Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

netpol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 224 posts

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#131

Post by ben_w »

willahmad wrote: post #120
ben_w wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno for sure, but I'd suggest that mentioning Israel when it's the UK doing it, it might possibly look a bit like shoe-horning in a capital-A-Agenda. The UK doesn't really have much of a good history on the topic of listening to political dissent from within. The Sex Pistols comes to mind, and the Winter of Discontent, and the anti-Iraq-war march, and the Troubles, and police kettling a few decades back, and a bike…

but isn't it literally connected to foreign entities, with high probability to Israel-Palestine conflict, no?

I don't think so, I never got the impression that Israel is all that big a deal in the UK in either direction.

If they are, they're a lot more subtle about it than they are with regard to USA politics.

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#132

Post by dfawcus »

ben_w wrote: post #124
dfawcus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

My actually-a-Communist former partner will take great exception to any description of the current UK politicians as "Marxist". Well, except perhaps Jeremy Corbyn.

Look up our current PMs history.

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#133

Post by ben_w »

dfawcus wrote: post #132
ben_w wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My actually-a-Communist former partner will take great exception to any description of the current UK politicians as "Marxist". Well, except perhaps Jeremy Corbyn.

Look up our current PMs history.

Marxist definition: class struggle, abolition of capitalist property, collective ownership, systemic change.

Starmer’s record: social-democrat, pragmatic, incremental reforms, accepts market economy.

Why he's not Marxist: avoids ideological rigidity, no revolutionary agenda, shifted toward center-left, compromises for governance.

I suggest reading the Communist Manifesto, so you know what to argue against if nothing else. It's, y'know, free.

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#134

Post by tremon »

philipallstar wrote: post #125
soulofmischief wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This US-centric take blatantly fails to address all of the problems, the right-wing ideologies, which have easily had a much greater impact on the rise of fascism across the world. And to be clear, US liberalism is largely supportive of right-wing ideology, the US Democratic party would be considered a right-wing party in many other countries. So it's both parties who are to blame here, but the underlying authoritari…

This was nothing to do with the US. I was actually thinking about the UK's laws when I wrote it. I'm trying to talk ideas; your post is riddled with just identifying which team is the goodies and the baddies. I don't think there's much common ground to be had between discussing ideas vs tribalism.

Yes, you were thinking of the UK's laws, but from the perspective of the US Constitution. There's an implicit tribalism in your own post where you assume without contest that the US' definition of free speech is the only one that can possibly have merit.

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#135

Post by mr_important »

dfawcus wrote: post #121
yadaeno wrote: post #113

In 2023, the number of people arrested for online comments: UK (12,183), Belarus (6,205), Germany (3,500), China (1,500). How do people in the UK defend this? I consider myself a liberal and to defend this government is a level of hypocrisy so beyond the pale. Am I being reactionary here? Are things actually not that bad in the UK?

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#136

Post by dfawcus »

LightBug1 wrote: post #97
dvt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is becoming so partisan, it's starting to get on my nerves. The bill text is here[1]. It's extremely benign and the article linked, in fact, argues against it's own straw-man, found in another cited article[2]: > Yet, another way to view ‘cumulative’ or repeated protests is as sustained public action for justice, solidarity and freedom. So yes, if you interpret some random bill amendment in whatever way favors you…

Considering what is happening to the Palestine Action protestors right now in the UK, your waiving away of concerns is hard to read. Give an inch and they (current, or future governments) are given more scope to attempt to take a mile through interpretation or overreach. - Broad discretionary powers - Vague thresholds - Pre-emptive justification - Lack of neutral limits (time, geography, number of events) - Expansion…

One of the problems with Palestine Action is the violent protests they have previously engaged in.

There is a trial in progress at the moment relating to an attack on Elbit Systems where one of the "protestors" seemed to attack a WPC with a sledgehammer. Apparently having caused serious harm to her spine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79727zeqyvo

So the folks holding signs expressing their support for the group once it has been proscribed (I believe under the TA 2000) are somewhat ill advised.

If they disagree with the proscription, what they should probably be doing it assisting in the Judicial Review of that proscription which is currently ongoing. Certainly they should be waiting until after the review before expressing any support.

As even if the proscription is overturned, those who expressed support for what is currently viewed as a terrorist org may not have the personal consequences of their support undone.

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#137

Post by IAmBroom »

ben_w wrote: post #119
aranw wrote: post #70

There is probably a legitimate basis for some powers against actual foreign intelligence operations. But the proposals in the article defining "subversion" to include environmental activism, independence movements, or criticism of UK policy show how quickly these things expand beyond their original scope. The Terrorism Act was meant to exclude domestic activists but two decades later it has been used against protest…

> But the proposals in the article defining "subversion" to include environmental activism, independence movements, or criticism of UK policy show how quickly these things expand beyond their original scope. Yes, but I wouldn't put "independence movements" in that list. Much as I'm relaxed about the Welsh and Scots' independence movements, for Northern Ireland to do whatever it wants including the current kicking-can…

So, you support the government labeling those movements as "subversion"? Your opinion isn't very clear here. If so, why are those movements so different, or are you supporting the government's move entirely, because of those cases?

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#138

Post by tremon »

ben_w wrote: post #131
willahmad wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but isn't it literally connected to foreign entities, with high probability to Israel-Palestine conflict, no?

I don't think so, I never got the impression that Israel is all that big a deal in the UK in either direction. If they are, they're a lot more subtle about it than they are with regard to USA politics.

The fact that peaceful protesters against the Gaza genocide got labeled as terrorists should be sufficient evidence that the UK government still very much shares their bed with Israel.

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#139

Post by dfawcus »

ben_w wrote: post #133
dfawcus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up our current PMs history.

Marxist definition: class struggle, abolition of capitalist property, collective ownership, systemic change. Starmer’s record: social-democrat, pragmatic, incremental reforms, accepts market economy. Why he's not Marxist: avoids ideological rigidity, no revolutionary agenda, shifted toward center-left, compromises for governance. I suggest reading the Communist Manifesto, so you know what to argue against if nothing…

Good for you.

However many of us don't believe he has actually changed in his views since his days editing, and writing articles for Socialist Alternatives.

Re: UK Government plans new powers to label dissenting movements as 'subversion'

#140

Post by soulofmischief »

philipallstar wrote: post #125
soulofmischief wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This US-centric take blatantly fails to address all of the problems, the right-wing ideologies, which have easily had a much greater impact on the rise of fascism across the world. And to be clear, US liberalism is largely supportive of right-wing ideology, the US Democratic party would be considered a right-wing party in many other countries. So it's both parties who are to blame here, but the underlying authoritari…

This was nothing to do with the US. I was actually thinking about the UK's laws when I wrote it. I'm trying to talk ideas; your post is riddled with just identifying which team is the goodies and the baddies. I don't think there's much common ground to be had between discussing ideas vs tribalism.

They're all the baddies, at least in the US. You must have missed the part where I described both parties as contributing to authoritarian fascism.

It's ridiculous to accuse me of peddling tribalism when my post intentionally pushed back against the very tribalism coloring your original post.

Can we get back on topic?

Post reply on HN