I’d also like to assert that, thinking we shouldn’t “over-react” to domestic violence, coercion and controlling behaviour - because the perpetrator might not actually murder their target - continues to suggest that it’s ok to abuse folk, usually women, so long as you don’t actually kill them.
I presume that the police watch organisations that contain many law abiding people and some potential terrorists to spot any of the last three of that list, in the course of which they probably see quite a lot of the top two as well. My idea behind this thread was that incel and manosphere groups should also be subject to such police attention.
Given the outcomes of the Prevent program (largely didn't catch terrorists, criminalised misunderstandings and people with mental health issues), I don't think that the suggestion to extend it is a particularly serious one.
I didn't mention Prevent - the fact that one anti terrorism programme hasn't worked (if it hasn't - I don't know) doesn't mean all anti terrorism activity is futile.
You made an explicit presumption in favour of current anti-terrorism strategies being extended:
"I presume that the police watch organisations that contain many law abiding people and some potential terrorists to spot any of the last three of that list, in the course of which they probably see quite a lot of the top two as well."
I presume that the police watch organisations that contain many law abiding people and some potential terrorists to spot any of the last three of that list, in the course of which they probably see quite a lot of the top two as well. My idea behind this thread was that incel and manosphere groups should also be subject to such police attention.
Given the outcomes of the Prevent program (largely didn't catch terrorists, criminalised misunderstandings and people with mental health issues), I don't think that the suggestion to extend it is a particularly serious one.
I didn't mention Prevent - the fact that one anti terrorism programme hasn't worked (if it hasn't - I don't know) doesn't mean all anti terrorism activity is futile.
You made an explicit presumption in favour of current anti-terrorism strategies being extended.
And FWIW the stuff across the pond hasn't worked out much better:
I presume that the police watch organisations that contain many law abiding people and some potential terrorists to spot any of the last three of that list, in the course of which they probably see quite a lot of the top two as well. My idea behind this thread was that incel and manosphere groups should also be subject to such police attention.
Given the outcomes of the Prevent program (largely didn't catch terrorists, criminalised misunderstandings and people with mental health issues), I don't think that the suggestion to extend it is a particularly serious one.
I didn't mention Prevent - the fact that one anti terrorism programme hasn't worked (if it hasn't - I don't know) doesn't mean all anti terrorism activity is futile.
You made an explicit presumption in favour of current anti-terrorism strategies being extended:
"I presume that the police watch organisations that contain many law abiding people and some potential terrorists to spot any of the last three of that list, in the course of which they probably see quite a lot of the top two as well."
You read more into what I said than I'd intended as I wasn't thinking of an specific anti terror programme. For clarity, what I'm advocating is an effective and proportionate police response to realistic real world threats. If the police are not currently in a position to provide such a service, that is another issue.
I think it's clear that the police are not doing enough as a response to misogynistic violence. I don't think extending current police strategies to deal with terrorism is the way to do enough. I don't think current police strategies to deal with terrorism are the way to deal with modern terrorism.
It's correct to raise the racism and failures of programmes like Prevent and the problems of the intersection of police/intelligence work with all kinds of racist and other institutional bias, and at the same time marginalised people of all sorts are the primary targets of far right terrorists of which incels are only one sort and fighting that requires power and resources which are badly allocated at present.
that as to the classification of incel-type radicalisation as a kind of terrorism
“If you treat it as terrorism then you have other options open to you in terms of intelligence gathering, in terms of being able to prosecute for disseminating materials, in terms of being able to hold them to account if they are conspiring with each other.
“So, there are other potential offences available if you treat it as terrorism...”
A couple of years ago we had this alleged Internet-radicalised neo-Nazi said to be planning an attack on a local mosque who was charged under various terrorist legislation
Now if you don't want women of all colours and types of marginalised identity to have the imperfect but better than nothing protections and resources of the legislation used to bring Imrie to justice, can you say what about those you'd like stopped in the case of neo-nazis?
Prevent would be a good example of a bad anti-terrorist strategy, and the horrible sexual abuses of undercover cops in eg. environmental movements - though the big problem is probably structural racism and other biases leading to all powers being subject to abuse both by under and over-enforcement
So what in the legislation used to apprehend wannabe mosque bombers shouldn't be available against incels who want to mass murder women? Or contrariwise we know we've got a significant and growing far-right terrorist threat what do you think is licit to do about it for all marginalised groups?
I think it's clear that the police are not doing enough as a response to misogynistic violence. I don't think extending current police strategies to deal with terrorism is the way to do enough. I don't think current police strategies to deal with terrorism are the way to deal with modern terrorism.
So can you guys say what is a good intersectional way to deal with modern terrorism and what other marginalised groups you think should insist people plotting terrorist attacks on them shouldn't come under current anti-terrorist legislation? Or is it just women who must do this?
This is the same question as "is it art or is it pornography?". Some of the community standards by which such are judged have shifted. In both directions.
The real question is whether the band's performance and lyrics inspire and instigate violence. Your question is a real one.
I'm on record as to the general uselessness of the police to prevent crime, let alone investigate crimes and charge suspects once the crime has been committed.
We can add to that the institutional racism, misogyny and hard-right leanings of a significant number of officers, and the greater number of their colleagues who won't report them.
And add to that the acknowledged failings of the CPS to successfully prosecute violence against women and minority groups.
So without a root and branch reform of the police and prosecution, any changes in law are pointless.
At the minimum, police officers should be drawn from the wider community and should strongly reflect the composition of that community. Half of them should be women.
Zero tolerance of domestic violence - it's violence, not 'domestic'. There should be routine applications of curfews, non-contact orders, exclusion zones.
I'd also look at the role of addictions - drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography. A multi-agency approach, with help for both the victim and perpetrator, needs to be available.
The likelihood of any of this happening is tiny, because each individual crime is taken as a unique case, rather than seen as part of a wider pattern.
