Militant Atheists To Be Targeted With New Extremism Laws?

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802

New laws to target radicalisation

The measures are also expected to introduce banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of it being proscribed as a terror group.
According to details given by Mrs May at last year's Conservative Party conference, such orders would apply if ministers "reasonably believe" a group intended to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy, or if there was a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.

Policymakers have debated the definition of extremism ever since Tony Blair's government looked at new laws after the 7/7 Tube and bus attacks in London a decade ago.
There are, potentially, two key challenges for the government in creating anti-extremism laws and tools.
First, can a definition of extremism that leads to someone facing restrictions, such as a ban on using social media, withstand legal challenges - particularly on human rights grounds?
Secondly can such bans work in practical terms without tying up the resources of the security services.
MI5, for instance, already has triage-like systems to prioritise watching the most dangerous people: it can't monitor everyone with dangerous views.
That aside, this package of measures is part of a potentially significant shift in focus.
Ministers want tools to marginalise, restrict and silence these voices because disrupting their influence may buy time to intervene and bring someone back from the edge before it's too late.

(continued, slippery slope - unintended consequences - goodbye rationalia? and ratskep? and so forth?)

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802

New laws to target radicalisation

The measures are also expected to introduce banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of it being proscribed as a terror group.
According to details given by Mrs May at last year's Conservative Party conference, such orders would apply if ministers "reasonably believe" a group intended to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy, or if there was a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.

Policymakers have debated the definition of extremism ever since Tony Blair's government looked at new laws after the 7/7 Tube and bus attacks in London a decade ago.
There are, potentially, two key challenges for the government in creating anti-extremism laws and tools.
First, can a definition of extremism that leads to someone facing restrictions, such as a ban on using social media, withstand legal challenges - particularly on human rights grounds?
Secondly can such bans work in practical terms without tying up the resources of the security services.
MI5, for instance, already has triage-like systems to prioritise watching the most dangerous people: it can't monitor everyone with dangerous views.
That aside, this package of measures is part of a potentially significant shift in focus.
Ministers want tools to marginalise, restrict and silence these voices because disrupting their influence may buy time to intervene and bring someone back from the edge before it's too late.

(continued, slippery slope - unintended consequences - goodbye rationalia? and ratskep? and so forth?)

[cronus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802

New laws to target radicalisation

The measures are also expected to introduce banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of it being proscribed as a terror group.
According to details given by Mrs May at last year's Conservative Party conference, such orders would apply if ministers "reasonably believe" a group intended to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy, or if there was a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.

Policymakers have debated the definition of extremism ever since Tony Blair's government looked at new laws after the 7/7 Tube and bus attacks in London a decade ago.
There are, potentially, two key challenges for the government in creating anti-extremism laws and tools.
First, can a definition of extremism that leads to someone facing restrictions, such as a ban on using social media, withstand legal challenges - particularly on human rights grounds?
Secondly can such bans work in practical terms without tying up the resources of the security services.
MI5, for instance, already has triage-like systems to prioritise watching the most dangerous people: it can't monitor everyone with dangerous views.
That aside, this package of measures is part of a potentially significant shift in focus.
Ministers want tools to marginalise, restrict and silence these voices because disrupting their influence may buy time to intervene and bring someone back from the edge before it's too late.

(continued, slippery slope - unintended consequences - goodbye rationalia? and ratskep? and so forth?)

[rainbow]

Quite right too!

[cronus]

Quite right too!

These new laws will hopefully be retro-active.

[rainbow]

Quite right too!

These new laws will hopefully be retro-active.

Retro nothing!

What are you, some sort of a hipster?