Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

  1. #21

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    It seems that Abbot isn't harmful just because she is essentially advocating or at least justifying acts of terror. Her stupid and outrageous stance is also bad because it discredits rather rational notion that constant wars in Middle East aren't a good thing. And of course she seems to be above the law when it comes to UK's tendency to jail people for saying radical things... as long as those things aren't on the left of political spectrum.

  2. #22
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,351
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    @Aexodous, some amendments I see. You must have hated Mo Mowlam when she brought Sinn Fein/ IRA in from the cold and brought about the Good Friday agreement.
    Uh, who's Mo Mowlam?

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    Can we move on from the islamaphobia strawman a moment?

    Abbot seems to want terrorist groups seen as acceptable and legitimate organisations? Does anybody else see how stupid this is?
    That's exactly why I was energised to open a thread about it.

    Basically, in 2000 Parliament passed the Terrorism Act, which consolidated and built upon previous terrorism acts. This is the bill that designated Al Qaeda a terror organisation. From the excerpt from 'ending the war on terror' it looks like it introduced a list of proscribed terrorist groups, but I'm not sure if that's right. Apparently Diane Abbott opposed to Al Qaeda being a terrorist group, and also voted against the Terrorism Act 2000, and now she wants to repeal the whole thing.

    Why does Abbott want to do this? What's her motivation?
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Well if you survive a beheading I feel like that's fair enough you get to go home

  3. #23

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Uh, who's Mo Mowlam?



    That's exactly why I was energised to open a thread about it.

    Basically, in 2000 Parliament passed the Terrorism Act, which consolidated and built upon previous terrorism acts. This is the bill that designated Al Qaeda a terror organisation. From the excerpt from 'ending the war on terror' it looks like it introduced a list of proscribed terrorist groups, but I'm not sure if that's right. Apparently Diane Abbott opposed to Al Qaeda being a terrorist group, and also voted against the Terrorism Act 2000, and now she wants to repeal the whole thing.

    Why does Abbott want to do this? What's her motivation?
    My kneejerk reaction is that it's more pandering to the pro-palestine, extreme left.

  4. #24
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Civitate Magistrate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,967

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    I suspect your right @95thrifleman though surely they'd not really need pandering to at this point, its not as if they'll vote Tory.

    I'll have to look into this further, i fully accept that there are some issues with the UK going 'state heavy' regarding things like the Snoopers charter and the active mirroring of China in attempting to assert the state presence online (and gaining back doors into encrypted messaging services), if its talking about the ditching of this or where the state should 'stop' in terms of drawing a line between privacy and security also is a needed discussion as UK governments of both colours tend to very happily interfere in the private sphere. Also there is genuine academic debate over how effective programs like 'prevent' are, with evidence that actually it increases the chances of radicalization by actively 'othering' those its implemented on. However again i haven't looked much at this, i usually am guilty (except in cases of internet censorship and government intervention) in being fairly passive in the face of the rather large increases of state power in the name of anti-terrorism.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  5. #25

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    It seems that Abbot isn't harmful just because she is essentially advocating or at least justifying acts of terror. Her stupid and outrageous stance is also bad because it discredits rather rational notion that constant wars in Middle East aren't a good thing. And of course she seems to be above the law when it comes to UK's tendency to jail people for saying radical things... as long as those things aren't on the left of political spectrum.
    No she damned well isn't.

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    Can we move on from the islamaphobia strawman a moment?

    Abbot seems to want terrorist groups seen as acceptable and legitimate organisations? Does anybody else see how stupid this is?
    You could ask Mo Mowlam, but she's dead try F. W. de Klerk . I'll let you digest this and figure it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Uh, who's Mo Mowlam?
    If you really don't know this remarkable woman who almost single -handedly resolved the Troubles, you are not worthy of discussing this subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Basically, in 2000 Parliament passed the Terrorism Act, which consolidated and built upon previous terrorism acts. This is the bill that designated Al Qaeda a terror organisation. From the excerpt from 'ending the war on terror' it looks like it introduced a list of proscribed terrorist groups, but I'm not sure if that's right. Apparently Diane Abbott opposed to Al Qaeda being a terrorist group, and also voted against the Terrorism Act 2000, and now she wants to repeal the whole thing.

    Why does Abbott want to do this? What's her motivation?

    Again singling out the black lady. 93 people across parties voted against the 2005 Bill for example.

    My recollection is that scores of people on both sides of the House had an issue with the legislation, not just one Diane Abbott. It was riddled with flaws, it still is. There are still issues with is for example local councils using the legislation to spy in people's bins, the use of section 44 powers on peaceful demonstrators , use of which was finally stopped via judicial review and the abuse of section 7, one famous case being the unlawful detention of a perfectly innocent boyfriend of an American whistleblower.

