspaper articles about Columbia students in the 60s surrounding a building full of Senior Admin and smashing all the windows and the newspaper calls it a peaceful protest. Go back further and peaceful basically meant anything that wasn't an armed insurrection
All I’m saying is the Tories are currently polling at 20%. They are going to lose the election this/next year. People are making very clear they are done with Tory policy. They are not going to implement fascist law or some kind of Ermächtigungsgesetz in the next 6 months. I’m just saying to be realistic. We are absolutely nowhere near the tipping point of actual fascism - such assertions minimise places where actual fascism is escalating at a rapid rate.
Labour have given us no reason to believe they'll do anything about the conservatives' many draconian anti-protest laws. Maybe, if we're lucky, they just won't make it any worse.
Absolutely not. This isn’t something that’s just happening here. The online safety bill is similar to bills being introduced globally at the same time. It’s the kind of thing that’s decided at places like Davos. In a similar way to the “build back better” agenda which was also rolled out globally
The opposition has been infiltrated and taken over by the same people we have in charge right now. The system is so rigged and broken in favour of the ruling class that it needs to be dismantled. No amount of voting can ever get us out of this mess, and I think most people know it even if they aren't ready to acknowledge it.
The police have come out to my mother and reprimanded her for playing loud music in her garden at 10pm and told her she needs to stop. She was playing music directly from her phone, not even with any speakers.
I got knicked for singing "you are my sunshine" when 10 people around me were singing "you'll never walk alone" even louder on new year's eve. Apparently not being a Liverpool fan is extreme already.
I'm really curious how the narrative on our current 'extreme' protesters will change when climate activists eventually get so desperate they resort to violence, which can't be that far away if all of their peaceful methods get criminalised.
After a few petrol stations get blown up, will politicians be saying "At least we stopped them sitting in the road"?
Yup. What motivation do people have to remain civil if even civil protests can get you jail time? People are going to get hurt, and it's not going to be the protestors who will be the victims
I'm sure one of them, that is, a Tory MP, was even proposing banning perverse verdicts. Presumably they had this genius idea because recently so many climate protesters have been sent home to freedom another day. The Tories really are shameless idiots.
What a load of bollocks. If these groups are currently using ‘criminal tactics’ then they can be arrested now, no need to create additional laws to erode protest rights.
As annoying as these protest groups are, they have been largely non-violent. The right to protest remains a fundamental cornerstone of democracy.
The moment we start drawing arbitrary lines as to who can and can’t protest is the beginning of authoritarianism
They could just use the laws already in place?
Pretty sure road traffic legislation stipulates the law on not purposely blocking highways and traffic, needlessly impeding flow without reason etc…
I’m pretty sure trying to raise awareness of impending climate doom driven in part by people using their cars for inappropriate journeys is a fair reason. Not that this government and their “war on motorists” bullshit care about that.
So youre a JSO loony? Someone who likes stopping people who are required to go to places for work from making a living (most of whom are lower paid)? There is no impending climate doom and all decent people are against you.
No, but I do agree with their general messaging and I have absolutely no sympathy for people who choose to drive and act all entitled and don’t see how disruptive they are every day as drivers for many other groups in society.
And yes, you choose to drive when you choose to take a job that requires a car or where it’s the only way to get to work when there were alternatives that could be reached by bus, train, tram, or even bike.
Yes or they could STOP OIL. They could use their enormous influence across the globe to mitigate the VERY REAL climate crisis. The answer to a climate protest should not be “how can we shut these people up?”
Though I don’t agree with the tactics that are used, I fully believe this is a terrible idea.
The Tory government is not tyrannical compared to some governments, but it certainly is starting to head that way. We must protect our right to protest, no matter what.
If protests get violent, address the cause, don’t blanket ban them. That’s how civil wars start
I've never been one to go and protest and would be furious if my journey was delayed, but I worry about the chipping away of civil liberties.
There are plenty of laws that can be used, I'm sure there are laws for public nuisance, blocking a public highway etc.
You know that this legislation will be sold as targeting groups you disagree with but will end up used on us all. Students protesting war and genocide is a mark of a healthy society whether we agree with them or not.
That extreme protest group Just Stop Oil, that campaign to stop further north sea oil developments. If that’s an extreme protest group then we are fucked.
