This all makes sense but as a lifelong American I continue to be shocked at how the UK criminalizes expression and association. Whatever the organization has done, banning the expression of support for it is no different than criminalizing any statement that hurts a trans-identified person's feelings.
Yes, I don't like how that is worded either. It's one thing to ban financial or material or practical support for a terrorist organisation. That makes you complicit in the crimes they commit. My concern is that people could be arrested simply for saying the organisation should be allowed to exist or has good aims. They must be allowed to believe that and say it.
There is yet anther possibility: even at this very late hour: an attempt should be made to try to persuade them that their supposed cause is without merit. Founded on a poor understanding of the reality of the situation.
And in the course of trying to do so, it may help others who are not on hunger strike but are supportive of their supposed cause, to think again. Including numerus pro-Palestine Members of Parliament.
Here is my attempt to do this:
Ending the hunger strike of pro-Palestine prisoners
No, it's not legal to force life-saving care including nutrition on people who have mental capacity and decline it. Since publishing, I have seen the law on this and it is very clear.
Well then let them die. I'm not even remotely conflicted—especially given the results of these past few years of giving in to trans activists who've been threatening suicide.
Blackmail is terrorism (terrorism in service of other terrorism, in the case of Palestine Action). Never negotiate with terrorists—especially never to save terrorists from themselves.
.
Agreed on minimizing media coverage, for roughly the same reason as other situations with copycat potential.
I agree that it's a liberal stance to allow a hunger strike to continue to its grim conclusion if the participant is of sound mind. And if you oppose the goals of the hunger strike, it makes sense not to glorify the act and keep press coverage at a minimum: you don't want copycats.
I'm not sure what the liberal stance would be if one were sympathetic with the hunger strike. It isn't Corbyn's approach; that's disingenuous about the options at our disposal, but what would be the correct approach? Fight for the right to continue the strike, and then cover it extensively in the press?
Yes, as with forms of civil disobedience, if you are going to put yourself on the line for a cause and take the consequences, this can be a rational decision.
Very nicely argued. Thank you.
This all makes sense but as a lifelong American I continue to be shocked at how the UK criminalizes expression and association. Whatever the organization has done, banning the expression of support for it is no different than criminalizing any statement that hurts a trans-identified person's feelings.
Yes, I don't like how that is worded either. It's one thing to ban financial or material or practical support for a terrorist organisation. That makes you complicit in the crimes they commit. My concern is that people could be arrested simply for saying the organisation should be allowed to exist or has good aims. They must be allowed to believe that and say it.
This is a very well argued article. Thank you.
There is yet anther possibility: even at this very late hour: an attempt should be made to try to persuade them that their supposed cause is without merit. Founded on a poor understanding of the reality of the situation.
And in the course of trying to do so, it may help others who are not on hunger strike but are supportive of their supposed cause, to think again. Including numerus pro-Palestine Members of Parliament.
Here is my attempt to do this:
Ending the hunger strike of pro-Palestine prisoners
Email to UK Members of Parliament.
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/ending-the-hunger-strike-of-pro-palestine
Never give blackmailers what they want. Never, ever, ever.
If you think their lives are worth facing, then just force-feed them. They did it to the Suffragettes, they can do it to these guys.
No, it's not legal to force life-saving care including nutrition on people who have mental capacity and decline it. Since publishing, I have seen the law on this and it is very clear.
Well then let them die. I'm not even remotely conflicted—especially given the results of these past few years of giving in to trans activists who've been threatening suicide.
Blackmail is terrorism (terrorism in service of other terrorism, in the case of Palestine Action). Never negotiate with terrorists—especially never to save terrorists from themselves.
.
Agreed on minimizing media coverage, for roughly the same reason as other situations with copycat potential.
I agree that it's a liberal stance to allow a hunger strike to continue to its grim conclusion if the participant is of sound mind. And if you oppose the goals of the hunger strike, it makes sense not to glorify the act and keep press coverage at a minimum: you don't want copycats.
I'm not sure what the liberal stance would be if one were sympathetic with the hunger strike. It isn't Corbyn's approach; that's disingenuous about the options at our disposal, but what would be the correct approach? Fight for the right to continue the strike, and then cover it extensively in the press?
Yes, as with forms of civil disobedience, if you are going to put yourself on the line for a cause and take the consequences, this can be a rational decision.