    You said this thread was made in good faith, prove it by doing some basic research.Lets have sight, from Hansard, what her position was and the exact words she used.

    Here's a start, her comment on the proposal to detain suspects for 42 days without charge. David Davies described it as ''one of the finest speeches I have heard since being elected to the House of Commons'. I'm using her real words, not 'apparently' nonsense.

    Diane Abbott:

    Frank Cook (Labour MP for Stockton North): Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that even those chief police officers who have expressed some kind of support have done so in terms of "it could be workable" rather than "it is desirable"? Everything could be workable—Buchenwald and Dachau were workable, but they were hardly desirable.

    Abbott: Yes, it was said that the proposals could be workable in the future. There are some very clever lawyers in the chamber today, and it seems to me that much of the debate is locked into the legalities and technicalities. I come at the matter from a slightly different angle.

    It seems to me that, if someone is in detention for six weeks without knowing why, and they therefore have no notion of whether they will be able to get out without being charged, that detention is coercive in itself. We saw in the big miscarriage of justice cases what people will sign after only a few weeks.

    The possibility of compensation which my right hon friend, the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is trying to float will put pressure on the police to charge. Some of my colleagues whom one might expect to be opposed to the change because of its effect on their communities have been seduced by the compensation package, but I have read the letter. It talks about going away and considering the subject, and says that the compensation might be implemented.

    How will it be sustainable to compensate Muslims for being held for more than 28 days when the police have held them completely lawfully and not to compensate others of whatever religion or ethnicity who have been held for seven, eight or nine days and have not been charged? The compensation package will not survive scrutiny by the courts.

    If my hon friends want to vote with the government because they want to be loyal to the prime minister in his time of trial, they should do so. No one will think less of them for that. But they should not vote with the government on the basis of a shoddy compensation package that will not stand up and will never come into being.

    The proposal is problematic. Some colleagues say that the provision will never be used and some say it is unworkable, so why not vote for it? They say that it is just a joke and will never be used, but even if the government never use the provision I take exception to their saying that it is worth driving a coach and horses through our civil liberties for mere short-term political advantage.

    As I said earlier, because the government do not have the votes, they have spent the past 10 days putting good, conscientious colleagues—who naturally enough want to support the leader of their party, our prime minister—under incredible pressure.

    People whom the prime minister has never spoken to in his life have been ushered into his presence twice in 48 hours. They should have a shred of sympathy for them.

    People have been offered Cuba, and no doubt governorships of Bermuda have been bandied about. Any rebel backbencher with a cause is confident—if they vote the right way of course—that the prime minister will make the statement, give the money or make the special visit. That is humorous, but is it right that our civil liberties should be traded in such a bazaar? Is it appropriate or right that we should trade votes at the United Nations on the basis of such political pandering?

    The reason why the government have had to put such pressure on people is because they cannot muster the votes. They have only one argument that could sway me, as a member of the Labour party for more than 30 years: the leader of our party is in a difficult situation, there are elements in the party that do not necessarily wish him the very best, so is this the time to vote against the government?

    That argument could affect people who are loyal to the prime minister, do not want to see him go and do not believe that a new leader can wave a magic wand, but I tell the house this: I became active in politics in the 1980s, at a time of enormous turmoil—there were riots in Brixton, Liverpool and Bristol, "Scrap sus" was a huge issue and young black men were seen as the enemy within, just as young Muslim men are today.

    I came into politics because of my concern about the relationship of the state to communities that are marginalised and suspected. It is easy to stand up for the civil liberties of our friends or of people in our trade union, but it is not easy to stand up for the civil liberties of people who are unpopular, suspected and look suspicious—people the tabloids print a horror story about every day.

    However, it is a test of parliament that we are willing to stand up for the civil liberties of the marginalised, the suspect and the unpopular.

    I came into politics about those issues, and I believe that if there is any content at all in ministers' constant speeches about community cohesion we must offer every part of our community not just the appearance but the reality of justice and equality before the law.

    Everybody knows that the provisions will impact disproportionately on the Muslim and ethnic minority communities. Everybody knows that we shall not be detaining the Saudi paymasters of terror for 42 days; just as happened under internment, we shall be scraping up the flotsam and jetsam of communities.

    Ministers are talking about people such as my constituents, so when Muslim boys and black converts are in prison and their mothers, some of whom may not even be able to speak English properly, come to me and say, "They have had my son for five weeks and nobody will tell me why", what do ministers suggest I tell them about a measure that has been brought in only for short-term political convenience?