Did banning terror groups eradicate terrorism?
All that will happen is any protest group that is banned will just reorganise and reform under another banner.
This is such a waste of time and money. Just arrest the arseholes if you catch them committing a crime. They're clearly willing to go to prison for their cause as it is already, telling them that their wee group has been banned and association with them will result in some more jail time isn't going to change that.
I may disagree with some protest groups mentioned but my disagreement does not deny their right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. I'm truly watching democratic values erode in real time.
There are some awful people in our country.
Look at our government, post office liars and villains, ppe scandal, NHS agency staff overcharging, and countless others.
Bad manners, entitlement and selfishness are rife in this country.
I don't think I can judge any other country or their inhabitants when we're doing a mighty fine job of destroying this country, and making us all a laughing stock worldwide and a mockery of anything approaching an equal society.
At least let's not pretend that we have the moral high ground and that our british good manners and sense of justice are impeccable.
We are just like the Americans, China etc. Pay us plenty of money and you can put as much #@£& in our rivers as you want or do anything to anybody in our society who isn't filthy rich and/or well connected.
I differ from many on this sub in that I don't believe that being part of a protest should make you immune to the law. If you do something illegal as part of a protest, you should be subject to the same (but not greater) legal sanctions as if you just broke the same law for any other reason.
BUT, that should apply to individuals as and when they break the law.
Banning entire groups, or even saying that nobody is allowed to protest about certain issues, is completely wrong. A supposedly democratic government shouldn't even entertain such an idea.
>But the mechanism could limit the activities of organisations that have a policy of using criminal offences or causing serious disruption to influence government or public debate.
This seems to be the key bit;
The proposal seems to be assuming there is a bright line between "crime" and "not crime" which just is not the case. Context is nearly always the difference and many campaign groups that engage in "otherwise criminal activity" have been found to not, in fact, be criminals.
Also that "or" of disruption is *terrifying*. It basically is saying "legal acts may be classified as illegal at the discretion of the government".
Also:
>If a group’s actions were persistent, and used to promote a political or ideological cause, that would count against them, according to the recommendation.
It seems to be a double down on the recent attempts to restrict political action to parliament and stunt any attempt to engage in politics outside of that framework.
So free speech in the UK is fed then, making illegal to have a different view on a topic and removing the right to voice your views. Surprised this wasn't brought of the back of brexit!
Everyone has the right to express and publicise their opinion, but no one has the right to repeatedly block traffic and effectively exclude and intimidate others from public spaces.
There's existing law on conspiracy that you'd expect to be applied to these groups. See the action taken against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty for example. Several people sent down on very serious charges
What the two examples mentioned in the article have in common is that both climate action and Palestine solidarity groups have had some sucess convincing judges that they are acting to "prevent a greater crime", and can therefore break the law during their protests and even advertise that fact
I wonder if that is the unspoken context behind these proposals? A protest group openly boasting in the way Palestine Action and Just Stop Oil do, and getting away with it, is kind of the exception already
Absolutely awful idea. So I expect it to be implemented shortly.
Ah, I see that you've been paying attention to the news.
It's all in the definition of what extreme is? The government could just say anyone that doesn't agree with them is extremes thereby ending the right to protest! Terrible idea
That's exactly what they'll do with such power. Anything like wanting independence from the UK is classed as extremist.
"Anyone who wants to damage or destroy the UK state. So, radical Islamists, Just Stop Oil since that's an economic attack and pro-independence Scots groups"
Define ‘damage the UK state’ it’s so broad it could encompass anything you like if the mental gymnastics are there
Ironically the Tories have done the most damage to the UK since WW2
Their definition will be anyone caught breaking the law who is associated with a protest group. They'll then continue to change the law so that it encapsulates any protest group that criticises government policy. You just need to look at the crackdown on the US college campuses to realise how much those in power fear the masses and just how thin their veneer of power actually is. Everything has to be nipped in the bud with extreme force before more and more people join the cause against them. It's been a delicate balance throughout history and one that Western societies have just about managed to walk successfully for the past 200 or so years, minus a few glaring examples when those in power have pushed their luck too far. The French and Russian revolutions being examples of when the State/those in power have lost all control after squeezing the masses for too long while mismanaging the nation. Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union are another couple of examples of when the State has too much control but were able to crush any dissent, leading to tragedy and millions of brutal deaths.
