Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[monkeybarry]

Information not in the public domain… that reminds me of the “WMDs in Iraq” which of course was based on information not in the public Domain.

I would be more happy to accept that PA are in fact terrorist if this government were an honest and impartial broker in the Israeli Palestinian issue… I don’t expect them to be pro Palestine… I don’t even want them to… I just want them to be fair and just.

I agree with those concerns, but I don't think that's what at play here (that said, I believed Blair re; WMDs. I was a teen then. Would I know? Not sure)

PA have displayed they'll go to extremes - attacking a military base is a pretty extreme act.
There don't seem to have been unnecessary restrictions on pro Palestinian protests in general.
Last summers riots aside, there is a good argument that the current government is quite lax and allows for demonstrations - we just happen to be in a period of a lot of them.

 

[monkeybarry]

Seems odd that people are stating that putting paint on a plane is somehow an act of terrorism because that's what it's been called by the clowns in charge. Who gives a fudge? It was called a crime for Rosa Parkes to sit down on a bus, if you were transported back in time would you suddenly agree that it'd deserve jail time?

It gets sillier and sillier, 80 year olds who believe in a reasonable cause (the cause of being anti genocide) are getting labelled terrorists via showing solidarity - So bam, Margaret and Ken are terrorist supporters getting manhandled by police, a surprisingly development in retirement. Was the guy who ploughed a car into innocent onlookers at the Liverpool trophy parade labeled a terrorist? Thank GHod he didn't bring a paint gun and he only ran over a bunch of people.

It's disingenuous to use hindsight in such a way, and exactly why we have laws.
Laws are just philosophy and evolve over time.
Re; your Rosa Parks comparison - see my post including the ANC, IRA, Suffragettes etc. I cover that principle in detail, and the principle of using hindsight in a previous post.

There is an important, and fascinating thought experiment that helps with this principle (and sprung to mind with assassination of the guy in the US a few days ago):
Most people would agree Hitler was incredibly evil.
Most people would agree the world would have been better without Hitler.
Few people mourn Hitler's death.

The question - at what point do you consider killing Hitler to be justified?

(On that note, there is play on in London at the which raises the question "what would have happened if Hitlers mum had let Freud work with him as a child". Sadly I don't have time to get down to see it.)

 

[monkeybarry]

Well, we'll see if it stands up to legal challenge. I understand that incursions into military bases must be viewed differently, but the terrorism designation is a crack you don't want to wedge open. It will not stop there.

Fully agree.And as I highlighted in a previous post, there is a mechanism akin to a Judicial Review available to PA to reconsider the proscription. They should avail themselves of it - prove they don't meet the benchmark and that the political decision was incorrect....if it was.

I don't believe for a second that the proscription was based purely upon the attack on a military base - that would be political suicide. Probably enough to bring down the PM.
If I'm wrong and PA are shown at judicial level not to be terrorists, then big change is needed. It would be huge. They current Govt are a mixed bag - but I doubt they are that incompetent.