Peter Tatchell draws attention to the potential perils of Conservative Government's 'Extremist Disruption Orders':
Minister comes up with 10 different definitions in just over 60 minutes
Extremism Disruption Orders – Conflicting, inconsistent definitions
EDOs are a dangerous threat to free speech & political dissent
London, UK – 19 July 2016
“The government’s planned Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) are so vague and ill-defined that they are a potential threat to free speech and dissenting opinions. When questioned by the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on 29 June, the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley MP, offered ten different definitions of extremism in just over 60 minutes. The government wants to penalise extremism before it has even agreed what it is. This renders EDOs both anti-democratic and ineffectual. They are not consistent with human rights law,” said Anastasia Kyriacou, the advocacy officer of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.
Watch this video of the government minister trying but failing ten times to offer a clear and consistent definition of extremism:
The government has belatedly agreed with demands by the Defend Free Speech campaign for a public consultation on EDOs – although a date and timetable has not yet been set.... Continued on Peter Tatchell Foundation website.(1)
“The Defend Free Speech campaign, and many of the groups associated with it, are greatly concerned that the proposed 'civil orders regime' will damage both security and civil liberties. They risk distracting the authorities away from terrorism and violence and into monitoring and punishing legitimate expressions of opinion...."
About 3,500 results
Dude Swheatie of Kwug