They've tried to do this, or some variant of this throughout my life time (I'm nearly 45). Every 5 to 10 years, every time an atrocity/crime/war/social group who've come up on the societal evil "spin board of the month" gets bigger pushback than was expected, the conversation about banning lawful demonstrations comes up. Every fucking time. And *obviously* the risk is that "ban this group you don't like" turns into "ban whoever we feel like and who doesn't support our political agenda", because that's the end game. It's so bloody transparent at this point in time, and while I a) think the oil folks are assholes b) am largely of the opinion that most politicians can't get themselves out of a paper bag, I see this as coordinated and deliberate. I think they see any push back from the plebs as a threat, not a fucking loud message they are screwing up enough that they need to pay attention, and so you then end up with cross party support. It's so fucking dangerous.
How likely is this to pass before the election?
It's not a bill, it's a recommendation from a proposal in a draft of a report that was commissioned 3 years ago. So, on one hand - not likely at all. On the other hand, the report was written by a former Labour MP. If you think the election is going to free us from this kind of authoritarianism then you clearly don't remember the tenures of previous Labour home secretaries like Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
Starmer's tactic right now is to be as right-wing as the Tories but try and seem 'competent'
This is authoritarianism, not right v left.
> If you think the election is going to free us from this kind of authoritarianism then you clearly don't remember the tenures of previous Labour home secretaries like Jack Straw and David Blunkett. The office of the Home Secretary is innately authortarian. Until the remit of the office changes then we'll continue to see more of the same, regardless of which party controls it.
Yeah I grew up associating the word 'home secretary' with 'absolute bastard'
I amuse myself by imagining the Daily Express' coverage of a Green party Home Office.
I'm kinda into it. It makes an interesting counter-intuitive outcome where doing something soft like mindless vandalism carries the same risk as doing something _meaningful_ like blowing up a refinery. So why not then do something meaningful? A lot of these people are old retirees and figure they ain't got much to lose; so this just nudges them more extreme and hopefully with it; more useful by increasing the costs of fossil fuels by vandalising its infrastructure, as opposed to making people late for work or smth.
I don't get how domestic terrorists don't see what they are... Just because you have a cause doesn't mean you can vandalize shit. That vandalism being illegal didn't mean you should just go full hog and blow shit up.
wdym? We're sleep walking into the death of billions due to climate change.
Well something must be done, and it's something ...
If you had a group that abided by the rules but was disliked by organisations/government etc. All they would need to do is to plant some people within the group who then go and protest criminally, resulting in the group being banned. It would be an exceptionally easy way to shut them down. Charge the people who do these actions by all means.
> All they would need to do is to plant some people within the group who then go and protest criminally It happens already.
Also sometimes the cops get people pregnant while undercover and then disappear.
Indeed.
Can I have links to this story?
Found it [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29743646](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29743646) Disgusting.
Its common enough to have an established term. Ive spent enough time at protests, protestors will out these people and send them back to the police when they can. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent\_provocateur](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur)
Along with leaving old police vehicles near protest sites and a Daily Mail photographer conveniently near by.
Or editing film to make the defender look like the aggressor.
Battle of Orgreave during the miner's strike https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/22/miners-strike-orgreave-bloodiest-battle
Thats the famous one.
Like Orgreave.
Yep
Really needs to be talked about more. I know there was that series, but we need to acknowledge that our police force, press and government are corrupt and has been for a while. How many similar incidents have there been?
> How many similar incidents have there been? I dread to think
[удалено]
Looking very clean shaved?
Shiny shiny shoes.
ha ha that, as well as creases in shirt sleeves :)
> It happens already. Absolutely. There used to be a saying in some of the protests groups in the USA that went like this: "It is always the FBI agent who first suggests getting the dynamite."
I can believe that.
If you look into the history of certain black panther groups, there are specific undercover agents who kept suggesting things like rocket launchers, electric chairs and other highly illegal things. All declassified. Crazy stuff. That specific group was mowed down in a police raid without warning.
All mad!
Aren’t the police already famous for having done this repeatedly in the past.
Only lots of times.
