Oh trust me, I get that the state wants to punish this and set a red line, no doubt about that. That doesn’t make the label of terrorist appropriate, there is plenty of things other than terrorism that are illegal. My idea of terrorism doesn’t include this form of property damage, and labeling it as such seems to be what sets a dangerous precedent here.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 1 week ago
But this is your personal opinion, and I happen to disagree with it. Your only point of contention here is not the act itself, just the terrorism label. Personally, I think you’re focusing on the wrong things. The UK is a democratic country and the people voted in politicians that established their terrorism laws. These laws have been established law for decades, and thus, these laws are reflection of what terrorism mean to the British people. It’s their definition, their laws, their punishments. This groups intentionally violated them for a political cause, they know they were going to face consequences for doing so, and they are.
The only way this becomes an issue if this standard is not applied universally or equally, which doesn’t appear to be the case. The UK is not using terrorism laws to wrongly accuse other groups who didn’t do anything of terrorism, they’re not censoring people who advocate for the Palestinian cause because of this incident, and both the punishment this group is facing fits the crime in accordance with their laws. I don’t see an issue here tbh
MrKurteous@feddit.nu 1 week ago
Oh I can tell you disagree with it! I’m quite happy with what I’m focusing on, I can see that you want to have a different conversation than whether it is crazy or not to classify this as terrorism, but I’m afraid I’m not interested in that. I feel like I’ve made my point clear enough, hopefully you feel the same.