They potentially promoted terrorism at most. But that doesn't make it ok. I'm not very fond of the extreme left wing theme of calling for tories/rich people to be killed even though I'm pretty confident they won't act on it. Eventually some idiot WILL act on it.
Yes but Tories and rich people hold societal power - they aren't oppressed, they are the oppressors.
Also, when the Tory broadsheets attack trans people and #MeToo (and hell, The Guardian isn't better here), shouldn't they be held responsible too? They're legitimising this.
I note that the best predictor for radicalisation into violent Islamist movements is apparently a history of misogynistic violence against women.
Can you provide citations of that? Because the sort of thing I'm finding is:
However, from a review of the available literature, a number of factors, mainly attitudinal, appear to be associated with increased risk of violent extremism including beliefs by violent extremists that they are retaliating, that potential victims are less than human, and that their actions are religiously justified. In addition, violent extremists isolate themselves from positive influences, have a capability for violence and typically access violent materials. From this abstract (link) entitled An intelligence assessment framework for identifying individuals at risk of committing acts of violent extremism against the West
Two studies, which assessed high and middle income countries, argue that psychological aspects of youth – such as fatalism, perceived powerlessness, and feelings of insecurity – are factors that may correlate with religious fundamentalism; and that among Muslim men studied, those showing the most sympathy for violent protest and terrorism were more likely to report depression. Conversely, a greater number of social contacts, and being a recent migrant, were associated with more condemnation of violent extremism.
Both of which say nothing about having anti-feminist views is a link to radicalisation, but rather suggest that the groups that are being fed an anti-feminist rhetoric within an exclusionary online group, as happens in at least some groups in the manosphere, are more likely to become radicalised.
They potentially promoted terrorism at most. But that doesn't make it ok. I'm not very fond of the extreme left wing theme of calling for tories/rich people to be killed even though I'm pretty confident they won't act on it. Eventually some idiot WILL act on it.
Yes but Tories and rich people hold societal power - they aren't oppressed, they are the oppressors.
I had forgotten that we recently had this case in Edinburgh where the subject of incel-ism came up and it seems it was proceeded against under anti-terrorist law - so it does seem to be considered capable of being a form of terrorism up here. The incel part of the charge was found 'not proven' (which is a form of acquittal verdict in Scotland, when the assize for whatever reasons prefer not to say 'not guilty')
According to the article that allegation was 'that he prepared for terrorist acts by conducting online research in relation to spree killings during this time, particularly those connected with incels... As part of this charge, Friel was accused of having "expressed affinity with and sympathy for one incel-motivated mass murderer" and to have expressed "a desire to carry out a spree killing mass murder"
Friel was found guilty under the Terrorism Act of 'possessing weapons "giving rise to the reasonable suspicion" that it was connected to the "commission, preparation or instigation" of an act of terror.'
Does anyone think this legislation shouldn't have been used? And if so, why do you think it should be different where you live?
They potentially promoted terrorism at most. But that doesn't make it ok. I'm not very fond of the extreme left wing theme of calling for tories/rich people to be killed even though I'm pretty confident they won't act on it. Eventually some idiot WILL act on it.
Yes but Tories and rich people hold societal power - they aren't oppressed, they are the oppressors.
And that makes it ok to kill them?
Please point out where I said that. It means that the oppressed group is not as likely to kill because they lack social power. It's ludicrous to compare the scenarios in a bad faith effort to downplay misogyny, because it harms your rhetoric that only wealthy white men are hated these days.
Also, in general, it seems pretty disingenuous to talk about 'leftist websites' when leftist is a huge category of people. Tankies (hardline authoritarian communists, pro-CCP/DPRK types) are a specific type and would strongly object to being associated with your average socialist in the same way the alt-right talk derisively about 'cuckservatives'. Calling tankies 'socialists' is like calling Breitbart a Republican website - it might be true in a technical sense but it's not really true in a meaningful sense. I'm a non-tankie communist with anarchist leanings and the circles I move in are not interested in the government enough to kill them, because grass roots work and activism is our focus. We're too busy passing the same £10 around everyone's paypal accounts trying to fund everyone's surgery and therapy bills.
Okay, this discussion is starting to generate too much heat. @Marvin the Martian, you are part of that. Please make it clear that you are discussing in good faith and make effort to be clear that you are not minimizing violence against any women or any minority group.
I'm on record as to the general uselessness of the police to prevent crime, let alone investigate crimes and charge suspects once the crime has been committed.
We can add to that the institutional racism, misogyny and hard-right leanings of a significant number of officers, and the greater number of their colleagues who won't report them.
And add to that the acknowledged failings of the CPS to successfully prosecute violence against women and minority groups.
So without a root and branch reform of the police and prosecution, any changes in law are pointless.
At the minimum, police officers should be drawn from the wider community and should strongly reflect the composition of that community. Half of them should be women.
Zero tolerance of domestic violence - it's violence, not 'domestic'. There should be routine applications of curfews, non-contact orders, exclusion zones.
I'd also look at the role of addictions - drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography. A multi-agency approach, with help for both the victim and perpetrator, needs to be available.
The likelihood of any of this happening is tiny, because each individual crime is taken as a unique case, rather than seen as part of a wider pattern.
Re multi-agency approach. This was the way things were done in my under-populated , backward part of Canada 40 years ago. High risk-high need interagency committees reviewed and coordinated intervention for children and adults. I posted about this above. Social services re housing, food funding. Education and employment. Public health. Mental health. Child and family services. Police and justice including legal aid.
I cannot imagine this was invented here. My point is that it is possible. And you have to destroy it to end up where things are today.
So what in the legislation used to apprehend wannabe mosque bombers shouldn't be available against incels who want to mass murder women?
If someone is actually planning an attack then of course the police should take action. But if someone is just venting frustration or even expressing hatred then that shouldn’t make them a criminal, much less a terrorist.
Okay, this discussion is starting to generate too much heat. @Marvin the Martian, you are part of that. Please make it clear that you are discussing in good faith and make effort to be clear that you are not minimizing violence against any women or any minority group.
