> Under the new definition, which comes into force on Thursday, extremism is “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
>
> 1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
>
> 2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
>
> 3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”
Seems fine on paper I guess?
So much for statements of policy being made to Parliament first
Item 1 is very broad and covers every conservative religion as they all have an issue with key fundamental rights.
Does threatening an MP to be shot count as extremism or is it negated by £10m donation?
What about supporting Israel with weapons to commit genocide?!?!?!
More empty words, what a joke and an outrage to the marginalised people threatened with violence from the Tories own donors and ministers that continue defend his statements.
So they now can’t talk to any Tory MP seeking to take us out of the ECHR.
so, if i’m opposing the unelectable, above the law monarchy because I don’t like the idea of being better just because you were born to a family at power, am I an extremist yet? lol
This feels incredibly sloppily written. I’ll have to look in detail at the full Bill and previous definitions as the extract is maybe misleading. The use of ‘liberal’ seems like a legal minefield though, technically taxation is illiberal, or punishing hate crimes etc.
Although on the plus side it will be a useful tool in smashing up the pro-Hamas campaigns through central London.
So, an unelected pm who lost to an extremist lettuce is telling us what extremism is. While taking money off, a guy who can’t help hating all black women because he doesn’t like one black woman and wishes she was shot dead.
The cocaine in the tory hq must be uncut. The delusion and irony are either laughable or scary, I’m still trying to figure it out.
There’s a lot of ‘or’s in that definition. ‘Promotion of…an ideology based on…intolerance…that negates…the freedom of others’ could be absolutely anything the govt chose it to be.
“People who do X, Y and Z and *don’t* donate money to the Tory party”.
I’m guessing they rolled this out because behind closed doors the tories have some concern that immigration might cause a shift in political ideology in the future?
It’s the use of the “or” word in these lists which could lead to issues.
It means a group will only have to be classified as meeting one of the terms to meet the definition.
You could argue traditional Jewish sects are intolerant of others – also Republicans in the US for example.
14 comments
> Under the new definition, which comes into force on Thursday, extremism is “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
>
> 1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
>
> 2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
>
> 3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).”
Seems fine on paper I guess?
So much for statements of policy being made to Parliament first
Item 1 is very broad and covers every conservative religion as they all have an issue with key fundamental rights.
Does threatening an MP to be shot count as extremism or is it negated by £10m donation?
What about supporting Israel with weapons to commit genocide?!?!?!
More empty words, what a joke and an outrage to the marginalised people threatened with violence from the Tories own donors and ministers that continue defend his statements.
So they now can’t talk to any Tory MP seeking to take us out of the ECHR.
so, if i’m opposing the unelectable, above the law monarchy because I don’t like the idea of being better just because you were born to a family at power, am I an extremist yet? lol
This feels incredibly sloppily written. I’ll have to look in detail at the full Bill and previous definitions as the extract is maybe misleading. The use of ‘liberal’ seems like a legal minefield though, technically taxation is illiberal, or punishing hate crimes etc.
Although on the plus side it will be a useful tool in smashing up the pro-Hamas campaigns through central London.
So, an unelected pm who lost to an extremist lettuce is telling us what extremism is. While taking money off, a guy who can’t help hating all black women because he doesn’t like one black woman and wishes she was shot dead.
The cocaine in the tory hq must be uncut. The delusion and irony are either laughable or scary, I’m still trying to figure it out.
There’s a lot of ‘or’s in that definition. ‘Promotion of…an ideology based on…intolerance…that negates…the freedom of others’ could be absolutely anything the govt chose it to be.
“People who do X, Y and Z and *don’t* donate money to the Tory party”.
I’m guessing they rolled this out because behind closed doors the tories have some concern that immigration might cause a shift in political ideology in the future?
It’s the use of the “or” word in these lists which could lead to issues.
It means a group will only have to be classified as meeting one of the terms to meet the definition.
You could argue traditional Jewish sects are intolerant of others – also Republicans in the US for example.