You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm not sure what I think about this, and I'm not sure I'm intellectual enough to put forward a good argument either way, but the government is proposing legislation to allow law enforcement to act against parties they deem to be 'violence obsessed' & possibly preparing, or at risk of preparing, an attack before an offence has been committed.
It comes in the wake of the Southport attack but I would of thought that current legislation was sufficient to step in if someone was clearly preparing & murder or terrorist attack. The problem with Southport & 7/7 for example seems more to be the fact that we were caught napping. Surely it's a case of surveilling & stepping in if a threat becomes obvious. Pre-emptive incarceration seems a dangerous and potentially subjective approach.
The new legislation would seem to allow action to be taken at an indeterminate point where someone in authority feels a risk might be present, and that feels a little vague and open to abuse.
Terror suspects who take steps towards an attack can be jailed for life, even if their plans are not fully formed.
Quite a lot of people can be violence obsessed - absurdly violent computer games or films videos etc. or have a fascination with serial killers or school attacks/true crime without ever being a risk to anyone. I'm also aware of how pro-Palestinian sympathies or animal rights might be handled.
Is this the thin end of an authoritarian wedge?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9w14yjw8x0o
Depends what it means in reality, rather than just seeming to be "the thought police" on the surface.
It does appear to be aimed at people found to be researching or planning an attack, which presumably would need some proper proof. People playing violent video games all day, or studying how weapons work on Wikipedia, would not fall under this despite what some headlines would have you think. (I assume/hope!)
As the article points out, the legislation already exists for terror, all they want to do is allow the same laws where there is no ideological motive.
Surely it's a case of surveilling & stepping in if a threat becomes obvious.
Sure, but like they say in the Southport case:
Had police found he had been researching a target prior to the attack, they could not have arrested and charged him with a serious offence because he had no ideological motive linked to the definition of terrorism.
There would still have to be proof that he was actually researching/planning something.
Planning to perform a violent or terrorist attack is along way off from playing Call of Duty or watching a Dahlmer documentary.
As the article points out, the legislation already exists for terror, all they want to do is allow the same laws where there is no ideological motive.
Stalkers? Its very hard to make a legal case against stalkers at the moment?
Depends how this act of preparing an attack is set out in law. It seems like a hard concept to frame in such a way that it includes people at high risk of actually committing an attack without also sweeping up the wide selection of idiots or behaviourally-challenged individuals who download questionable shit about making fertiliser bombs or 3D printing a gun without actually having the fully-formed intent to follow through with it.
It would depend on the details. Of course we already have a similar law in conspiracy where two or more people planning a crime is a crime even if they have not yet committed it.
More legislation signposting. Whether it turns into something or gets kicked into the long grass will be determined by the next few news cycles.
Rather than more legislation it might be better to give the police, other agencies, and courts the kind of money, facilities, and training that would help achieve current law and order goals?
The Southport attacker was a failure of support services - he needed help, it was signposted loud and clear for years, but those services have been cut to the bone for 15 years. This feels like more authoritarian over-reach, like the recent proscription of The Group I Shall Not Name.
The devil is in the detail, and given how governments of both flavours have stretched the terrorism definition, there's a real risk of it happening again here.
However, had the Southport attacker had a terror motive, it is likely he'd have been referred, stopped or under tighter monitoring, so this tragedy has highlighted a gap in the system.
That needs to be balanced against the fact that living in a free democratic society will involve the risk that freedom may leave us open to horrific attacks like this. Tragic at an individual and local level, but "acceptable" at the societal level?
TL;DR - I have no idea
However, had the Southport attacker had a terror motive, it is likely he'd have been referred, stopped or under tighter monitoring, so this tragedy has highlighted a gap in the system.
That needs to be balanced against the fact that living in a free democratic society will involve the risk that freedom may leave us open to horrific attacks like this. Tragic at an individual and local level, but "acceptable" at the societal level?
That frames the question 🙂
I'm gonna say its a step too far to prosecute on this basis. I think its wrong for terror legislation as well
Is this the thin end of an authoritarian wedge?
It is estimated that the Turner Diaries have been the 'inspiration' for at least 200 murders. There was (until it was shut down recently) a website - and discord server called Terrorgram* that exulted ( no other word for it, people like Brevik, Roof, Tarent are/were called 'saints') in those that committed acts of mass shootings, especially if they're live-streamed. The world is becoming increasingly at threat from people who not only want to commit violent acts of mass harm against both specific and non specific groups of innocent people, they are actively encouraging others to plan their own.. There is increasingly, significant minority of folks who see themselves ending their lives in these sort of events. Some of them are as young as 14. A girl recently murdered two people in a high school, and shot herself on her 15th birthday. This is an online community that has become increasingly active in the USA, Australia, New Zealand,...everywhere.
Do you wait for for another Brevik to happen when you can see these websites already?
* weirdly (or perhaps not) the intersection between violent acts of mass shooting and child-porn is probably going to keep academics in business for years, but that's probably a whole 'nother thread
I'm not saying the idea is a good or bad idea, but the answer to OP's question is clear. They're suggesting that a person who PREPARES for a serious violent crime (not just thinks about one) should be convicted of an offence.