Gwai
Epiphanies Host
Yes, I am discussing in good faith and no, I am not seeking to minimise violence against anyone.
@NOprophet_NØprofit It is what the research I linked to above is saying too - which was looking at identification, recognition and minimising the threats from radicalisation.
The UK Prevent strategy (link to 2011 version on Gov website), in theory, was meant to do something similar, with statutory reporting and referral on to services to support anyone suspected of being at risk of radicalisation. I have been trained in the system as a statutory reporter.
There were problems from the start as it targets Muslims instead of far right radicalisation, IRA sympathisers, or animal rights activists, etc, etc. And nowadays that includes those young men being radicalised by incel or MGTOW groups. I have worked with far more young people at risk of far right radicalisation than Muslim radicalisation, so it ignored and/or minimised the bigger risk in many areas of the country.
To go back to something else that @HelenEva said earlier, which I sort of read while out,
I don't think this discussion is, or should be, a choice between whether the subjects are morally wrong, or whether saying them to a particular audience is a bad thing to do. It's more complicated than that. I'd say it's about intention and risk of real life consequences. As for example:
<snip>
2) Saying "I hate all women/rich people" is morally wrong in my opinion, but it's neither illegal nor terrorism. It could just about be incitement to terrorism if said to someone who was planning to do something violent and the statement was heard as approval/egging on but that would be a rare set of circumstances. <snip>.
I don't think you can say that this is a rare set of circumstances when you look at this page from the We Hunted the Mammoth website (link) linked to by @Crœsos earlier, which discusses the misogyny in the MGTOW subreddits which weren't shut down in June 2020 when a lot of other hate subreddits were, but were earlier this year.
The team’s analysis found that the manosphere is evolving—and fast. Over the past 10 years, the population of men identifying as men’s rights activists and MGTOW—traditionally older and less violent—is falling while younger, more toxic PUA and incel communities have seen a spike.
Worryingly, it seems that there has been a significant migration from men’s rights groups to incel groups. Every year since 2015, around 8% of MRA or MGTOW members appear to have become more radicalized and joined incel groups online.
and
The authorities are taking note. Last month, the Texas Department of Public Safety released a report finding that incels “are an emerging domestic terrorism threat as current adherents demonstrate marked acts or threats of violence in furtherance of their social grievance.”
@NOprophet_NØprofit It is what the research I linked to above is saying too - which was looking at identification, recognition and minimising the threats from radicalisation.
The UK Prevent strategy (link to 2011 version on Gov website), in theory, was meant to do something similar, with statutory reporting and referral on to services to support anyone suspected of being at risk of radicalisation. I have been trained in the system as a statutory reporter.
There were problems from the start as it targets Muslims instead of far right radicalisation, IRA sympathisers, or animal rights activists, etc, etc. And nowadays that includes those young men being radicalised by incel or MGTOW groups. I have worked with far more young people at risk of far right radicalisation than Muslim radicalisation, so it ignored and/or minimised the bigger risk in many areas of the country.
It was actually not merely risks a person posed to others. It was everyone in risk for almost anything. Which moves it away from law enforcement and coercion. Social help. Practical and targetted. Non-adversarial.
I'm going to try to put this carefully...I suspect that a certain percentage of men are going to hate women, and hate foreigners, and hate those who don't share their religion, and hate those who support a different football team. I think I've always known men (and boys) like that, and although life and age (and a degree of wealth and luck in terms of when and where you live) enables us to control to some extent the kind of men we spend time with - I still do. I think the internet-in-your-pocket makes a difference here for 'incels', as it does for Islamists. Having what not long-ago was James Bond tech in our pockets (Personal TV! Satellites! Publish yourself globally! Instant photo-send to anyone!) changes this stuff, I think. A while back I knew men who met in pubs to hate people, and sometimes football matches. Maybe someone down the pub someone-would-have-known-someone-who-knew-someone-who-photocopied-a-fanzine - but 'movements' can get going and achieve momentum which previously, would not have spread widely.
Outside of personal salvation, I am pessimistic about what can be done about this. The Chinese state is having a go at controlling the internet. OK, it seems there are downsides.
I am sure people said stuff like this about Caxton, and universal suffrage.
Please point out where I said that. It means that the oppressed group is not as likely to kill because they lack social power. It's ludicrous to compare the scenarios in a bad faith effort to downplay misogyny, because it harms your rhetoric that only wealthy white men are hated these days.
Perhaps you could set out what you meant in your response to HelenEva's post - it's very hard to see how it amounts to what you've now set out.
So what in the legislation used to apprehend wannabe mosque bombers shouldn't be available against incels who want to mass murder women?
If someone is actually planning an attack then of course the police should take action. But if someone is just venting frustration or even expressing hatred then that shouldn’t make them a criminal, much less a terrorist.
Of course. It should be legal to have abhorrent views. It shouldn't be legal to act on them. To take the example of the Troubles it was legal to claim that the IRA was involved in a national liberation struggle, it was illegal to place several kilos of Semtex in a place where it might cause some harm. But in order to find out who might be motivated to do the dirty deed with the Semtex it was necessary to keep a number of other people under surveillance, whose enthusiasm for the armed struggle never got beyond Guinness talk. I think that there is a reasonable case for thinking that incels are somewhere on the borderline for spree killing and terrorism, the usual incel MO of murdering a bunch of people and then committing suicide is pretty much the classic spree pattern but given that, like Islamists, they tend to gather on line it is at least worth keeping an eye on things in the hope that one can forestall events like those that happened in Plymouth.
It would be helpful, I think to change how we manage gun licenses. Currently, local police forces - inevitably underesourced - are supposed to do the checks alongside their other duties.
A dedicated body, with appropriate advice from counter terrorism and mental health specialists would probably be more appropriate. It would make accountability and funding much clearer.
I think there is also an argument for saying that if you are ever convicted of an offense against the person, or cautioned for one, you can't have a gun license given or reinstated without an application to the home secretary. (Also if you are ever on the vetting and barring list preventing you working with vulnerable people - there's a lower level of proof to end up on this list than a criminal conviction but you can appeal your inclusion.)