    I did not come into politics to vote for such a stratagem, and despite all the current pressures on the party I will not vote for it. The case has not been made up until now and it has not been made in this debate.

    Of course the public are in favour of the proposal. Of course the people whose rights some of us are trying to defend are unpopular and suspect. But if we as a parliament cannot stand up on this issue, and if people from our different ethnic communities cannot come here and genuinely reflect their fears and concerns, what is parliament for?

    Here's some more from the debate on the 2010 Bill:

    Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)

    Share

    Does the Home Secretary agree that if by “Islamism” one means people who support the religion of Islam, that is not, in itself, a threat? However, subversive and criminal activity is to be found among some members of the Muslim community. The danger of trying to tar the entire Muslim community with the same brush is that that undermines our efforts to engage with the community, and to fight terrorism and crime.
    Alan Johnson

    Share

    I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The only way in which we will succeed in this area is by demonstrating that the vast majority of Muslims just do not buy into the rhetoric of the ideologues and those promoting violence and division. That is the measure of success. It is essential that we in no way give the impression that our counter-terrorism policy is anti-Muslim, because it is not; it is very much pro-Muslim and pro the vast majority of the Muslim community, who believe in peace, justice and freedom.
    One would have to be a raving Islamophobe to see anything wrong with that statement, which was agreed by Alan Johnson, a white male you have not drawn any attention to.

    And there is more of what seems to be quite reasonable questioning.

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Common...08061189000728


    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Common...08061189000642


    I could spam some more, but you get the gist. I can't find her even mentioning Al Queda or ISIS in the available Commons records. I would like to see some sources .

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    I suspect your right @95thrifleman though surely they'd not really need pandering to at this point, its not as if they'll vote Tory.

    I'll have to look into this further, i fully accept that there are some issues with the UK going 'state heavy' regarding things like the Snoopers charter and the active mirroring of China in attempting to assert the state presence online (and gaining back doors into encrypted messaging services), if its talking about the ditching of this or where the state should 'stop' in terms of drawing a line between privacy and security also is a needed discussion as UK governments of both colours tend to very happily interfere in the private sphere. Also there is genuine academic debate over how effective programs like 'prevent' are, with evidence that actually it increases the chances of radicalization by actively 'othering' those its implemented on. However again i haven't looked much at this, i usually am guilty (except in cases of internet censorship and government intervention) in being fairly passive in the face of the rather large increases of state power in the name of anti-terrorism.
    As always the voice of reason.

    I guess I'm coming from the other end of this in that I have no problem with state intrusion, if reasonable and lawful, but I may have overlooked the impact of such, other than the obvious abuses.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 07, 2019 at 02:54 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    So as to avoid a massive wall of text I'm posted Diane's comments on the current Bill, in Parliamentary committee here, as they seem to be relevant (Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill):


    In 2017, as the House has heard, the UK was subject to five terrorist attacks, which killed 36 people, injured many more and terrified millions. Furthermore, this year there was the shocking assassination attempt on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. So it is reasonable that the Government should review, and if necessary update, counter-terrorism legislation and arrangements for border security.

    First, I want to pay tribute to the survivors and the bereaved of the terrorist atrocities in London and Manchester last year. The young girls at the Manchester Arena who came to see their favourite singer saw sights that children of that age should never have to see. I also want to pay tribute to all the brave women and men of the emergency services, who often run into danger and step forward in dreadful times. We should not forget the NHS workers—together with support from Porton Down—who were confronted with circumstances that they could never have dreamed of, but who saved the lives of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

    I turn to the Bill before us. Let me begin by saying that I agreed with the Home Secretary when he said recently that there is no binary choice between security and liberty. What makes us free is often what makes us safe. It is certainly what makes ours a country and a way of life worth serving and defending. I am not saying that just as a member of Her Majesty’s Opposition—I fought infringements of our civil liberties, together with some of his Cabinet colleagues, when a Labour Government tried to introduce them, notably ID cards and 90 days’ detention without trial. I defend civil liberties without fear or favour.

    The question that arises is whether the Bill is necessary, appropriate and proportionate. Although we support the Bill overall, a careful examination will show that it does not necessarily meet all those criteria. That is why we will seek to amend clauses of the Bill in Committee.

    The Home Secretary will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee said in 2001:

    “This country has more anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any other developed democracy.”

    In 2008, Lord Lloyd of Berwick told the other place:

    “No other country in the world…has had anything like the same plethora of” anti-terrorism

    “legislation that we have had.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 2008;
    Vol. 703, c. 700.]

