I’m pretty much in agreement with everything said here and I think Mr Scully is quite right to create this thread. I have read this grauniad article which explains the reasons ‘nothing is done’ as to moral relativism. @Roger_Lapin hopefully interested. I’ll just quote a couple of select para’s -
The curse of moral relativism provides a clue. The fact is, not everyone does agree. What is absolutely morally indefensible to one group of people is relatively permissible or justifiable to another. This has held true throughout human history. Yet today’s geopolitically and economically divided world is also ethically and morally fractured to a possibly unparalleled degree. Agreed, observed standards – what the American writer David Brooks terms a “permanent moral order” – are lacking.
The collapse of the international rules-based order is mirrored by this crisis of the moral order. Without accepted universal principles, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, foreign or domestic, becomes highly problematic. “We have no objective standard by which to determine that one view is right and another view is wrong. So public arguments just go on indefinitely, at greater levels of indignation and polarisation,” Brooks argues. What’s left is coercion and manipulation.
France 24 gives excellent coverage of the horrors. Sometimes too ghastly to watch, but one must. Lindsey Hilsum gives brave reportage for channel 4. The BBC can remain doing not much… it is the endless supply of armaments to that scoundrel Netenyahu, sorry, spelling? and as for his repulsive side kicks Smotrich and ben Givr…no I am not anti semitic and I have a dear cousin whose surname is Seligman…sleep well everyone.
Bearing in mind that being de-proscribed would be of benefit to an organisation, and thus supportive of that organisation, you may care to review Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
What goes around… comes around Talion. I’m probably too old to see it, but Israel will get dealt with eventually.
Their arrogance knows no bounds and, given current course and speed, their sponsors, the US, are also on a road to nowhere. I wonder what things will look like a hundred years from now?
Based on the last two thousand years I wouldn’t be too confident if I was a secular Israeli. I think many are wondering if they would be better off not living in a tinder box with their kids or grandkids being forced to fight unjust wars for fascist/religious maniacs and thus planning a move abroad.
I note Netanyahu’s sons aren’t on the front line.
If I was an Israeli father with my son or daughter risking their life (no matter how unjustified) in Gaza I’d be pretty pissed off with Netanyahu’s kids (and the thousands of ultra orthodox Haredi) getting a free ride.
With respect, that is a matter of opinion and interpretation.
I think it is important not to lose sight of the content of Section 1 of the Terrorism Act of 2000, where the meaning of terrorism is redefined far away from the usual dictionary meaning. Why would that be done other than to prepare the ground for something much different from just the prevention of terrorism as the general public know it.
At Section 1 (1) (b) the main intent of the Act is made clear in that it is designed to prevent actions intended to influence the government.
When one considers the nature of the wording of this act it becomes clear that the main intent is to prevent inconvenience to the government rather than to prevent actual terrorism of the public.
The unvarnished truth is that Isreal is making Gaza uninhabitable while substantially reducing the Palestinian population effectively in-prisoned within.
That major world powers are either unable or unwilling to prevent the Israeli plan dies much to validate the Arab world’s long held beliefs regarding the influence of certain affluent and powerful members within those societies. Public words and protest have little or no effect.
No one can be sure how history will record these events but one thing fairly certain is that goodwill following WWII has evaporated.
Most people have become “desensitised” to conflicts and suffering so unless we are directly affected we tend to ignore what’s happening 0000’s of miles away, that may sound awful but it’s the truth.
Not really. The question of whether criticism of the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action might be a criminal offence is a question of law.
If there is any confusion about whether an offence has been committed, one of the tools used is to consider Parliament’s intention in creating the offence.
In this case, did Parliament intend, in creating this offence, that anyone who criticised a decision to proscribe a terrorist organisation should be considered to be inviting support for the proscribed organisation?
Anyway, I’m boring myself now, so goodness knows how you feel!
It seems French MP Caroline Yadan has proposed a bill to prohibit describing the genocide in Gaza as a genocide, in order to preserve the memory of the Shoah.
It’s being supported by others like Minister Aurore Berge.