Please point out where I said that. It means that the oppressed group is not as likely to kill because they lack social power.
Is that true? Most mass shooters in the US are male, and roughly reflect the racial makeup of the US (66/124 white shooters, 21/124 black shooters, 10/124 Latino, ...) There's no obvious preference for a member of an "oppressed" racial group to commit a mass shooting or not.
On the other hand, mass shooters tend not to come from dominant social groups. Men who become mass shooters are basically all low-status men who are angry about something.
Men who become mass shooters are basically all low-status men who are angry about something.
Not disputing the low-status bit.
But "angry about something" (perhaps deliberately) falls short of being the whole story.
The act seems to be linked to achieving significance, by killing so many people that national (international?) TV takes notice. And it ends with turning the gun on oneself, to avoid the humiliation of capture and punishment. It's an ego trip. An existentialist act of revenge upon the world to give meaning to a life that lacks significance.
The reason that the typical "spree killing" or mass shooting isn't terrorism is because the root cause is that personal crisis rather than the calculated decision of an organised political movement to use violent means to achieve political ends.
The act furthers no cause beyond their own feelings.
The fact that they've shared their feelings on the internet does not of itself a conspiracy make.
As Doublethink suggests, better gun control seems like a potentially useful part of the solution. Because these are individuals with problems that in many cases it is possible to notice.
The reason that the typical "spree killing" or mass shooting isn't terrorism is because the root cause is that personal crisis rather than the calculated decision of an organised political movement to use violent means to achieve political ends.
The act furthers no cause beyond their own feelings.
The fact that they've shared their feelings on the internet does not of itself a conspiracy make.
But @Russ - what about the fact that there is increasing evidence that these spree killers are motivated by organised political anti-women movements in the manosphere? I think you're making an assumption that each is a loner acting out of his own pain, whereas what several of us have been talking about is the evidence that that's no longer the case.
So what in the legislation used to apprehend wannabe mosque bombers shouldn't be available against incels who want to mass murder women?
If someone is actually planning an attack then of course the police should take action. But if someone is just venting frustration or even expressing hatred then that shouldn’t make them a criminal, much less a terrorist.
Of course. It should be legal to have abhorrent views. It shouldn't be legal to act on them. To take the example of the Troubles it was legal to claim that the IRA was involved in a national liberation struggle, it was illegal to place several kilos of Semtex in a place where it might cause some harm. But in order to find out who might be motivated to do the dirty deed with the Semtex it was necessary to keep a number of other people under surveillance, whose enthusiasm for the armed struggle never got beyond Guinness talk.
I think the big difference for me is that we now have laws that make membership of a terrorist organisation a crime in and of itself, whether or not you personally commit any other crimes as a result. So if incel/MGTOW/etc websites are declared terrorist organisations then anyone and everyone posting to them automatically becomes guilty of a terrorist act.
It's basically criminalising the modern equivalent of "Guinness talk". The 20th Century equivalent might be if the authorities had decided that anyone drinking in an "IRA pub" should be locked up.
The reason that the typical "spree killing" or mass shooting isn't terrorism is because the root cause is that personal crisis rather than the calculated decision of an organised political movement to use violent means to achieve political ends.
The act furthers no cause beyond their own feelings.
The fact that they've shared their feelings on the internet does not of itself a conspiracy make.
But @Russ - what about the fact that there is increasing evidence that these spree killers are motivated by organised political anti-women movements in the manosphere? I think you're making an assumption that each is a loner acting out of his own pain, whereas what several of us have been talking about is the evidence that that's no longer the case.
There are already laws that cover both mass killing and incitement. My own suspicion is that to the extent that the police aren't successful in these cases it is mainly down to fairly regressive attitudes within the police themselves (a reminder that Wayne Couzens was nicknamed 'The Rapist' by his colleagues).
So what in the legislation used to apprehend wannabe mosque bombers shouldn't be available against incels who want to mass murder women?
If someone is actually planning an attack then of course the police should take action. But if someone is just venting frustration or even expressing hatred then that shouldn’t make them a criminal, much less a terrorist.
Of course. It should be legal to have abhorrent views. It shouldn't be legal to act on them. To take the example of the Troubles it was legal to claim that the IRA was involved in a national liberation struggle, it was illegal to place several kilos of Semtex in a place where it might cause some harm. But in order to find out who might be motivated to do the dirty deed with the Semtex it was necessary to keep a number of other people under surveillance, whose enthusiasm for the armed struggle never got beyond Guinness talk.
I think the big difference for me is that we now have laws that make membership of a terrorist organisation a crime in and of itself, whether or not you personally commit any other crimes as a result. So if incel/MGTOW/etc websites are declared terrorist organisations then anyone and everyone posting to them automatically becomes guilty of a terrorist act.
It's basically criminalising the modern equivalent of "Guinness talk". The 20th Century equivalent might be if the authorities had decided that anyone drinking in an "IRA pub" should be locked up.
Oh I see what you mean. I guess this is one of the many areas where the law hasn't caught up with the internet age. However, it can't be an insuperable obstacle because clearly more people post horrible material related to terrorist causes than ever end up charged with terrorism. One could, for example, only target whatever is the equivalent of hosts and admins on manosphere boards. So - when the Ship is declared a terrorist organisation, shipmates are OK, but the H&A cop it...
It's basically criminalising the modern equivalent of "Guinness talk". The 20th Century equivalent might be if the authorities had decided that anyone drinking in an "IRA pub" should be locked up.
Several men have been convicted of acts of terrorism without ever being 'members' of a banned organisation - especially when they have beards and brown skin. Your argument doesn't stand up.
If someone is active on Incel boards, repeating their ideology, encouraging others, talking of violence against women, then the security forces ought to be as all over them as they would be if it was a pro-ISIS chatroom. The discovery that the police don't take a few moments to read through an applicant for a gun licence's social media is ... well, boggling, given what they do to raped women's mobile phones.