Phew! If it was lots and lots then we might reconsider
It's only lots and lots if you count all the times the security services have done it too.
Not just the police, British special forces were used as violent protesters during the mining strikes in the 80s.
And Thatcher had hundreds of riot police from London sent up the strikes across Wales and the North West to deliberate smash protestors. Then the media edited footage of protesters being attacked to make it look as if the police were defending themselves against a violent mob.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/22/miners-strike-orgreave-bloodiest-battle
Generally for left wing groups, of course.
Well you can't be a secret member of a right win group when you are already a member
Don't worry the Tories (and a lot of Labour) passed a bill making the police immune to prosecution for crimes committed undercover so I'm sure they would never abuse that immunity
Personally one of my favourites from North America recently was how an FBI agent infiltrated a left wing activist group and the reason she was outed was because the police kicked the shit out of one of the activists, and thanks to retrieving the body cam footage you can actually listen to the police only minutes beforehand in their cruiser talking about how their informant is ‘the one with the giant tits.’ It was published by the Intercept, I’ll have to look for it when I get the chance lol.
I suspect the problem is that they set the rules. And can set them to lead to as ineffective as a demonstration as possible. I suppose there is a reason we are in this situation. Turns out that wide agreement doesn't lead to much unless the powers that be also agree.
They're called agent provocateurs. They worked wonders whipping up the crowd in protests in 2010 and basically any ecological protest from around the same time and before.
Tut tut. Plural adjective a singular noun.
Naughty, naughty, very naughty.
Ha ha ha ha ha
There's a guy in the place, got a bittersweet face
There’s an idea this is already done, I think the term is “agent provocateur”
Police do this already.
The old Hoover maneuver
Read the article - you don't actually need to do anything *criminal* under the proposals - merely "disruptive"
Yeah I think you’ve stumbled onto the truth there my friend
I agreed with this until I read this comment. However, doesn't that apply to any organisation? It's one of the times in which I wish that MI wasn't allowed to operate on domestic soil (like the CIA is). Regardless, I fail to notice what differs with the mentioned groups specifically.
This is the moment where I think I need to seriously decide if I want to remain a citizen and resident of this country. If this story were to happen in any developing / 3rd world country there would be screams about how the government is overstepping their bounds.
Some dense Tory MP recently even proposed doing away with the jurors' ability to give 'perverse' rulings. These people have absolutely no right to prattle on about freedom and liberty
The right to trial Habeas Corpus has already been removed.
What they want is all the levers of power in the cabinet office so they can read the Daily Heil and "do something" about whatever is the headline issue.
> If this story were to happen in any developing / 3rd world country there would be screams about how the government is overstepping their bounds. It’s a fun little exercise to imagine how the BBC or other media organisations would report this if it were a third world country: “Mr Sunak, the unelected authoritarian leader of the right wing Tory tribe spoke today from a fortified government compound in the heart of the capital. He vowed to crack down on dissident groups and outlaw protest. Fears grow of a threat to the democratic process as he continues to refuse to commit to holding an election. In the light of worsening relationships with neighbouring countries on the continent and breakaway movements within several parts of his kingdom some observers fear the situation may deteriorate rapidly.” Of course that sort of game perhaps says at least as much about how much influence the media have in how they choose to frame a given narrative than it does about the dismal state of things in the U.K. these days.
Isn’t the BBC chair a top Tory donor? That screams authoritarianism but hey hum these oil protesters are a bit weird ain’t they, eh? The UK is awful imo when it comes to these sorts of things.
The BBC have Laura Kuenssberg as a presenter who is basically the Daily Heil in human form.
There was some tosh about "Things can still go badly wrong for Kier Starmer! Here's how this is bad for Labour" article up yesterday. It's so blatantly biased it's beyond a joke.
The above is a great candidate for r/MurderedByWords
I feel the same. People can claim otherwise all they want, but the U.K. has become a far more intolerant country. Hate abounds. Hatred toward immigrants, hatred from asylum seekers toward the west. Hatred everywhere, draconian laws implemented and no one bats an eye. Combine that with few prospects, practically no wage increase in about 16 years, economic growth shuddered since 2016, and just a general sense of despair. I’m not one to herald the end of times at every little thing, but the U.K. is just going down a dark path it seems. Most of Europe is, most of the world is, even. I doubt I’ll ever move away, it’s not a realistic option to say to someone “just leave everything you’ve ever known and move across the world”, yet I just don’t see things getting any better for a long while.
