Extinction Rebellion - Are They Terrorists Yet?
Discussion
I'm intrigued to know other opinions on this.
A typical dictionary definition of terrorism is “the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” XR are certainly politically motivated. They claim to be non-violent, but examples have been given on other threads of XR attempting to use physical restraint and intimidation to stop civilians proceeding about their legitimate business.
They are certainly causing disruption which is the equivalent of that caused by traditional terrorism. Their aim is to disrupt our society to achieve their goals. One of their leaders is quoted as saying that XR “will bring [the Government] down and create a democracy fit for purpose and yes, some may die in the process”.
It seems likely that people may eventually die as a result of the disruption that they are causing, and I don't believe it is beyond the realms of possibility that someone acting in their name might decide to take this to the next stage.
So, should they be treated as terrorists? If not what would it take for them to be regarded as such. Should anarchist groups be allowed to continue to disrupt our society in this way, no matter how "noble" the cause, or is it time to restore order to our streets?
Over to you.
A typical dictionary definition of terrorism is “the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” XR are certainly politically motivated. They claim to be non-violent, but examples have been given on other threads of XR attempting to use physical restraint and intimidation to stop civilians proceeding about their legitimate business.
They are certainly causing disruption which is the equivalent of that caused by traditional terrorism. Their aim is to disrupt our society to achieve their goals. One of their leaders is quoted as saying that XR “will bring [the Government] down and create a democracy fit for purpose and yes, some may die in the process”.
It seems likely that people may eventually die as a result of the disruption that they are causing, and I don't believe it is beyond the realms of possibility that someone acting in their name might decide to take this to the next stage.
So, should they be treated as terrorists? If not what would it take for them to be regarded as such. Should anarchist groups be allowed to continue to disrupt our society in this way, no matter how "noble" the cause, or is it time to restore order to our streets?
Over to you.
Work in the City, were a bit of a pain this morning.
Last Thursday night I was with my partner and we had to walk to Charing Cross Station via Trafalgar Sq. They have occupied there and it's like a slum/favella. They are all drinking and partying and she found it incredibly intimidating.
I think the notion of 'Climate Justice' that underpins the values of XR is questionable. Some of their demands/philosophies are hard left. I find it hard to rationalise, however, as I believe we should keep an environmental focus, and it's great to have people talking more about it, however I just have a problem with XR...
Last Thursday night I was with my partner and we had to walk to Charing Cross Station via Trafalgar Sq. They have occupied there and it's like a slum/favella. They are all drinking and partying and she found it incredibly intimidating.
I think the notion of 'Climate Justice' that underpins the values of XR is questionable. Some of their demands/philosophies are hard left. I find it hard to rationalise, however, as I believe we should keep an environmental focus, and it's great to have people talking more about it, however I just have a problem with XR...
I wonder if there could be a charge created of "Economic Terrorism" which would be aimed at financial damage rather than physical damage/violence. So people at events like these "unauthorised" protests which cause economic damage could be charged under that, instead of the absolutely worthless slap on the wrist the get from the current charge of "failing to comply" or "blocking a highway".
The only problem with that is that it'd be very open to abuse without proper judicial oversight and just don't have enough faith in our judges right now.
Edited for a spelling error.
The only problem with that is that it'd be very open to abuse without proper judicial oversight and just don't have enough faith in our judges right now.
Edited for a spelling error.
Edited by IanH755 on Tuesday 15th October 14:39
FFS...
Whilst you may disagree with their tactics, or possibly their cause, they have the right to protest, and that should be respected.
Whilst they remain non-violent there's no way they'll be classed as terrorists. Most of them are unlikely to even qualify as domestic extremists. Granted, there will be a hardcore minority who've probably been moving from one cause to the next over many years (likely classed as 'Extreme Left Wing'). Those veterans may be more inclined to participate in more confrontational direct action (and get themselves nicked), but the majority I would expect to be concerned members of public who feel disenfranchised from the current political system.
Whilst you may disagree with their tactics, or possibly their cause, they have the right to protest, and that should be respected.
Whilst they remain non-violent there's no way they'll be classed as terrorists. Most of them are unlikely to even qualify as domestic extremists. Granted, there will be a hardcore minority who've probably been moving from one cause to the next over many years (likely classed as 'Extreme Left Wing'). Those veterans may be more inclined to participate in more confrontational direct action (and get themselves nicked), but the majority I would expect to be concerned members of public who feel disenfranchised from the current political system.