It's basically criminalising the modern equivalent of "Guinness talk". The 20th Century equivalent might be if the authorities had decided that anyone drinking in an "IRA pub" should be locked up.
Several men have been convicted of acts of terrorism without ever being 'members' of a banned organisation - especially when they have beards and brown skin. Your argument doesn't stand up.
If the people to whom you refer hadn't done anything wrong then they shouldn't even have been arrested, never mind convicted. I'm not sure why you think one group of people being treated wrongly means my argument that a different group of people shouldn't be treated wrongly doesn't stand up.
If someone is active on Incel boards, repeating their ideology, encouraging others, talking of violence against women, then the security forces ought to be as all over them as they would be if it was a pro-ISIS chatroom.
I think this is all about where we draw the line between what's wrong and illegal versus what's wrong but legal. For my part, if someone (or a group of people) is genuinely planning to kill or maim others then that should be illegal, but if they're just spouting off about how much they hate others and wish they were dead then that shouldn't be illegal. And crucially, I don't think the latter should be illegal even if some nutjob takes it as inspiration to go and kill a bunch of people.
I don't think such hatred is a good thing by any means. Just that it shouldn't be a crime.
I would say the same about muslims hating christians, blacks hating whites, catholics hating protestants*, and any other [x] hating [y] you'd care to name. I might not like it, I may completely detest it, I may even speak up against it whenever I can, but I would not want it to be something somebody could be sent to jail for.
The discovery that the police don't take a few moments to read through an applicant for a gun licence's social media is ... well, boggling, given what they do to raped women's mobile phones.
I agree. "Boggling" barely covers it at all.
.
*= all examples chosen because I'm in the hated group. Please do not take the examples used to be in any way exhaustive - you could put any two groups of people (or individuals, for that matter) on the two sides of the equation and my answer would remain the same.
It's basically criminalising the modern equivalent of "Guinness talk". The 20th Century equivalent might be if the authorities had decided that anyone drinking in an "IRA pub" should be locked up.
Several men have been convicted of acts of terrorism without ever being 'members' of a banned organisation - especially when they have beards and brown skin. Your argument doesn't stand up.
If the people to whom you refer hadn't done anything wrong then they shouldn't even have been arrested, never mind convicted. I'm not sure why you think one group of people being treated wrongly means my argument that a different group of people shouldn't be treated wrongly doesn't stand up.
There's no 'if' about it. Sections 1 & 2 of the Terrorism Act (2006) cover all that. And no, I don't think they're being treated wrongly, I think that white men engaging in a hateful ideology against women are being treated wrongly - ie, too lightly. The law should apply to all.
When it comes to that particular law, I’m not convinced it should apply to anyone. It basically makes it possible to punish people for having an opinion the government doesn’t like, just so long as the government can make the case with a straight face that somebody, somewhere could read that opinion and be motivated to attack someone.
So what in the legislation used to apprehend wannabe mosque bombers shouldn't be available against incels who want to mass murder women?
If someone is actually planning an attack then of course the police should take action. But if someone is just venting frustration or even expressing hatred then that shouldn’t make them a criminal, much less a terrorist.
Of course. It should be legal to have abhorrent views. It shouldn't be legal to act on them. To take the example of the Troubles it was legal to claim that the IRA was involved in a national liberation struggle, it was illegal to place several kilos of Semtex in a place where it might cause some harm. But in order to find out who might be motivated to do the dirty deed with the Semtex it was necessary to keep a number of other people under surveillance, whose enthusiasm for the armed struggle never got beyond Guinness talk.
I think the big difference for me is that we now have laws that make membership of a terrorist organisation a crime in and of itself, whether or not you personally commit any other crimes as a result. So if incel/MGTOW/etc websites are declared terrorist organisations then anyone and everyone posting to them automatically becomes guilty of a terrorist act.
It's basically criminalising the modern equivalent of "Guinness talk". The 20th Century equivalent might be if the authorities had decided that anyone drinking in an "IRA pub" should be locked up.
Not really. I used to know an Irish pub in London, which did excellent Guinness and which was filled with IRA supporters. If police had rolled in and nicked them all for their views I should have been most indignant. If Special Branch hadn't kept an eye on the regulars, I would have been surprised. Intelligence gathering and surveillance are intrinsic to law enforcement. It is morally wrong and ineffective to lock up anyone of whom one disapproves. But it doesn't follow that one should merely assume that said persons are merely exercising their freedom of speech and should be left to get on with it until someone is killed.
Should have added that it is quite possible that a spree killing by an incel should also be treated as an act of terrorism without holding that belonging to a misogynistic Internet forum means being a member of a terrorist organisation.
When it comes to that particular law, I’m not convinced it should apply to anyone. It basically makes it possible to punish people for having an opinion the government doesn’t like, just so long as the government can make the case with a straight face that somebody, somewhere could read that opinion and be motivated to attack someone.
No, it doesn't.
I'm not sure whether it's reasonable to class this "incel" violence as terrorism. For me, the sticking point is whether the violence is intended to advance an ideological cause (1 (1) c of the Terrorism Act 2000). But let's say that we satisfy ourselves that it does have this intent.
The offences you're concerned about are the ones about encouraging terrorism in the 2006 Act.
This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by a reasonable person as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement, to some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published, to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.
You can have, for example, an organization proposing an Islamic theocracy in the UK without falling foul of any of this language - you just can't speak up in support of Islamic terrorists. Similarly, a lot of the toxic male nonsense is OK under this law. Just not the bits that speak out in support or sympathy of mass murderers.
But someone could post as much whiny nonsense about the way that modern women behave, and how unfair it is to men like him, without coming anywhere close to "and therefore we should kill a load of women".
I realize USA doesn't have hate speech laws. Canada does. Does the UK?
Yes, although sex isn't one of the listed categories. It might actually be the only category which is a protected category for employment discrimination but isn't protected under hate crimes laws.