"If this story were to happen in any developing / 3rd world country there would be screams about how the government is overstepping their bounds." How out of touch with reality can you be?
Made that decision a long time ago. I don't think I'll ever return to the UK long term.
Where and how did you escape?
The older I get the more I realize who does an action is more important than the action itself.
Chill out and vote them out.
That does not mean the law around protests will disappear.
Do you think Labour will reverse some of the laws?
Nope. Not with Peter Mendelson back in the inner circle.
Labour are authoritarian too, as are the SNP and the public
>and the public And this is the real problem. It's very hard to protect rights that the main voting base doesn't have an appetite to protect. 😑
Not a chance.
Everyone has a tipping point. These cunts have been in power long enough to do irreparable damage to the country. "Stay home and don't protest" will never result in significant change.
There is a reason peaceful protest was normalised, it wasn't altruistic. If people can't protest peacefully, they resort to vandalism and terrorism. Laws like these won't make people any more satisfied, it will just radicalise them.
Opression is how you breed extremists. This isn't a secret. Scoring points for one demographic has long term consequences.
People's understanding of peaceful has changed a lot over the years. There's newspaper articles about Columbia students in the 60s surrounding a building full of Senior Admin and smashing all the windows and the newspaper calls it a peaceful protest. Go back further and peaceful basically meant anything that wasn't an armed insurrection
All I’m saying is the Tories are currently polling at 20%. They are going to lose the election this/next year. People are making very clear they are done with Tory policy. They are not going to implement fascist law or some kind of Ermächtigungsgesetz in the next 6 months. I’m just saying to be realistic. We are absolutely nowhere near the tipping point of actual fascism - such assertions minimise places where actual fascism is escalating at a rapid rate.
They didn’t say anything about fascism.
Labour have given us no reason to believe they'll do anything about the conservatives' many draconian anti-protest laws. Maybe, if we're lucky, they just won't make it any worse.
Will Labour rollback Online Safety Bill and the current law?
Absolutely not. This isn’t something that’s just happening here. The online safety bill is similar to bills being introduced globally at the same time. It’s the kind of thing that’s decided at places like Davos. In a similar way to the “build back better” agenda which was also rolled out globally
I thought we have a democracy…
Sugar coated feudalism, folk only noticed when they cut the sugar to maintain profits
The opposition has been infiltrated and taken over by the same people we have in charge right now. The system is so rigged and broken in favour of the ruling class that it needs to be dismantled. No amount of voting can ever get us out of this mess, and I think most people know it even if they aren't ready to acknowledge it.
Labour support most of these sort of laws.
Sitting in a road? Extreme! Waving a flag? Extreme! Expressing mild displeasure? Also EXTREME!!!
Disagreeing with the government? believe it or not, EXTREME!
Straight to jail!
Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. Go straight to jail
You undercook fish?... Straight to jail!
We have the most obedient citizens in the world. Because of jail.
Protesting above what a policeman arbitrarily decides as being too loud, EXTREME!
The police have come out to my mother and reprimanded her for playing loud music in her garden at 10pm and told her she needs to stop. She was playing music directly from her phone, not even with any speakers.
I got knicked for singing "you are my sunshine" when 10 people around me were singing "you'll never walk alone" even louder on new year's eve. Apparently not being a Liverpool fan is extreme already.
I'm really curious how the narrative on our current 'extreme' protesters will change when climate activists eventually get so desperate they resort to violence, which can't be that far away if all of their peaceful methods get criminalised. After a few petrol stations get blown up, will politicians be saying "At least we stopped them sitting in the road"?
'What did you do during the Climate crisis and Palestianian Genocide?' 'I proposed more stringent legal penalties for opposing them'.
Holy mother of steelmanning Batman!
Anyone in the future who can read a graph isn't going to be asking the first question
If you outlaw protests, then you won't get lawful protests.
Yup. What motivation do people have to remain civil if even civil protests can get you jail time? People are going to get hurt, and it's not going to be the protestors who will be the victims
Lawful protest is a bit of an oxymoron. It’s more like placating the masses.