The current terrorism offence says simply "A person commits an offence if, with the intention of (a) committing acts of terrorism, or (b) assisting another to commit such acts, he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention". I suppose they're suggesting simply that "terrorism" gets replaced with "serious violence" or something in the new offence.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/5
The current terrorism offence says simply "A person commits an offence if, with the intention of (a) committing acts of terrorism, or (b) assisting another to commit such acts, he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention". I suppose they're suggesting simply that "terrorism" gets replaced with "serious violence" or something in the new offence.
I think that's kind of what the OP is getting at though. Like walking about and thinking 'I could do it here, I would get in there and escape by that route' is very different to buying the stuff needed to make a bomb and getting hold of a manual on how to it. Obviously no-one would know about the former, the latter is already an offence. At what point is the boundary crossed? Especially if, say, 99% of people who do the thinking bit above don't go on to do the bomb making bit?
They're suggesting that a person who PREPARES for a serious violent crime (not just thinks about one) should be convicted of an offence.
That's not quite how I read it, to repost the quote from the article in my original post, it says:
Terror suspects who take steps towards an attack can be jailed for life, even if their plans are not fully formed.
What does "take steps towards" and "not fully formed" actually mean? Like Reasonable force & Due care & attention there's a large area of arguable subjectivity here. Enough subjectivity perhaps, for innocent people (perhaps with mental health issues or just harmless oddballs) to get swept up by it.
Following on from the broadening of the terrorism act and its use to proscribe protest groups I also have some concerns about its misuse.
As others have said, the devil's in the detail and a lot will depend on the actual wording of the bill but it's an interesting & perhaps concerning development.
I'm very much minded that the number of peaceful pro-Palestine protestors arrested over the weekend vastly outweighes the number of people arrested for physically attacking the police.
I suppose it's more of a worry depending on whether it's a funnel or a 1in 1out radicalization process.
e.g. plenty of people have a slightly unhealthy obsession with weaponry, war, etc. Just look at the Ukraine thread. But that's still several steps from going to Ukraine to fight. Substitute Ukraine for Syria and you start to see why it's a problem when "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".
The closer it is to a 1in1out model the more valid it is to criminalize the lower level activity. Whereas a wider funnel, there's no point criminalizing a load of middle aged IT managers discussing Ukrainian military tactics just because the Azov battalion was a bit unsavory, even if there was a demonstrable escalation pathway from there.
The other problem is the normalization of it.
Teenage joyrider dies as a result of feeling their behavior was only slightly edgier than; a 20something in a hot hatch who's slightly edgier than; 40something in an Passat "making progress" who's slightly edgier than; someone saying "speed doesn't kill, it's the stopping too quickly that gets you", who's slightly edgier than; "I only do 10% +2mph to avoid getting a ticket" who's slightly edgier than; "Everyone speeds, don't they?", "nope" etc each one of those people is only the biggest **** in that circle, and the behavior of that circle is what enables them.
Being slightly too obsessed with war doesn't mean you'll become violent, but somewhere down the line it might be enabling someone who does?
e.g. plenty of people have a slightly unhealthy obsession with weaponry, war, etc.
But what does that even mean? How, exactly, do you define a “a slightly unhealthy obsession with weaponry”?
I have lots of pocket knives around the house, I have a piece of sporting equipment that I could, theoretically, use to kill somebody 50, 60, 70metres away, and I have a deep admiration for people who can hit something the size of your little fingernail at 70metres; several people in my club use similar equipment that, in America, is regularly used to hunt and kill wild animals.
I’m not actually obsessed with it, but some people might think otherwise.
What does "take steps towards" and "not fully formed" actually mean?
I suspect it's to cope with the scenario where a plan is made to kill/kidnap/destroy, but no specific target has yet been chosen. For those where the point is the violence itself, rather than having a motive towards a specific individual/group, there are big holes in the law when it comes to preventing them from carrying out their plans.
Wonder how Farage and his friends will use this in Government?
They'll be able to write their own laws.
But what does that even mean? How, exactly, do you define a “a slightly unhealthy obsession with weaponry”?
I have lots of pocket knives around the house, I have a piece of sporting equipment that I could, theoretically, use to kill somebody 50, 60, 70metres away, and I have a deep admiration for people who can hit something the size of your little fingernail at 70metres; several people in my club use similar equipment that, in America, is regularly used to hunt and kill wild animals.I’m not actually obsessed with it, but some people might think otherwise.
I meant pretty much exactly that. Although I think you're mixing the two points.
I meant pretty much exactly that. Although I think you're mixing the two points.
Possibly, it was late at night when I wrote it. Still, as has been shown in America, Der Trumpenfurer’s Reichstag is busy making up all kinds of reasons to disappear anyone who even hints at thinking something nasty about Himself, with little or no evidence to support it; I can easily see certain political parties jumping on those sorts of ideas with both jackbooted feet.
What does "take steps towards" and "not fully formed" actually mean?
You don't get done for thinking about battering the **** out of your annoying boss in the car park after work one night. You would get done for buying the balaclava with the intention of using it when you batter the **** out of your annoying boss in the car park after work one night.
There is no need for police to wait until you've bought the balaclava and gloves and crowbar before they arrest you.
This isn't thought crime, it's act crime, which is exactly what most criminal offences are. None of this is as complicated or scary as you're making it out to be.
This isn't thought crime, it's act crime, which is exactly what most criminal offences are. None of this is as complicated or scary as you're making it out to be.
I think we can agree, but the "thin end of the wedge" argument is based on Police and/or governments struggling to resist the urge to stretch circumstances to fit the crime.