@Marvin the Martian I'm not sure why you keep immediately jumping from people being identified as possible terrorists to being imprisoned, particularly when several of us have said that jail doesn't do a good job of deradicalising terrorists and don't think it's the best solution. Normally terrorist monitoring is keeping an eye on the groups that might be involved. When the IRA was active in London one of the college bar managers was pulled in regularly for questioning, as he was known to be connected, but the other Irish bar manager never was (he was a country lad from Cork). The concern is that there have been no checks made of the incel and MGTOW boards or the social media involvement of people being given gun licences, even though there have been several recognised mass murders committed by men who spend time on those boards.
@Leorning Cniht I would also suggest that boards that are encouraging rape of women as a way to getting the sex the board members think that they deserve maybe should be considered as criminal. The MGTOW board I am aware of asks that new members sign that they agree with the Going Your Own Way manifesto. That manifesto doesn't talk about murdering women, but talks a lot about how women are not feminine enough, how men should protect themselves by only using them for sex. They suggest using prostitutes, or if that's not possible treating women as sex for hire, and how to avoid getting involved in any ways. I'm not sure any of that is something that should be encouraged. There is nothing nowhere about consent, all about these men deserving sex.
The Incels are clearly nuts. I'm convinced that most of them must have genuine mental disorders, and a lot seem to have social interaction problems.
They don't just hate women but men too, and their worldview just doesn't match up with reality.
From what I can gather they seem to think that every semi-attractive woman under the age of 35-45 (depending on their age) aka "Stacey" is having lots and lots of sex with a very tiny number of good looking men with no money or prospects "Chad", including having babies with them if they can while their "Normie" husbands think that said babies are theres because the Stacey's need the Normie's money to raise the kids.
Normie husbands only find a wife after their Mrs Stacey has slept with 400+ Chads. But the Stacey woun't even even sleep with her husband more than a couple of times a year, but will rush off for mad Chad sex at the drop of a hat.
The Incels seem to hate Chads more than Stacey's even, and pity all us Normies most of all.
They seem to think that the key to happiness and a relationship is jaw density or eye to cheek bone symmetry or some such tosh.
If their violence should be classified as terrorism then it'd be the same sort that the nuts right wing Qanon stuff churns out. But Qanon at least (for classifying as terrorist purposes) seems to have some sort of goals, some sort of coherent "thread" (theres someone making up the bat-ship-crazy claims, this follows that and then the other must happen)... the incels just seem to be totally socially awkward, paranoid young men posting crap on the internet about how much life sucks and how much they hate the popular kids at school, - but with a very nasty volient edge that seems to be encouraged.
Although the same can unfortunately be said for Twitter.
Comments
This assault is in the public domain, but has it been investigated and prosecuted ? https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18769339.stanley-johnson-broke-wifes-nose-domestic-violence-incident/
This man got a caution https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518207/Why-Charles-Saatchi-grabbed-throat-Nigella-Lawson-explains.html not a conviction.
You made an explicit presumption in favour of current anti-terrorism strategies being extended:
And FWIW the stuff across the pond hasn't worked out much better:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/magazine/fbi-international-terrorism-informants.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/29/politics/aby-rayyan-fbi-terror-sting-pizza-man/index.html
You read more into what I said than I'd intended as I wasn't thinking of an specific anti terror programme. For clarity, what I'm advocating is an effective and proportionate police response to realistic real world threats. If the police are not currently in a position to provide such a service, that is another issue.
I gather from Nasir Afzal in this Guardian piece
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/14/plymouth-shootings-police-urged-to-take-misogyny-more-seriously
that as to the classification of incel-type radicalisation as a kind of terrorism
A couple of years ago we had this alleged Internet-radicalised neo-Nazi said to be planning an attack on a local mosque who was charged under various terrorist legislation
"Fife man, 22, allegedly planned a terror attack in the Kingdom to be live-streamed online" https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fife/1035961/fife-man-22-allegedly-planned-a-terror-attack-in-the-kingdom-to-be-live-streamed-online/amp/
Now if you don't want women of all colours and types of marginalised identity to have the imperfect but better than nothing protections and resources of the legislation used to bring Imrie to justice, can you say what about those you'd like stopped in the case of neo-nazis?
Prevent would be a good example of a bad anti-terrorist strategy, and the horrible sexual abuses of undercover cops in eg. environmental movements - though the big problem is probably structural racism and other biases leading to all powers being subject to abuse both by under and over-enforcement
So what in the legislation used to apprehend wannabe mosque bombers shouldn't be available against incels who want to mass murder women? Or contrariwise we know we've got a significant and growing far-right terrorist threat what do you think is licit to do about it for all marginalised groups?
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.
This is the same question as "is it art or is it pornography?". Some of the community standards by which such are judged have shifted. In both directions.
The real question is whether the band's performance and lyrics inspire and instigate violence. Your question is a real one.
We can add to that the institutional racism, misogyny and hard-right leanings of a significant number of officers, and the greater number of their colleagues who won't report them.
And add to that the acknowledged failings of the CPS to successfully prosecute violence against women and minority groups.
So without a root and branch reform of the police and prosecution, any changes in law are pointless.
At the minimum, police officers should be drawn from the wider community and should strongly reflect the composition of that community. Half of them should be women.
Zero tolerance of domestic violence - it's violence, not 'domestic'. There should be routine applications of curfews, non-contact orders, exclusion zones.
I'd also look at the role of addictions - drugs, alcohol, gambling, pornography. A multi-agency approach, with help for both the victim and perpetrator, needs to be available.
The likelihood of any of this happening is tiny, because each individual crime is taken as a unique case, rather than seen as part of a wider pattern.
Yes but Tories and rich people hold societal power - they aren't oppressed, they are the oppressors.
Can you provide citations of that? Because the sort of thing I'm finding is:
Or from the UK Aid 2019 Paper Identifying Groups Vulnerable to Violent Extremism and Reducing Risks of Radicalisation (link) which suggests on page 5 that:
Both of which say nothing about having anti-feminist views is a link to radicalisation, but rather suggest that the groups that are being fed an anti-feminist rhetoric within an exclusionary online group, as happens in at least some groups in the manosphere, are more likely to become radicalised.