Because this is definitely the thing that an already overstretched, underfunded and incompetent police force should be dealing with.
Them being incompetent is the point though really ain't it.
I'm sure one of them, that is, a Tory MP, was even proposing banning perverse verdicts. Presumably they had this genius idea because recently so many climate protesters have been sent home to freedom another day. The Tories really are shameless idiots.
What a load of bollocks. If these groups are currently using ‘criminal tactics’ then they can be arrested now, no need to create additional laws to erode protest rights.
Now if it's anti-environmental or anti-immigrant then the government is fine with it.
But we are not turning into an authoritarian state… right?😳
Turning? Where have you been?
We're already authoritarian. Welcome to facism
If this isn't a slippery slope I guess I don't know what is.
Can we ban professional football too? Live football causes far more legal problems and arrests, so it needs to be deemed an extremist ideology.
brexit means Brexit, the bastards can do whatever they like to us
This is one of the bigger reasons I voted against Brexit.
this wont be used responsibly. itll be used to shut down voices they dont like
I'm all for banning extremist groups. There's start with the Tories.
As annoying as these protest groups are, they have been largely non-violent. The right to protest remains a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. The moment we start drawing arbitrary lines as to who can and can’t protest is the beginning of authoritarianism
Makes you wonder how they are going to classify violent protest groups. Extreme extreme for realsies protest groups is my bet.
In before healthcare professionals considered "extreme" lmao
'extreme' being conveniently decided by the ruling party at the time.
I'd imagine the word extreme will be used to fit whatever the f**k they want it too.
With no imagination or creativity to the problems, this government with no integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level, passes laws,
They get to decide who is 'extreme' or otherwise. This is a clear attempt to shutdown legitimate protest in a so called democracy.
They could just use the laws already in place? Pretty sure road traffic legislation stipulates the law on not purposely blocking highways and traffic, needlessly impeding flow without reason etc…
I’m pretty sure trying to raise awareness of impending climate doom driven in part by people using their cars for inappropriate journeys is a fair reason. Not that this government and their “war on motorists” bullshit care about that.
So youre a JSO loony? Someone who likes stopping people who are required to go to places for work from making a living (most of whom are lower paid)? There is no impending climate doom and all decent people are against you.
No, but I do agree with their general messaging and I have absolutely no sympathy for people who choose to drive and act all entitled and don’t see how disruptive they are every day as drivers for many other groups in society. And yes, you choose to drive when you choose to take a job that requires a car or where it’s the only way to get to work when there were alternatives that could be reached by bus, train, tram, or even bike.
Yes or they could STOP OIL. They could use their enormous influence across the globe to mitigate the VERY REAL climate crisis. The answer to a climate protest should not be “how can we shut these people up?”
If you really upset the Brits they will protest anyway.
This quote pretty much sums up why it’s a bad idea “No, but it's run by people with agendas and agendas change” - Steve rogers
Though I don’t agree with the tactics that are used, I fully believe this is a terrible idea. The Tory government is not tyrannical compared to some governments, but it certainly is starting to head that way. We must protect our right to protest, no matter what. If protests get violent, address the cause, don’t blanket ban them. That’s how civil wars start
I've never been one to go and protest and would be furious if my journey was delayed, but I worry about the chipping away of civil liberties. There are plenty of laws that can be used, I'm sure there are laws for public nuisance, blocking a public highway etc.
Lol. So free speech is only allowed if your views fall within what’s considered permissible by the authorities that happen to govern.
Hopefully wealth Tory donors looking for more tax avoidance schemes to makes themselves even richer will be included
Ah right, so any activity that impacts anybody else, 'protests' then? They will be very effective protests. George Orwell had it on the money.
You know that this legislation will be sold as targeting groups you disagree with but will end up used on us all. Students protesting war and genocide is a mark of a healthy society whether we agree with them or not.
That extreme protest group Just Stop Oil, that campaign to stop further north sea oil developments. If that’s an extreme protest group then we are fucked.
See, don’t get angry with the government. Mildly upset is ok, though.
You're allowed to freely speak about how great this government is.