    More recently, Max Hill QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said last year that Britain

    “has the laws we need. We should review them and ensure they ensure remain fit for purpose, but we should have faith in our legal structures, rather than trying to create some kind of new situation where the ordinary rules are thrown out.”

    To the extent that the Bill does not throw out the ordinary rules, it has our broad support.

    Finally in relation to expert opinion, I turn to the review by Dave Anderson, QC, of the terrorist incidents last year in Manchester and London. He made a series of recommendations, ranging from multi-agency working to greater intelligence sharing and more consistent handling of intelligence, but there was not a single recommendation of new laws or powers.

    Nevertheless, we have the Bill before us, and the Opposition broadly support it. I will now set out our reservations. First, it will update offences in a way that will potentially criminalise information seeking, playing of videos and expressions of opinion. In relation to the playing of videos, the Home Secretary will have heard the opinion of my right hon. Friend Mr Jones about three clicks being a significant number. We will seek to clarify the point in Committee.

    On the question of expressing opinion, the Home Office says in its note on the Bill that it is

    “not making it unlawful to hold a private view in support of a terrorist organisation”.

    The Home Office also says:

    “Operational experience has shown that there is a gap around individuals who make statements expressing their own support for terrorist organisations...but who stop short of expressly inviting others to do so”.

    The Home Secretary will expect that we will press that point in Committee, because we would say that gap between having an opinion and inciting others to unlawful acts is not an anomaly but an important principle in protecting freedom of speech. We are in danger in the Bill of confusing bad thoughts with bad deeds. We hope to clarify this issue as the Bill makes progress.

    Another concern about the Bill is the extent to which it allows the retention of biometric data on anyone arrested, including DNA and fingerprints, even if they are mistakenly or even unlawfully arrested. There are already abuses of the national police database, which the Government have failed to correct. The state has no business keeping records on people who are not criminals. It is an essential part of our liberty that we can go about our day-to-day lives unhindered by state agencies. That is not the case if the state can retain data on all of us. It is an even greater breach of our civil liberties if the retention is done without our knowledge.

    A further concern about the Bill is what it has to say about the Prevent strategy. It proposes extending the Prevent strategy by allowing local authorities, as well as the police, to refer people to the Prevent programme. Let me be clear that there will always be a need for a programme that does what Prevent purports to do. I have met Commissioner Neil Basu and other Metropolitan police leads on Prevent, and I visited Prevent-funded programmes in Birmingham and elsewhere. I have no doubt that there is some good work being done in the name of Prevent, but Prevent as a whole is a tainted brand, particularly among sections of the Muslim community. From a recent study by the Behavioural Insights Team, commissioned by the Home Office itself, we also know that more than 95% of deradicalisation programmes are ineffective. I suggest that those two facts—that Prevent is a tainted brand and that so many of the deradicalisation programmes are ineffective—are not unrelated.

    Labour is committed to a thorough review of the Prevent programme, which we believe is currently not fit for purpose. In the interests of transparency and accurate evidence-based policy making, I call on the Home Secretary today to publish the research by the Behavioural Insights Team, which has been so widely reported and seems to run counter to the claims made for the success of these programmes.

    Key point , she said 'To the extent that the Bill does not throw out the ordinary rules, it has our broad support.'.she supports the current Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill.

    'Consistently voting against counter-terror acts and bills' you said. My arse. What she had a problem with was Blair's laws under David Blunkett and Jug-ears Clarke.I know for a fact she was not alone in this.


    Edit: Did I kill the thread? Oh dear.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 09, 2019 at 12:30 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  7. #27
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Civitate Magistrate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,967

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    As always the voice of reason.

    I guess I'm coming from the other end of this in that I have no problem with state intrusion, if reasonable and lawful, but I may have overlooked the impact of such, other than the obvious abuses.
    I'll take that, cheers mate, though i'm sure there will be others who very much disagree

    That's a fair position, if i remember rightly 95thrifleman and me had an exchange on this a few months back and he opened my eyes to the point that many Britain's and British culture in general tended to be pro-state encroachment (or in fairness a better word to mitigate my bias here would be oversight or intervention perhaps) on the private sphere if for practical reasons of security, due to generally at least some level of trust in governing bodies in this role. I countered on the point about 'British' radicalism and 'small state thinking' though i dare say he's proved far more right than me in terms of current history (like the quiet acceptance and indeed support for the snoopers charter, despite its huge oversight issues from my perspective at least).

