Quite so, quite so

Supporters of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) should not necessarily be criminalised, because it impinges free speech, a joint parliamentary Committee says.

A report released today will say that the bill “may criminalise curious minds and expressions of belief which do not carry any consequent harm or intent to cause harm.”

The Joint Committee on Human Rights says it has “serious concerns” with the new powers the government is proposing in the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Bill currently going through parliament.

The Committee, chaired by Harriet Harman MP and made up of MPs and Peers, is concerned that some of the new powers are too vaguely defined and do not have sufficient safeguards to protect human rights.

Yes, yes, of course it’s Harry Harbird. But think on a little. We think that a government is going to pass a law that imposes he correctly strict punishments for actions and yet leave that speech as gloriously free as it should be, do we?

12 comments on “Quite so, quite so

  1. We think that a government is going to pass a law that imposes he correctly strict punishments for actions and yet leave that speech as gloriously free as it should be, do we?

    Well no. Nor do I think they will punish supporters of Islamic state. Islam is the de facto official religion of Britain that must not be criticised and nothing Muslims do is punished much. But they will punish supporters of UKIP.

    I am not even sure that they should punish members of ISIS for crimes committed in Syria and Iraq. Hand them back.

  2. The Fish Faced Cow is angling for a police state. Simple as that.

    Fight her now or lose the lot. The EU will destroy our nation and our prosperity just as surely as Corbin–it will just take longer that is all.

  3. Supporters of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) should not necessarily be criminalised, because it impinges free speech

    Lol, I think we are some way past that as a reason for not doing something, don’t you think? Did they write this with a straight face?

    I fear the real reason they don’t want to do this is because there may be an embarrassing number of cases involving Labour front benchers or other members of the party.

  4. It is legitimate for government to declare certain organizations and activities illegal.

    “But what about free speach?” Tough shit.

    So we have the Telegraph coming out in support of ISIL.

  5. So if some genuine Nazis rocked up on the UK’s shores in say, 1944, having been previously involved in fighting the UK’s forces, we should have been worried about their right to free speech? That they should have been free to wander the country demanding that the dirty Jews be gassed?

  6. Is it not the case that membership of Daesh* is as clear a case of adhering to Her Majesty’s enemies as one could imagine in today’s world? Treason is still in the books.

    * My preferred name for them, used in the same basis as the term Nazi; it annoys the buggers.

  7. Jim–I don’t mind if the arseholes get free speech–so long as I do as well. Not the case now. at all.

  8. Anyone else remember this conversation?

    Just in case anyone is interested in removing “from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm”, it’s not worth being caught with the joke that is the ‘Anarchist’s Cookbook’ even if it does have some funny stuff in it. Stick to Inspire magazine and US Army field manuals for counterinsurgency.

    Useful to know!

    So who is responsible for doing this?

    Oh, and what’s the government’s view on calls to hang all the politicians in an ‘Ecksian Purge™’? Legitimate hyperbole, or terrorist threat? Anyone know?

    In considering any proposed measure of social control, always, always, always think about what happens when it gets applied by your ideological enemies to *you*.

  9. always think about what happens when it gets applied by your ideological enemies to *you*.

    But that’s part of the point of the Ecksian purge. We are under no delusions. Our lot are either two stops past Wanstead or as venal and revolting as the other lot (or both.) So they need to fear what might be coming their way.

    In an Admiral Byng sort of way (so a conservative preservation of ancient British traditions!)

  10. SE. Two stops past Wanstead is Gants Hill. You got something particular against kosher delicatessens or did you mean Upton Park?

  11. “But that’s part of the point of the Ecksian purge. We are under no delusions. […] So they need to fear what might be coming their way.”

    Hmm. No delusions, eh?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.