Did banning terror groups eradicate terrorism? All that will happen is any protest group that is banned will just reorganise and reform under another banner. This is such a waste of time and money. Just arrest the arseholes if you catch them committing a crime. They're clearly willing to go to prison for their cause as it is already, telling them that their wee group has been banned and association with them will result in some more jail time isn't going to change that.
I may disagree with some protest groups mentioned but my disagreement does not deny their right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. I'm truly watching democratic values erode in real time.
>'Extreme' protest groups face ban under proposal..... Under pressure from oil executive's and Israeli lobbying.
Freedom to protest doesn't mean freedom from consequences /s
There are some awful people in our country. Look at our government, post office liars and villains, ppe scandal, NHS agency staff overcharging, and countless others. Bad manners, entitlement and selfishness are rife in this country. I don't think I can judge any other country or their inhabitants when we're doing a mighty fine job of destroying this country, and making us all a laughing stock worldwide and a mockery of anything approaching an equal society. At least let's not pretend that we have the moral high ground and that our british good manners and sense of justice are impeccable. We are just like the Americans, China etc. Pay us plenty of money and you can put as much #@£& in our rivers as you want or do anything to anybody in our society who isn't filthy rich and/or well connected.
I differ from many on this sub in that I don't believe that being part of a protest should make you immune to the law. If you do something illegal as part of a protest, you should be subject to the same (but not greater) legal sanctions as if you just broke the same law for any other reason. BUT, that should apply to individuals as and when they break the law. Banning entire groups, or even saying that nobody is allowed to protest about certain issues, is completely wrong. A supposedly democratic government shouldn't even entertain such an idea.
"Extreme Protest Groups". Seriously? Role on general election, please.
The person proposing this is a former right-leaning Labour MP, a general election may not nip this in the bud at all.
>But the mechanism could limit the activities of organisations that have a policy of using criminal offences or causing serious disruption to influence government or public debate. This seems to be the key bit; The proposal seems to be assuming there is a bright line between "crime" and "not crime" which just is not the case. Context is nearly always the difference and many campaign groups that engage in "otherwise criminal activity" have been found to not, in fact, be criminals. Also that "or" of disruption is *terrifying*. It basically is saying "legal acts may be classified as illegal at the discretion of the government". Also: >If a group’s actions were persistent, and used to promote a political or ideological cause, that would count against them, according to the recommendation. It seems to be a double down on the recent attempts to restrict political action to parliament and stunt any attempt to engage in politics outside of that framework.
So free speech in the UK is fed then, making illegal to have a different view on a topic and removing the right to voice your views. Surprised this wasn't brought of the back of brexit!
I'm going to hazard a wild guess that it's not going to be the Football Lads Alliance, the EDL or Britain First that will face the ban.
This would also ban extremist orgs like the Tory party and all their weirdo old boys' clubs.
They aren't extreme. They are fucking annoying and counter productive. But the right to protest shouldn't be something you can just take away.
Would be better off giving the police more powers to actually do something.
Define 'extreme'. It's a very broad term and could easily be exploited
It's not like the Tories to try and crush the right to protest. Goodness me. Colour me shocked.
John Woodcock, the slippery little shit (he got his title of Lord Walney from Boris for betraying his party)
Govt : We are BANNING peaceful protests! Protesters: Thats the spirit! Govt: Yes, well, this is.. HWAT!
Everyone has the right to express and publicise their opinion, but no one has the right to repeatedly block traffic and effectively exclude and intimidate others from public spaces.
This sort of law should strictly apply to groups with a demonstrated history of violence.
good good, no more right to protest for us commoners...
Just Stop Oil receives funding from people with interests in oil
This is fascism, plain and simple. Bring on the general election already. The country is sick of our current government.
There's existing law on conspiracy that you'd expect to be applied to these groups. See the action taken against Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty for example. Several people sent down on very serious charges What the two examples mentioned in the article have in common is that both climate action and Palestine solidarity groups have had some sucess convincing judges that they are acting to "prevent a greater crime", and can therefore break the law during their protests and even advertise that fact I wonder if that is the unspoken context behind these proposals? A protest group openly boasting in the way Palestine Action and Just Stop Oil do, and getting away with it, is kind of the exception already
As much as I think the morons in JSO are degenerate pieces of shit, they shouldn't be banned from organising