    It is why though (to bring this directly back to thread and your most recent post) i was surprised Diane Abbot would have taken such a stance against the anti-terror legislation, since the ever-encroaching sphere of government, while led by the Conservatives, has been fully supported by Labour as has the idiotic moves to try and create Government back doors for encrypted websites and services (Which would weaken the security overall, not to mention the state has a habit of misusing, losing and indeed storing this data unsafely). But aye if your source is correct, it seems that Dianne Abbott didn't really criticize the counter-terror policies (and certainly not in the way i hope!) and is still broadly supportive, but rightfully notes that things like prevent do need a review to see if it still is/ever was fit for purpose given the debate over this.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  8. #28
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,351
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    'Consistently voting against counter-terror acts and bills' you said. My arse.
    Her voting record going back to 2001.

    Diane Abbott generally voted against Labour's anti-terrorism laws, while most Labour MPs generally voted for.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Well if you survive a beheading I feel like that's fair enough you get to go home

  9. #29
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Carpathian Forests (formerly Scotlland)
    Posts
    12,600

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Yes, they want to stop proscribing terrorist groups. This thing wants us to repeal almost all of our post-9/11 counter terror legislation.
    Our post 9/11 terror legislation is at best flawed, and at worst not fit for purpose. The criticism of the Patriot Act in the US is well-known - it is generally agreed to have resulted in a huge overreach in the scope and capability of internal surveillance, policing, detainment and such like. Although Tony Blair's administration was not as cynically Neoconservative as the Bush administration, the fact that the Iraq War was largely a bogus war to advance the interests of a narrow elite should make us seriously question whether the purpose of counter terror legislation is always to protect the citizens of Western countries. Certainly it seems to have a very adverse impact on minority communities, whilst benefitting certain vested interests and right-wing agendas. But it didn't seem to prevent the huge upsurge in terrorism which Western countries have experienced since 9/11.

    The war on terrorism is not quite as much of a failure as the war on drugs (you can thank ISIS for that: they inadvertantly performed sterling work for MI5 by stirring up dormant Jihadi sentiments, attracting offgrid extremists onto easily visible social media, locating and establishing contact with them, and inducing them to leave the country and then getting them killed or captured in a ridiculously asymmetrical conflict), but it does seem to have led to more jihadi terrorism than existed previously in Europe, contributed to widespread Islamophobia and thus fascistic nativist politics, and generally done everything possible to make sure conservative Muslims in Europe have every incentive not to integrate.

    Then it downplays the existence of Islamist groups.
    The word 'terrorist' has become virtually meaningless. It seems these days to refer to pretty much any political organisation which opposes Western elite interests. Furthermore, it's a sad fact that most of the rest of the world is not as liberal or as peaceful as Western Europe, and so it's really not uncommon for mainstream political dialogue in other countries to include things which from a Western European perspective would be seen as unacceptable extremism, such as hardline Islamism. This is true in much of the Muslim world, just as it is true in Catholic Latin America, Hindu India, Buddhist Myanmar, Atheist North Korea and so on. The Middle East has suffered a breakdown in governmental authority and so developments there are often fronted by non-state actors rather than by ruling political parties. I personally don't care much if threats to progress and peace come from Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Somali pirates or the Drama Llama. They are threats and they should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If this means engaging with people from time to time rather than declaiming them as enemies of the state, then I can understand that.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  10. #30

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Labour's laws, including 90 days detention without trial, MPs voted against that by 322 votes to 291, with 49 Labour MPs rebelling, but later backed a proposal to extend the detention time limit to a more sensible 28 days. That's 321 people besides Abbott who objected to that clause.Conservative leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair should resign. Still curious why only Abbott is singled out and the OP spun as if she opposed all terror laws . I'll paraphrase Michael Howard's dog whistle and say' Are you thinking what I'm thinking?'. I'm sure if Tommy Robinson was locked up for 90 days without trial you'd be the first to complain.

    One cannot have an honest and robust debate if you rely on a crap source and put your own biased spin on it. Some people took what you said at face value, proving perhaps that progandising works.

    I trust you have worked out who Mo Mowlam is by now.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 10, 2019 at 02:51 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    The fact is, despite the rise in threats from islamic extremists and now the far right, the UK is the safest it has been for well over 5 decades. With the risk of brexit reigniting the bloody troubles the current anti-terror legislation and system is not only fit for purpose but one of the most effective in the world.

    Considering Diane Abbot wishes to legitimise terrorist organisations, she is clearly NOT fit for purpose as a home secretary.