IanH755 said:
I wonder if there could be a change created of "Economic Terrorism" which would be aimed at financial damage rather than physical damage/violence. So people at events like these "unauthorised" protests which cause economic damage could be charged under that, instead of the absolutely worthless slap on the wrist the get from the current charge of "failing to comply" or "blocking a highway".
The only problem with that is that it'd be very open to abuse without proper judicial oversight and just don't have enough faith in our judges right now.
I’m sure there’s no way that measures like that would be misused to protect corporate interests The only problem with that is that it'd be very open to abuse without proper judicial oversight and just don't have enough faith in our judges right now.
.techiedave said:
Imagine one of them having a heart attack or being taken very seriously ill.p
Whats the betting if an ambulance didn't rock up in time that their "spokesperson" wouldn't be up complaining
It would have to be one of the specially adapted ones that run on chip fat or another sustainable fuel Whats the betting if an ambulance didn't rock up in time that their "spokesperson" wouldn't be up complaining
I wouldn't call them terrorists, more irritating or annoying at this stage. When it comes to flying drones at planes / disrupting airports then more robust action is needed. Terrorists wouldn't be arranging yoga sessions in the middle of busy streets, but more intent on maiming / destroying for their political aim or cause.
Probably not terrorists as such, but when I was at school in the 80's it was the next ice age due, apparently. I remember quite clearly being upset because we were told that the elderly would most likely die as a result of much colder winters...i.e my dear Nan and Granddad.
That affected me quite a bit.
Then of course in the 90's/00's it was no more snow in winter what with the impeding Global Warming® doom.
Then after that didn't happen, it was simply re-badged 'Climate change® '. Colder/Hotter/Wetter/Dryer etc.
It's important to tell our kids not to take these idiots too seriously...especially now it's more extreme than ever. The fanatics somewhat affected me back in the 80's...I hate to think what these idiots are doing to young kids today with their 'we're literally all going to die' message?!
That affected me quite a bit.
Then of course in the 90's/00's it was no more snow in winter what with the impeding Global Warming® doom.
Then after that didn't happen, it was simply re-badged 'Climate change® '. Colder/Hotter/Wetter/Dryer etc.
It's important to tell our kids not to take these idiots too seriously...especially now it's more extreme than ever. The fanatics somewhat affected me back in the 80's...I hate to think what these idiots are doing to young kids today with their 'we're literally all going to die' message?!
As long as they try to turn city centres into some sort of urban Glastonbury, then obviously no they are not terrorists. And the best approach is to avoid any aggressive action that turns "rebels" into "victims of the state".
The question is; what about when their demands are ignored and they become more extreme? Note that they don't regard smashing windows to be violent, for instance.
When they cut the fences and glue themselves to the runway at Heathrow, what then? I predict that at some point they will cross a line from being annoying to something more sinister. After all, it's justified if it saves mankind, right?
Terrorists? Not yet, but watch this space.
The question is; what about when their demands are ignored and they become more extreme? Note that they don't regard smashing windows to be violent, for instance.
When they cut the fences and glue themselves to the runway at Heathrow, what then? I predict that at some point they will cross a line from being annoying to something more sinister. After all, it's justified if it saves mankind, right?
Terrorists? Not yet, but watch this space.
Mort7 said:
I'm intrigued to know other opinions on this.
A typical dictionary definition of terrorism is “the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” XR are certainly politically motivated. They claim to be non-violent, but examples have been given on other threads of XR attempting to use physical restraint and intimidation to stop civilians proceeding about their legitimate business.
fA typical dictionary definition of terrorism is “the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” XR are certainly politically motivated. They claim to be non-violent, but examples have been given on other threads of XR attempting to use physical restraint and intimidation to stop civilians proceeding about their legitimate business.
king hell, really? What monsters! Yep, definitely one to put in the pile with ISIL & the IRA & that dhead in Manchester. We should add striking London Underground staff and bouncers while we're at it. And anyone who doesn't have a picture of the Queen above their mantelpiece.You've convinced me, guess the Chinese were right back in tiananmen square and we we're under attack right now as I type.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff