we knew this would happen

[Cloud No.9]

the government is trying to push through another anti-terror bill.

it has 3 main new crimes. "indirect incitement to terrorism"
"acts prepatory to terrorism"
and to outlaw terrorist training at home or abroad.

i don't think there is any doubt why this is being brought forward now. it is a great time to push forward any laws with "terrorism" on the top.

the first bans folk saying suicide bombings and terrorist attacks are a good thing.

the second bans stuff like looking on the net at how to build a bomb.

the third is pretty obvious. but i alread thought it was a crime.

i know that under these laws i could be convicted under the second act. and if things are twisted then under the first. i could be branded a terrorist thanks to this act if it gets past.

the third law i am also sceptical on. there are plenty of guerilla wars going on in this moment. are we to ban all those who think that they are worthy causes? would this out law the freedom brigades of the spanish civil war?

i'm not happy with this at all. i hate how the london bombings are being used to create even more laws. what do you lot think?

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

Pardon my ignorance... but are you talking about England? If so, is there anything like the first amendment, which should protect free speech? How does that play against the first 2 'new crimes?'

[Tama2]

Laws can be made to restict our freedoms. It has and will keep happenin.

[Optium]

The freedom fighters in Nepal who are fighting FOR democracy are on the
list of terrorist groups put out by the US. Gotta love it.

.opt

[Madame Adequate]

Pardon my ignorance... but are you talking about England? If so, is there anything like the first amendment, which should protect free speech? How does that play against the first 2 'new crimes?'

There's no constitution or the like in England. Major problem with common law.

Anyways, I disapprove of this entirely. Recieving training, of course, makes sense - there is no moral ground for making the acquisition of knowledge felonius. Indeed, as I understand it, looking for information on Wikipedia about H-bombs will become illegal. I intend to purchase as many books as possible on bombmaking and military actions, and to access as many internet sites as possible regarding it. It is unenforcable and entirely unjust.

[Garland]

I thought the UK had an unwritten constitution. Anyway, I'm pretty confident that the rights of UK citizens won't be infinged too severely, if at all. This is the perspective of a US citizen. The UK government is one of the better in the world, IMO - it kept the traditions of the monarchy (traditions are important) and modernized with the rest of the world with an elected Prime Minister and Parlaiment at the same time. I don't think such a government would turn to tyranny any time soon. A lot of laws sound worse in legal jargon than they are in practice. Your government still has to decide how it wants to enforce these laws.

[Wuggly Blight]

thats the Monarch who has the unwritten constitution. anyway Im just gonna see this one out, Tont Blair isn't liked anyway.

[Cloud No.9]

well al the parties have agreed to it now. it will go through parliament. getting through the lords might be different.

[Wuggly Blight]

Tony Blair is still trying to get his way and ditch the old house of lords, so they cant help us for long.

[Captain Maxx Power]

I seem to recall a bunch of British Muslims came on television and said they wished to be suicide bombers. I think we can consider these people, who were simply stating their minds, to be arrested if this goes ahead. However ridiculous it may be, I have a real problem that stops people from thinking a certain way. I'm pretty sure it's called facism.

[Mr. Mojo Risin]

Let 'em speak boldly and publicly, it makes it much easier for the good guys to keep an eye on them.

[eestlinc]

how in the world does talking about terrorism hurt anything?

[SomethingBig]

So if I were to make jokes about 9-11, would the government slap a sticker saying, "DON'T smurfING SAY THAT IT WAS A GOOD THING, TERRORIST !" and march me off ot jail?

[Raistlin]

"indirect incitement to terrorism"

What? This isn't indirect cause of terrorism(such as funding or arming terrorists), but indirect incitement. What does that even mean? If I go on TV and make fun of the middle-east, and terrorists come and bomb my house, would I be guilty of "indirect incitement to terrorism?"

"acts prepatory to terrorism"

I'd like to know the full statute on this one. But they probably left this intentionally vague(like the Patriot Act) so it can mean whatever-the-hell they want.
Also, how could you judge they were preparing to commit a "terrorist act?" I mean, plenty of people have guns, and a lot of terrorists never even used guns(9/11?). Is getting pilot training now an "act preparatory to terrorism?" It seems to me that this is trying to outlaw thinking about commiting a terrorist act - or, along with the first, doing anything which could remotely support a terrorist act, whether you know it or not.

and to outlaw terrorist training at home or abroad.

While this sounds reasonable(at least, the "at home" part), what constitutes "terrorist training?"

It seems to me the White House throws around phrases like "supporting terrorism" and "training terrorism" and "indirect incitement to terrorism" without giving them any specific, objective definitions, in which case they are merely arbitrary collections of letters with no real meaning.