  12. #32
    Papay's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Planet Nirn
    Posts
    4,120

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    The fact is, despite the rise in threats from islamic extremists and now the far right, the UK is the safest it has been for well over 5 decades. With the risk of brexit reigniting the bloody troubles the current anti-terror legislation and system is not only fit for purpose but one of the most effective in the world.

    Considering Diane Abbot wishes to legitimise terrorist organisations, she is clearly NOT fit for purpose as a home secretary.
    IRA was considered a terrorist organization.

  13. #33
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,351
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    The IRA still is lmfao.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Well if you survive a beheading I feel like that's fair enough you get to go home

  14. #34

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by 95thrifleman View Post
    The fact is, despite the rise in threats from islamic extremists and now the far right, the UK is the safest it has been for well over 5 decades. With the risk of brexit reigniting the bloody troubles the current anti-terror legislation and system is not only fit for purpose but one of the most effective in the world.

    Considering Diane Abbot wishes to legitimise terrorist organisations, she is clearly NOT fit for purpose as a home secretary.
    Where is the evidence that she is?
    I've mentioned that Abbott was not alone in opposing Labour 's ( but not necessarily Tory) anti-terrorism laws. Scores of people did. So why are you following Aexodous in singling out this lady and not the multitude of others who did the same.

    Here's something to read whilst you think of an answer.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/l...-a8742646.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...imising-racism
    Last edited by mongrel; September 12, 2019 at 01:56 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    God forbid that an MP challenge the policies of the government of the day. Isn't that Diane's job? There is much material out there highlighting the Muslim communities concern with Prevent. Not that I agree with her,or them, in my view the policy doesn't go far enough, for example Generation Identity should, in my view be outlawed and it's promoters locked up.
    Opposing government policy is not the issue, it is the polify and views she is promoting that are the issue

    It does not require a leap to connect Islamophobia to the mass murders from Utoya to El Paso. It's a virus which has evolved from a laughable expression of bigotry to a weapon that could radicalise susceptible people (look what happened to Basil over the years) . Those who fondly remember the time around 2006 when Simon Cashmere's strange posts will recall that attacks were made against Islam as an irresistible culture that would swamp us all, to prevent this the West should curb Islamic migration, remove rights from those settled there and support Israel the US and UK in their invasions of random countries without question. These people were odd but mockable. However that changed in 2011 when one Anders Breivik , having spent time with the fascist EDL concluded that 'criticising Islam' wont get rid of Muslims . We know the rest.
    You.are promoting ancoubter bigotry as much as the bigotry you condemn. El Paso shooting had nothing to do with Muslims, and the Orlando shooting by a Muslim killed twice as many people. The Easter attack on Christian churches in Sri Lanka killed 3 times as many Christians as the Christ Church attack on the Mosques, and were the work of a group, not the work an individual acting alone. The 911 attack alone killed more than all the attacks of the white males combined. ISIS atrocities are supported by Muslims around the world, many from moderate Muslim communities. There is a massive exodus of non Muslims from Muslims due to Islamic intolerance which the Muslim community shows no concer over and people like you won't even acknowledge happening. The Jewish community of Egypt. Which had existed for thousands of years, has vanished and Christian communities throughout thr Mideast are endangered of.completely disappearing. Yet we get nothing but silence. The atrocities committed by Muslim are very frequently the works of groups, acting with support from other Muslims, not the work of lone individuals acting by themselves as in El Paso.

    You would think that 'phobes would have reconsidered their views, but no the following year , in France, Renaud Camus's 2012 wrote The Great Replacement,which suggested that it wasn't Muslims that were out to kill us , it was the 'elites' who imported them in order to wipe out white Christians. He essentilly married the laughable Eurabia theory with the more sinister white genocide conspiracy created by the convicted white supremacist terrorist David Lane. The American neo nazi community developed the idea further and consider all none white people and those who advocate equality as legitimate targets for murder. Hence murders of Jo Cox and latterly Mexicans at El Paso as well as Muslims , black people, Sikhs, and others in the name of a pointless cult.
    When they see Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, New York, London, Madrid, New Dehli, Afghanistan, and ISIS atrocities in the Midwest, all carried out by groups of Muslims, not just lone individuals, exactly why should they change their mind? When they see even so called moderate Muslims advocsting Sharia law that intrinsically treats non Muslims as inferiors, when they see that never have Muslims tested non Muslims as full equals in those areaz they dominate, and when they see the actions of Muslim groups like the Taliban, and ISIS, then why should they change their mind and why shouldn't they have a phobia. It is ok to be afraid of lions and bears, because they are dangerous, and they have attacked and killed people.

