The article identifies: "The need to tackle radicalism in Britain has been underlined by the flow of hundreds of Britons to join Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria - most notably Kuwaiti-born Londoner Mohammed Emwazi, who has appeared in videos showing the beheading of Western hostages." [reuters article linked above]
So... What Cameron is saying is that... too long have we been passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law. We need to reject that approach, be more careful and watch out. He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
Myself, I think that quotes like this are the empty calories of politics, like Hilary's "what difference does it make" (which was about prioritizing embassy safety over discovering the perpetrators of the incident in the ultra short term) or Bush's "is our children learning" (which, if you haven't watched the video for that, was an awkward rendition of "that question is: are children learning?")
DISCLAIMER. (UN)DESIRABILITY OF AND ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF ANY POLICIES ARE LEFT AS AN EXERCISE TO THE READER.
Well here is my context. The UK gov't, and other governments around the world have clearly demonstrated incompetence WRT their ability to tell dangerous individuals from harmless ones[1], to act appropriately in dealing with suspects, and to acknowledge mistakes when they happen. Those are the kinds of problems that need sorting out before even considering whether to give the gov't more and broader powers with which they will most certainly do more harm, and then fail to acknowledge their inevitable mistakes, and then fail to correct the mistakes when forced to acknowledge them.
>He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
The UK gov't, and other governments around the world have clearly demonstrated incompetence WRT their ability to tell dangerous individuals from harmless ones
There's also the position that they (the government) are somehow uniquely positioned to be able to do this better than anyone else, and yet keep failing at it.
>passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law.
WTF? This statement doesn't have a modicum of sense in it. Seeking to kidnap or murder in the context of terrorism[1] is an inchoate offence[0] that is definitely against the law in UK.
I am at total loss why would you defend Cameron on that. I am not from UK and I've been able to find relevant statutes and laws in 5 minutes. I am really interested, can you elaborate?
Relevant precedent[1]:
R v Barot [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 31.
Conspiracy to murder. Appellant trained as a terrorist and proposed terrorist attacks in America and Britain. One attack contemplated in Britain was to fill three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives and detonate them in an underground car park with the expectation of causing hundreds of casualties. Guilty plea. A life sentence with a minimum term of 40 years should, save in quite exceptional circumstances, represent the maximum for a terrorist who set out to achieve mass murder but caused no physical harm. Minimum term reduced to 30 years.
Why would I defend him on the quote? To repeat and expand, soundbite quotes like this are the empty calories of politics -- incredibly delicious and good for getting you a quick jolt of energy!!! but ultimately not good for the overall health of critical thinking in the electorate at large, or even in your own brain, a shallow exercise in confirmation bias. I feel one should be particularly careful about this, especially where your own political enemies (or policies you don't like) are involved.
So skip the soundbites and the Two Minutes' Hate, as a rule; surely there's plenty to indict him with otherwise.
Soundbites are so prevalent precisely because they work. The other authoritarian side will be using them and many other methods of propaganda. I agree that in every individual case it is preferable to have a reasonable discussion, but that usually not possible. Not using soundbites like that is like bringing knife to a gunfight.
As long as soundbite as a talking point/ persuasion vessel doesn't misrepresent wider context of the statement(in this case it doesn't), I think it's fine to use them.
Cameron's government is expanding the definition of extremist to include 'non-violent extremists', which is people who disagree with the vague 'British values' or are opposed to the current democratic system. So it is very clearly and explicitly not just about people who support ISIS violence, although of course that is what the government wants people to think.
Which is why there is every reason to assume that when he says this, what he means is like to be more along the lines "people whom we say, or think, are seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, but where we're unable to find any evidence that they are actually conspiring or inciting others to commit crimes".
Except that there are already laws against planning to do those things. What this is is a move towards non-evidence-based police harassment of certain groups. If there were evidence, it could be used to secure convictions. For an illustration of how police harrasment of minorities works out, see whichever US city has an anti-police riot going at the moment.
(In particular, I think this is about using intercept material to target people without letting it anywhere near a court.)
And the very situation that has allowed the growth of things like the Islamic State demonstrates the failure of the kind of authoritarian approach that Cameron seems to crave:
A less tolerant government has never historically lead to a more tolerant populace other than in the very short term.
It sets a undesirable precedent. It was only a few years ago that the word terrorist was being used, now it's extremist. It may seem like nothing at first glance but it's a pretty worrying shift. A terrorist though already quite vague is a much less vague term than extremist. Extremist can mean anything to anybody. Where will we be in another 10-15 years?
So... What Cameron is saying is that... too long have we been passively tolerant of people who are actively seeking to kidnap, shoot, and bomb us, just because they haven't broken the law. We need to reject that approach, be more careful and watch out. He is not advocating for an overbearing state as a social model in and of itself.
Myself, I think that quotes like this are the empty calories of politics, like Hilary's "what difference does it make" (which was about prioritizing embassy safety over discovering the perpetrators of the incident in the ultra short term) or Bush's "is our children learning" (which, if you haven't watched the video for that, was an awkward rendition of "that question is: are children learning?")
DISCLAIMER. (UN)DESIRABILITY OF AND ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF ANY POLICIES ARE LEFT AS AN EXERCISE TO THE READER.