It’s rather misleading, yeah, but also, “technically correct”?
While we are clearly discussing an actual criminal group and not just people protesting for Palestine, the implications from a decision like that are a bit wider.
Civil disobedience is a crucial tool for democracy, but it’s easy for that to be taken too far.
And at this time that Russia is waging a shadow war in Europe, we probably should be little wary of any even paramilitary-esque groups, despite how important it is to protest the genocide in Gaza.
Surely there’s still plenty of legal ways to do that?
It’s just sometimes easy to smudge proper protesters with criminal groups, and historically that has happened a fair bit.
Like people can make a new organisation and try to step away from the criminal one, but also what’s to prevent the criminal element from joining them as well, and then the same justification can be used to ban that group and on and on and on.
So honestly defining the point at which it could be argued to be suppression of political ideas is very hard to pinpoint, imo.
I understand your concerns. The courts need a lot of evidence to do that though, and it’s a long process. So realistically it doesn’t happen unless it has to
Yep it’s total clickbait, it’s bordering on misinformation
It’s rather misleading, yeah, but also, “technically correct”?
While we are clearly discussing an actual criminal group and not just people protesting for Palestine, the implications from a decision like that are a bit wider.
Civil disobedience is a crucial tool for democracy, but it’s easy for that to be taken too far.
And at this time that Russia is waging a shadow war in Europe, we probably should be little wary of any even paramilitary-esque groups, despite how important it is to protest the genocide in Gaza.
Surely there’s still plenty of legal ways to do that?
Sorry I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that the criminal group shouldn’t be banned because the genocide is wrong?
No, I’m not saying that.
It’s just sometimes easy to smudge proper protesters with criminal groups, and historically that has happened a fair bit.
Like people can make a new organisation and try to step away from the criminal one, but also what’s to prevent the criminal element from joining them as well, and then the same justification can be used to ban that group and on and on and on.
So honestly defining the point at which it could be argued to be suppression of political ideas is very hard to pinpoint, imo.
I understand your concerns. The courts need a lot of evidence to do that though, and it’s a long process. So realistically it doesn’t happen unless it has to