    While people have talked about the tolerance of Islam, that is a myth. At best, the Muslims were no more tolerant than ths southern whites in the Jim Crow South, who allowed blacks to have their own churches and schools. But Muslims, even moderate Muslims, won't allow non Muslims to marry Muslim women, just as southern whites would not tolerate a black marrying a white woman. Because Muslims are minority in western lands, they proclaim they don't posses views of intolerance, that is just good public relations. But whether they would practice such tolerance if they were in charge is not been supported by the historical record. Muslims could've considered tolerant only in the sense that southern whites of the Jim Crow South were tolerant of blacks, after all blacks.were allowed to have their own churches and schools.


    Muslims's own record talk about large groups of Jews and Christians living in Arabia, groups that no longer exist, and how Muhammad exterminated non Muslims, so why is it any wonder they express concern about Islam? I know most Americans didn't think about Islam one way or the other until 911, where more people died than all the other terrorist attacks in the last several decades combined. And continued terrorist attaxks.lime the Fort Hood shooting, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Washington, D.C. sniper attacks, and the Orlando night club shootings have done nothing to reassure people, notnhavr terrorist acts by ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

    Islamophobia is coded racism, sites promoting Islamophobia always refer to third world migrants and so forth. The most common motive, tbh is to make money.
    It is not racism ronwant to avoid the terrorist actions of Muslims like ISIS and the Taliban from happening in their own back yard. Or.the genocide like that which occurred in Armenia by the Turks happening to their descendants. Many of the ISIS members came from moderate Muslim families, and Ben Ladin did not come from some poor down trodden Muslim family. Had it not been for Muslim immigrants, the Twin Towers would still be standing. Fear of bears and lions can be entirely rational and reasonable, since those animals.xo attack and kill people. It is rational and logic to be scared of tigers and lions, and likewise it is rational to be concerned about Islam.

    Name 5 majority Islamic countries that give full rights to non Muslims, including the right of non Muslims.to marry Muslim women. If you can't name 5, you have your answer.


    ,

    .

  16. #36

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Opposing government policy is not the issue, it is the polify and views she is promoting that are the issue .
    Views that were identical to Michael Howard's and scores of other MPs at the time. That view was that 90 days detention without trial stomped on Britain's human rights laws. I've posted her actual speeches where she criticised Labour's policies. Show me what she said that could be so objectionable. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? It's ok to slander the black lady, but not the scores of white people who opposed Labour's laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    You.are promoting ancoubter bigotry as much as the bigotry you condemn. El Paso shooting had nothing to do with Muslims, and the Orlando shooting by a Muslim killed twice as many people. The Easter attack on Christian churches in Sri Lanka killed 3 times as many Christians as the Christ Church attack on the Mosques, and were the work of a group, not the work an individual acting alone. The 911 attack alone killed more than all the attacks of the white males combined. ISIS atrocities are supported by Muslims around the world, many from moderate Muslim communities. There is a massive exodus of non Muslims from Muslims due to Islamic intolerance which the Muslim community shows no concer over and people like you won't even acknowledge happening. The Jewish community of Egypt. Which had existed for thousands of years, has vanished and Christian communities throughout thr Mideast are endangered of.completely disappearing. Yet we get nothing but silence. The atrocities committed by Muslim are very frequently the works of groups, acting with support from other Muslims, not the work of lone individuals acting by themselves as in El Paso..
    What kind of ranting nonsense is this? By your logic,if the Mayflower didn't land on Plymouth rock El Paso would not have happened, neither would the Oklahoma City bombing. Native Americans would not have been subjected to genocide. Yes...indeed. history as political comment.

    No amount of Islamphobic crap is going to detract from the point that murders related to Eurabia and white preplacement theory is terrorism. It just is.One cannot be 'bigoted' towards mass murderers, of any kind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    It is not racism ronwant to avoid the terrorist actions of Muslims like ISIS and the Taliban from happening in their own back yard. Or.the genocide like that which occurred in Armenia by the Turks happening to their descendants. Many of the ISIS members came from moderate Muslim families, and Ben Ladin did not come from some poor down trodden Muslim family. Had it not been for Muslim immigrants, the Twin Towers would still be standing. Fear of bears and lions can be entirely rational and reasonable, since those animals.xo attack and kill people. It is rational and logic to be scared of tigers and lions, and likewise it is rational to be concerned about Islam. .
    So you must demonise all brown people because of terrorism, but you say it is 'bigotry' to condemn a small number of white supremacist terrorists. Just as I said, Islamophobia is code for racism.





