Going undercover against extremism
August 18, 2016 8:10 AM Subscribe
"A long-running undercover police operation in the Bedfordshire town of Luton, which has contributed evidence to two recent counter-terrorism trials, helped build up an incredibly detailed picture of the depths of loathing for Britain felt by the men at the heart of the investigation.
Kamal switches on the recorder and speaks into the microphone, stating the date, the time and where he's about to go. And then he leaves the house, leaves his true self behind, and walks towards danger."
Good--there is free speech and then there is freedom from hate and direct incitement.
posted by rmhsinc at 10:56 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by rmhsinc at 10:56 AM on August 18, 2016
fta/For years the group taunted the police and MI5 despite frequent prosecutions and disruption.
Commander Dean Haydon from the Metropolitan Police said: "Speeches like theirs inspire the terrorists of tomorrow."
What is not clear is whether inspiration will now spring from other sources./
Hope springs eternal? And implies doubt...round 'n' round.
Terrorists of Tomorrow®
Speech: Theirs is a gateway dru...uhm, network. A banned network, don'ch know, with main players of traveling ideologues scorning and heaping praise. But don'cha worry, because our undercovers are trained to distinguish enthusiasm from inspiration and not a second too late.
I comprehend rights aren't absolute, but the language of both the article and authorities is too heavy with connotation. It's a narrative and a construct while violence is actual. Interdiction originally referred to censure, but it's been recently appropriated by authority and distinguished as strategic and tactical.
That should give pause.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 11:22 AM on August 18, 2016
Commander Dean Haydon from the Metropolitan Police said: "Speeches like theirs inspire the terrorists of tomorrow."
What is not clear is whether inspiration will now spring from other sources./
Hope springs eternal? And implies doubt...round 'n' round.
Terrorists of Tomorrow®
Speech: Theirs is a gateway dru...uhm, network. A banned network, don'ch know, with main players of traveling ideologues scorning and heaping praise. But don'cha worry, because our undercovers are trained to distinguish enthusiasm from inspiration and not a second too late.
I comprehend rights aren't absolute, but the language of both the article and authorities is too heavy with connotation. It's a narrative and a construct while violence is actual. Interdiction originally referred to censure, but it's been recently appropriated by authority and distinguished as strategic and tactical.
That should give pause.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 11:22 AM on August 18, 2016
The whole back garden tent thing is very Four Lions.
posted by JauntyFedora at 2:23 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by JauntyFedora at 2:23 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
BBC coverage of Choudary conviction ignores his BBC appearances
[...] In the Newshour report, presenter James Coomarasamy remarked:posted by Joe in Australia at 3:46 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]“And in Britain he’s been a fairly ubiquitous sort of figure. This is not someone – for listeners around the world – this is not someone who’s only reached…ehm…supporters via Youtube or via other social media. He’s been on mainstream news programmes quite regularly, hasn’t he?”But in none of the above reports did BBC journalists acknowledge that their own corporation repeatedly provided Choudary with a platform.
"Good--there is free speech and then there is freedom from hate and direct incitement."
I don't understand this attitude. Do you expect people you agree with to always be in power? This isn't about what kind of speech it is, it's about what powers the state has to criminalize speech. For Americans you can think of it like this: "How much power do you want a Trump government to have to put people in jail for what they say".
"Good -- there is free speech and there is freedom from obscenity and disturbing, harmful images" was used for years to suppress any art that wasn't strictly heteronormative as well as any art questioning the religious justifications for sexism, child abuse, slavery, etc. The definition of what is "hate" and what is "direct incitement" or "obscenity" is necessarily determined by the majority. This gives them much more power to oppress minorities. Sometimes the minority is hateful delusional people encouraging violence, but the single idea you either agree with or don't in regards to free speech is if you think the trade-off of allowing that in order to protect minority opinions in general is a good one.
It's not super unreasonable to not agree with free speech, you don't accept the trade-off. You feel that a more authoritarian position is required for the safety of the public in regards to speech and the liberal position is too dangerous.
posted by Infracanophile at 5:45 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't understand this attitude. Do you expect people you agree with to always be in power? This isn't about what kind of speech it is, it's about what powers the state has to criminalize speech. For Americans you can think of it like this: "How much power do you want a Trump government to have to put people in jail for what they say".
"Good -- there is free speech and there is freedom from obscenity and disturbing, harmful images" was used for years to suppress any art that wasn't strictly heteronormative as well as any art questioning the religious justifications for sexism, child abuse, slavery, etc. The definition of what is "hate" and what is "direct incitement" or "obscenity" is necessarily determined by the majority. This gives them much more power to oppress minorities. Sometimes the minority is hateful delusional people encouraging violence, but the single idea you either agree with or don't in regards to free speech is if you think the trade-off of allowing that in order to protect minority opinions in general is a good one.
It's not super unreasonable to not agree with free speech, you don't accept the trade-off. You feel that a more authoritarian position is required for the safety of the public in regards to speech and the liberal position is too dangerous.
posted by Infracanophile at 5:45 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Tangentially, something that may provide traction for extremism–Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission: Ethnic minorities face 'entrenched' racial inequality
posted by XMLicious at 1:13 AM on August 19, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 1:13 AM on August 19, 2016
« Older Troubling, enduring work of New England’s... | Because who has time to read whole articles? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by rosswald at 8:58 AM on August 18, 2016