Point of order - a caution is a conviction.
And that makes it ok to kill them?
According to the article that allegation was 'that he prepared for terrorist acts by conducting online research in relation to spree killings during this time, particularly those connected with incels... As part of this charge, Friel was accused of having "expressed affinity with and sympathy for one incel-motivated mass murderer" and to have expressed "a desire to carry out a spree killing mass murder"
"Gabrielle Friel: Man guilty of weapons haul terrorism charge - BBC News" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-55317874.amp
Friel was found guilty under the Terrorism Act of 'possessing weapons "giving rise to the reasonable suspicion" that it was connected to the "commission, preparation or instigation" of an act of terror.'
Does anyone think this legislation shouldn't have been used? And if so, why do you think it should be different where you live?
Please point out where I said that. It means that the oppressed group is not as likely to kill because they lack social power. It's ludicrous to compare the scenarios in a bad faith effort to downplay misogyny, because it harms your rhetoric that only wealthy white men are hated these days.
Gwai
Epiphanies Host
No it isn't, it is an admission of guilt in exchange for no further action.
https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty
I cannot imagine this was invented here. My point is that it is possible. And you have to destroy it to end up where things are today.
If someone is actually planning an attack then of course the police should take action. But if someone is just venting frustration or even expressing hatred then that shouldn’t make them a criminal, much less a terrorist.
Yes, I am discussing in good faith and no, I am not seeking to minimise violence against anyone.
The UK Prevent strategy (link to 2011 version on Gov website), in theory, was meant to do something similar, with statutory reporting and referral on to services to support anyone suspected of being at risk of radicalisation. I have been trained in the system as a statutory reporter.
There were problems from the start as it targets Muslims instead of far right radicalisation, IRA sympathisers, or animal rights activists, etc, etc. And nowadays that includes those young men being radicalised by incel or MGTOW groups. I have worked with far more young people at risk of far right radicalisation than Muslim radicalisation, so it ignored and/or minimised the bigger risk in many areas of the country.
To go back to something else that @HelenEva said earlier, which I sort of read while out,
I don't think you can say that this is a rare set of circumstances when you look at this page from the We Hunted the Mammoth website (link) linked to by @Crœsos earlier, which discusses the misogyny in the MGTOW subreddits which weren't shut down in June 2020 when a lot of other hate subreddits were, but were earlier this year.
This article from Technology Review from February 2020 (link - 3 free articles) analyses the issues around the manosphere and says:
and
It was actually not merely risks a person posed to others. It was everyone in risk for almost anything. Which moves it away from law enforcement and coercion. Social help. Practical and targetted. Non-adversarial.
Outside of personal salvation, I am pessimistic about what can be done about this. The Chinese state is having a go at controlling the internet. OK, it seems there are downsides.
I am sure people said stuff like this about Caxton, and universal suffrage.
Perhaps you could set out what you meant in your response to HelenEva's post - it's very hard to see how it amounts to what you've now set out.
Of course. It should be legal to have abhorrent views. It shouldn't be legal to act on them. To take the example of the Troubles it was legal to claim that the IRA was involved in a national liberation struggle, it was illegal to place several kilos of Semtex in a place where it might cause some harm. But in order to find out who might be motivated to do the dirty deed with the Semtex it was necessary to keep a number of other people under surveillance, whose enthusiasm for the armed struggle never got beyond Guinness talk. I think that there is a reasonable case for thinking that incels are somewhere on the borderline for spree killing and terrorism, the usual incel MO of murdering a bunch of people and then committing suicide is pretty much the classic spree pattern but given that, like Islamists, they tend to gather on line it is at least worth keeping an eye on things in the hope that one can forestall events like those that happened in Plymouth.
A dedicated body, with appropriate advice from counter terrorism and mental health specialists would probably be more appropriate. It would make accountability and funding much clearer.
I think there is also an argument for saying that if you are ever convicted of an offense against the person, or cautioned for one, you can't have a gun license given or reinstated without an application to the home secretary. (Also if you are ever on the vetting and barring list preventing you working with vulnerable people - there's a lower level of proof to end up on this list than a criminal conviction but you can appeal your inclusion.)
Is that true? Most mass shooters in the US are male, and roughly reflect the racial makeup of the US (66/124 white shooters, 21/124 black shooters, 10/124 Latino, ...) There's no obvious preference for a member of an "oppressed" racial group to commit a mass shooting or not.
On the other hand, mass shooters tend not to come from dominant social groups. Men who become mass shooters are basically all low-status men who are angry about something.
Not disputing the low-status bit.
But "angry about something" (perhaps deliberately) falls short of being the whole story.
The act seems to be linked to achieving significance, by killing so many people that national (international?) TV takes notice. And it ends with turning the gun on oneself, to avoid the humiliation of capture and punishment. It's an ego trip. An existentialist act of revenge upon the world to give meaning to a life that lacks significance.
The reason that the typical "spree killing" or mass shooting isn't terrorism is because the root cause is that personal crisis rather than the calculated decision of an organised political movement to use violent means to achieve political ends.
The act furthers no cause beyond their own feelings.
The fact that they've shared their feelings on the internet does not of itself a conspiracy make.
As Doublethink suggests, better gun control seems like a potentially useful part of the solution. Because these are individuals with problems that in many cases it is possible to notice.
But @Russ - what about the fact that there is increasing evidence that these spree killers are motivated by organised political anti-women movements in the manosphere? I think you're making an assumption that each is a loner acting out of his own pain, whereas what several of us have been talking about is the evidence that that's no longer the case.
I think the big difference for me is that we now have laws that make membership of a terrorist organisation a crime in and of itself, whether or not you personally commit any other crimes as a result. So if incel/MGTOW/etc websites are declared terrorist organisations then anyone and everyone posting to them automatically becomes guilty of a terrorist act.
It's basically criminalising the modern equivalent of "Guinness talk". The 20th Century equivalent might be if the authorities had decided that anyone drinking in an "IRA pub" should be locked up.
There are already laws that cover both mass killing and incitement. My own suspicion is that to the extent that the police aren't successful in these cases it is mainly down to fairly regressive attitudes within the police themselves (a reminder that Wayne Couzens was nicknamed 'The Rapist' by his colleagues).
Oh I see what you mean. I guess this is one of the many areas where the law hasn't caught up with the internet age. However, it can't be an insuperable obstacle because clearly more people post horrible material related to terrorist causes than ever end up charged with terrorism. One could, for example, only target whatever is the equivalent of hosts and admins on manosphere boards. So - when the Ship is declared a terrorist organisation, shipmates are OK, but the H&A cop it...
Several men have been convicted of acts of terrorism without ever being 'members' of a banned organisation - especially when they have beards and brown skin. Your argument doesn't stand up.
If someone is active on Incel boards, repeating their ideology, encouraging others, talking of violence against women, then the security forces ought to be as all over them as they would be if it was a pro-ISIS chatroom. The discovery that the police don't take a few moments to read through an applicant for a gun licence's social media is ... well, boggling, given what they do to raped women's mobile phones.
If the people to whom you refer hadn't done anything wrong then they shouldn't even have been arrested, never mind convicted. I'm not sure why you think one group of people being treated wrongly means my argument that a different group of people shouldn't be treated wrongly doesn't stand up.
I think this is all about where we draw the line between what's wrong and illegal versus what's wrong but legal. For my part, if someone (or a group of people) is genuinely planning to kill or maim others then that should be illegal, but if they're just spouting off about how much they hate others and wish they were dead then that shouldn't be illegal. And crucially, I don't think the latter should be illegal even if some nutjob takes it as inspiration to go and kill a bunch of people.
I don't think such hatred is a good thing by any means. Just that it shouldn't be a crime.
I would say the same about muslims hating christians, blacks hating whites, catholics hating protestants*, and any other [x] hating [y] you'd care to name. I might not like it, I may completely detest it, I may even speak up against it whenever I can, but I would not want it to be something somebody could be sent to jail for.
I agree. "Boggling" barely covers it at all.
.
*= all examples chosen because I'm in the hated group. Please do not take the examples used to be in any way exhaustive - you could put any two groups of people (or individuals, for that matter) on the two sides of the equation and my answer would remain the same.
There's no 'if' about it. Sections 1 & 2 of the Terrorism Act (2006) cover all that. And no, I don't think they're being treated wrongly, I think that white men engaging in a hateful ideology against women are being treated wrongly - ie, too lightly. The law should apply to all.
Not really. I used to know an Irish pub in London, which did excellent Guinness and which was filled with IRA supporters. If police had rolled in and nicked them all for their views I should have been most indignant. If Special Branch hadn't kept an eye on the regulars, I would have been surprised. Intelligence gathering and surveillance are intrinsic to law enforcement. It is morally wrong and ineffective to lock up anyone of whom one disapproves. But it doesn't follow that one should merely assume that said persons are merely exercising their freedom of speech and should be left to get on with it until someone is killed.
No, it doesn't.
I'm not sure whether it's reasonable to class this "incel" violence as terrorism. For me, the sticking point is whether the violence is intended to advance an ideological cause (1 (1) c of the Terrorism Act 2000). But let's say that we satisfy ourselves that it does have this intent.
The offences you're concerned about are the ones about encouraging terrorism in the 2006 Act.
You can have, for example, an organization proposing an Islamic theocracy in the UK without falling foul of any of this language - you just can't speak up in support of Islamic terrorists. Similarly, a lot of the toxic male nonsense is OK under this law. Just not the bits that speak out in support or sympathy of mass murderers.
But someone could post as much whiny nonsense about the way that modern women behave, and how unfair it is to men like him, without coming anywhere close to "and therefore we should kill a load of women".
Yes, although sex isn't one of the listed categories. It might actually be the only category which is a protected category for employment discrimination but isn't protected under hate crimes laws.
@Leorning Cniht I would also suggest that boards that are encouraging rape of women as a way to getting the sex the board members think that they deserve maybe should be considered as criminal. The MGTOW board I am aware of asks that new members sign that they agree with the Going Your Own Way manifesto. That manifesto doesn't talk about murdering women, but talks a lot about how women are not feminine enough, how men should protect themselves by only using them for sex. They suggest using prostitutes, or if that's not possible treating women as sex for hire, and how to avoid getting involved in any ways. I'm not sure any of that is something that should be encouraged. There is nothing nowhere about consent, all about these men deserving sex.
They don't just hate women but men too, and their worldview just doesn't match up with reality.
From what I can gather they seem to think that every semi-attractive woman under the age of 35-45 (depending on their age) aka "Stacey" is having lots and lots of sex with a very tiny number of good looking men with no money or prospects "Chad", including having babies with them if they can while their "Normie" husbands think that said babies are theres because the Stacey's need the Normie's money to raise the kids.
Normie husbands only find a wife after their Mrs Stacey has slept with 400+ Chads. But the Stacey woun't even even sleep with her husband more than a couple of times a year, but will rush off for mad Chad sex at the drop of a hat.
The Incels seem to hate Chads more than Stacey's even, and pity all us Normies most of all.
They seem to think that the key to happiness and a relationship is jaw density or eye to cheek bone symmetry or some such tosh.
If their violence should be classified as terrorism then it'd be the same sort that the nuts right wing Qanon stuff churns out. But Qanon at least (for classifying as terrorist purposes) seems to have some sort of goals, some sort of coherent "thread" (theres someone making up the bat-ship-crazy claims, this follows that and then the other must happen)... the incels just seem to be totally socially awkward, paranoid young men posting crap on the internet about how much life sucks and how much they hate the popular kids at school, - but with a very nasty volient edge that seems to be encouraged.
Although the same can unfortunately be said for Twitter.