    ,
    Last edited by mongrel; September 12, 2019 at 01:12 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  17. #37
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,351
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Many of the ISIS members came from moderate Muslim families, and Ben Ladin did not come from some poor down trodden Muslim family. Had it not been for Muslim immigrants, the Twin Towers would still be standing.
    The people who destroyed the twin towers were all from the Middle East, mostly Saudi Arabia and Egypr iirc. Not immigrants to the US.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Well if you survive a beheading I feel like that's fair enough you get to go home

  18. #38

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    The people who destroyed the twin towers were all from the Middle East, mostly Saudi Arabia and Egypr iirc. Not immigrants to the US.
    Indeed. Endless warfare and indoctrination following 9/11 seems to have obscured some people's memories.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Views that were identical to Michael Howard's and scores of other MPs at the time. That view was that 90 days detention without trial stomped on Britain's human rights laws. I've posted her actual speeches where she criticised Labour's policies. Show me what she said that could be so objectionable. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? It's ok to slander the black lady, but not the scores of white people who opposed Labour's laws.
    She's black? I don't see where it says the, and in the discussion, you are the only one who brought up her race. You are the one playing the race cars. However she isnrhr one who seems to be spokesperson for those ideas, and the one who would implement them if Labour took over.


    What kind of ranting nonsense is this? By your logic,if the Mayflower didn't land on Plymouth rock El Paso would not have happened, neither would the Oklahoma City bombing. Native Americans would not have been subjected to genocide. Yes...indeed. history as political comment.
    True, but then would have been no US, no moon landing, no integrated circuit and modern personal computers (translated and microship all invented in the US), most Americans soildnstill have cars and telephones and TV's. None of those would have existed without white males. The white males makenupna much larger percentage of.thr population than Muslims, yet Oklahoma bombing killed only a fraction of the people killed in 911. Just saying.

    No one is, not even Trump, is advocsting banning all Muslim imm it amigration. But even thoufhnthrnpercrntage is very small, they donrepesenr a statistically higher possibilitynof being terrorist than other groups.

    No amount of Islamphobic crap is going to detract from the point that murders related to Eurabia and white preplacement theory is terrorism. It just is.One cannot be 'bigoted' towards mass murderers, of any kind.
    Simply because the truth and reality is unpleasant doesn't make it go away. Muslims are committing terrorist acts at a much higher rate than other groups, and even if the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorist, that is no comfort to those who had loved ones dying in a Muslim attack. It is not bigoted to acknowledge the reality.

    A member of the vast majority of Muslim of peaceful Muslims can turn into a terrorist at any time. When a previously nominally Buddhist or Christian has a crisis of faith become religious, they often become a monk or nun. When the previously unreligious Muslim because relious, they often become a Jihadist and a terrorist.

    The vast majority of the so called "alt right" don't commit terrorist acts either,just when andew lone white males commit a fraction of terrorist acts, you and people of your ilk do a complete 180, and suddenly demand all kinds of actions. You are far more upset by the dozens killednbybaltnright extremist acting alone than the hundreds and thousands killed by Muslimnl extremist acting in groups.



    So you must demonise all brown people because of terrorism, but you say it is 'bigotry' to condemn a small number of white supremacist terrorists. Just as I said, Islamophobia is code for racism.
    Muslims come in all color and all races. Being concerned about Islam is not racism, coded or otherwise. No one should condemn an entire group for the actions of an individual, but the problem is a little bit more than a few individuals acting alone.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; September 13, 2019 at 03:34 AM.

  20. #40

    Default Re: Diane Abbott criticises UK counter-terror policies

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    She's black? I don't see where it says the, and in the discussion, you are the only one who brought up her race. You are the one playing the race cars. However she isnrhr one who seems to be spokesperson for those ideas, and the one who would implement them if Labour took over.
    I mentioned it early in the conversation, when I asked Aexodous why the focus on her, when 291 MPs voted against 90 day detention without charge, which was the main issue with Labour's terror laws . And she was not the main 'spokeperson' the leader of the opposition, Michael Howard clearly was. Those events took place 14 and more years ago, the 90 day detention clause was amended to 28 days. There is nothing for Abbott to 'implement' as you suggest.

    You clearly have not bothered to read a syllable of the conversation, or else you would have found that she has never opposed the current Tory terror laws. I have posted all of her speeches I could find. Your wilful ignorance is utterly inexcusable.

    As for the rest of your post....................Spouting racist/sexist and excusing terrorists isn't going to mask your ignorance of the basic facts.

    I instructed you to go and read Ms Abbott's speeches I had posted , and find out for yourself whether anything she said was objectionable, you could not even manage that. You had one job and failed spectacularly.
    Last edited by mongrel; September 13, 2019 at 03:44 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •