The Instigator
BritishNDL
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
ChosenWolff
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Should British Muslims, be charged with Treason if they support extremism?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
ChosenWolff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,382 times Debate No: 56920
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

BritishNDL

Pro

In the press today, ISIS British jhadis call for British Muslims to join ISIS in Iraq. Using YouTube to upload their videos, to propagate the propaganda of ISIS. As the British public, ask yourselves one question. As British Muslims, should they not be treated in the respect as how a traitor to the crown should be treated.

The video, released by the Al-Hayat Media Centre - an organisation that has been producing slick recruitment videos for Isis - features at least three fighters who it is claimed are British and on their way to fight jihad in Iraq.

Long forgotten are the laws of the United Kingdom, laws that were laid down not only to protect the Sovereignty of this great nation, but that of the crown. If the penalties for joining such groups, were in fact made harsher. Would this not deter those wanting to join a fight, that a British National has no part to play in.

Treason Act 1351
"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King"s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"

Treason Act: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Treason Act is very much still available for use, so why not use it. It is a threat against the people of the United Kingdom, which also makes it a threat towards the crown.
Debate Round No. 1
BritishNDL

Pro

We live in a society of religious freedom, whereby all religion has the right to be preached. But at what cost, is this impacting on modern day teachings and values. With many religions being taught in the context of violence and martyrdom, to what lengths does British law protect the rights of the sovereign nation?

As a country we are built on Christian values and expectation, something we are reminded of recently by our government. But is the government doing anything to protect those values NO, with so much religious freedom allowed in this country is it time our government protected those values YES.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Terrorism Act 2000 was created in the wake of 9/11, giving police more powers. But with so much controversy around the use of the Terrorism Act 2000, is it really working to protect the sovereign rights of this nation NO. Why is it not working?, because we have laws and acts of parliament which allow the continuation of extremism to be taught.

Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 (c. 18) section 2(2):

"acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto"

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (c. 4) section 20(1):

"terrorism" means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear"

Each of the above statements from both original Acts, define the act of terrorism. But what about the Treason Act 1351?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This Act is still in force in the United Kingdom (as of August 2013)

The same context of what is used to define terrorism, is also used to define the Act of Treason. So should the Treason Act be used to combat extremism, YES.

Why should the Treason Act be used?

The treason act out weighs all parliamentary acts in the line of defence to protect the Crown, as extremism is now more prominent in Britain's society so is the need to protect our values. Islamic extremism is the teaching of Islam out of context, as Islam is a peaceful religion. It teaches to be hateful towards "Infidels" (This actually relates to Muslims not following the teachings of Islam correctly), to act in the name of Mohammed and kill those who don't believe (Another thing not interpreted correctly). Each teaching under Islamic Extremism, is in fact TREASON to the Crown.

Posting videos on YouTube calling for young British Muslims to fight in the name of Islam, is TREASON to the Crown.

Teaching Islamic extremism in mosques, is TREASON to the Crown.

Killing British Nationals under the guise of Islam, is TREASON to the Crown.

So should the Treason Act be used to combat extremism under the guise of religion, yes it should. But why should it, well that's a simple answer.

As a British National, you abide by the laws of this country and Treason is one of those laws. If you follow extremism, then you are not a British National. If you fight for an extremist cause, then you're not a British National. Anything that you do, that is not within the constitution of the United Kingdom amounts to treason. You go against the people of the country that you claim to be apart of, then you forfeit all your rights as a national of that country.
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Freedom of religion and expression

My opponent constantly makes claims that the United Kingdom is built on Chistian values, and religious freedom is resulting in the taking away of said values. This debate really comes down to whether total or partial religious freedom will be allowed. This is because my opponent has made several claims relating to Muslims teaching extremism in mosques and muslims learning extremism from the Koran. Now, I respect my opponents wish to debate this topic, but given the context of the debate, comments like these can be perceived as distasteful, so I politely ask to keep this debate focused and clear.

This law directly contradicts with the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion, and given the debate says "should", that means we don't have to be bound by current laws. It doesn't matter either way, as the new laws contradict the old extremist acts from the Treason 1695, which is the old bill, so things like this aren't exactly relevant to modern day. For example, in my state, we have a law that women must ask their male guardian to get a haircut. This law was never abolished, yet still exists. This is due to the cost and time it takes to repeal these laws. They're simply ignored and set to dust.

The reason I bring this up, is because the OP is under the assumption that the UK can still enforce acts withing the Treason Act of 1695, which you cannot do, as most of the things within it, including this, were repealed. None the less, on the assumption a clause still exists that allows extremists to be executed, this still would go against religious freedom and freedom of expression. Which is contradictory, because my opponent criticizes the updated 2000 act for taking away to much liberties, but not being protective enough.

Psycho anaylisis has led me to believe the OP is supporting the use of militarism and authoritarian control, as long as it protects values and security. Or in laymans terms, likes to preserve his liberty, but security and personal endowment comes first. Which leads me to a couple contentions. First of which would be an affirmative stance, that suppressing liberty and expression actually causes more harm to a nation.

The reason freedom of religion and expression exists is to support the idea that one party with like minded views will always either be wrong at one point, or hurt a majority or minority of the populace. Which is why the founding fathers of the UK post WW2 republic firmly supported democratic institutions.

II. Defining extremism and correlation to Islam

My opponent takes a subjective view on Islamic extremism. Stating what constitutes a extremist in his own opinion. Can we truly put extremist into an objective view? To me, such a thing doesn't seem possible. This contention is more rooted in the specifics regarding Islam alone. If we are to only enforce this law based on subjective views of treason, then we are setting a baseline for chaos. Lets say that this law existed in Bosnia, which is a peaceful Islamic democracy in Europe. Christians are a minority there. What if the government decided to start labbeling Christians who support intense fundamentalism and deemed certain acts as "dangerous" to the fabric of society?

There would be Christians up in arms. This is no different than the OP. You can not have the government, or any group of body try to define extremism, and by the OP's own statement, he would be a hypocrite to only extend this to Islam. By giving powers of subjecation to the government, you are allowing parliament to execute anyone a court finds extremist.

This is how one party states arise. One party gets majority in the parliament, and executes all the oppositon for being to extreme. I know this sounds a little far fetched , but it isn't really that unrealistic. By enforcing the extremist clause in the 1696 act, you are supporting government abuse of power.

III. Opponents confusion on the act

My opponent need to get on the same page here. His understanding of support extends to financial aid, teaching extremism, or being an extremist yourself (Not violent) as treason. Although he also cites examples of outright terrorism as treason. I accepted the debate under the understanding we would be debating the first examples. Which since he supports as extremism, I am not wrong for debating these.

Which leads me to another point. Being a peaceful extremist, supporting extremist through financial aid, or teaching extremism is not a bad thing. These things aren't harming anyone alone. Which is why the politically correct term would be unorthodox, or radical in some cases. Which is why I will restate what I said earlier. It is in the eyes of the beholder to determine what radicalism is, which is why you can't trust the supreme royal courts to make these desicions. By giving subjectivity to the government, you are allowing the governmeent to execute anyone they determine harmful to societies fabric.
Debate Round No. 2
BritishNDL

Pro

Having read through my opponents argument for the against, though some valid points made, can they really debate what is right and what is wrong for the constitution of the United Kingdom. The simple answer to that is no. For what reason does my conclusion come to this, on the simple grounds my opponent isn't a British National and so no clear understanding of what is happening in this country other than what is portrayed in the media.

What my opponent is also trying to perceive with this debate, without directly making comment. Is to show this as being a right wing debate, however with the lack of understanding of who we are this portrayal is in fact false, as we are neither left or right and believe in the values that made this country. Another point for which my opponent makes reference is on the values of the United Kingdom in his own words "Claims that the United Kingdom is built on Christian Values". I then question the rational thinking of my opponent, to think otherwise? After all the Queen is not only the head of state, but also the head of the Church of England, so how can we claim otherwise. This is by most, seen as an atheistic view even though my opponent claims to be Christian.

Now my opponent clearly debates about our laws being contradicting, to this I do agree with my opponent over. However the view that my opponent represents, isn't one that is presented with Common Law and the Law of the Land something which is mentioned in the Magna Carta. Yes we have various laws that have common place in British society, some that do over rule the original Treason Act 1351. However it would appear that my opponent is in some way making reference to Article 4, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, though we are not here to debate the US Constitution, as the Treason Act 1695 was surpassed with the Treason Felony Act 1848.

My opponent also makes reference to "Freedom of Expression" & "Freedom of Religion", without giving great lengths to why he has used these as reference in the basis of his against argument. What they also miss with making such an argument, is Freedom of Expression & Freedom of Religion is bound by law.

REF: http://www.yourrights.org.uk...

"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for the maintaining of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. "

REF: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk...

"Freedom of religion does not prevent there being a state church, but no one can be forced to join a church, be involved in its activities or pay taxes to a church.

The role of the State is to encourage tolerance and all religions or non-religions, if regulated, must be regulated with complete neutrality.

The right to exercise, or manifest, one"s religion or belief will not generally be considered to be interfered with if a person is left with a choice as to whether or not to comply with his or her religious obligations. However, there will be interference if restrictions make it practically difficult or almost impossible to exercise the religion or belief."

Now my opponent seems to be under the guise, that our laws can not be used. If they can't be used, then why are they provided as part of our constitution. However if the Treason Act can't be used, certainly the Terrorism Act can too which is almost a direct copy of the original Treason Act, bar some slight adaptations to make it about Terrorism. My opponent also appears to be misinformed on what Treason is in the UK, as they make reference to being executed. This however is only under "High Treason", which would be a direct threat to the Crown. However it wouldn't go against Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Religion as both as previously stated are bound by law and can not surpass the countries law, if it did we would see more and more extremism being common place.

One thing that my opponent seems to not understand, is though a law may have not been have been used for several decades doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used now. Many old laws are still used today, but under the guise of something else.

So what is extremism, something that my opponent has misunderstood with the point of this debate and clearly seems to think this is about Islam. Well yes it is, but not in the context of what my opponent would like you to think it is. This is not about Islam on a whole, or even Christianity (I support neither religion and nor am I Atheist) a reference my opponent makes several times. It's about what shouldn't be allowed under the guise of "Freedom of Expression" or "Freedom of Religion" and extremism isn't covered by either and so should not be protected as such and has no place in any society. My opponent also make reference to Bosnia, which up until recently, was a war torn country.

Another point my opponent makes, is in regards to extremism being healthy and nothing wrong with supporting extremism with funding, weapons, military training and so fourth. After all the USA did support the IRA during the 80s & 90s in the way of political donations.

So what can we conclude from my opponents argument, is my opponent right in thinking that two freedoms out way laws of the land? Do we go into the thinking this is an attack on one religion when in fact it's about extremism and the current extremism in the news being Islamic? Do we continue to believe that the United Kingdom, isn't built on Christian Values after all our laws are? Do we continue to allow extremism under the guise of religion, no matter what religion?

Clearly my opponent likes to read, but does my opponent have a valid against argument by missing facts and instead giving you fiction. Are their points valid that they make, even though they clearly don't understand what they say?
ChosenWolff

Con

I. Straw mans, appealing to emotion, disregarding through labelling

As I read over this round, I noticed a lot of red flags. I was scape goated a lot, such as the time he said I'm trying to make this a right wing debate. I would like evidence on the exact line I tried to launch a right wing debate. Another red flag was when he said I am not a British national, so I am not allowed to argue as if I were one. He also stated I know nothing about the British constitution, because I'm not British.

These are all huge offenses. I do realize that nationalists, as my opponent has labbeled himself, are against immigration and outside opinion on average, but my opponent can't claim to disregard my opinions just because I am not living in his country, For the record, I know more about the British laws and constitution than most people, which is why it's almost funny to see such comments here. I would like the audience to know, that I am 100% entitled to debate British politics if I please, and my opponents rude and ultra conservative behavior is making me less wanting to do this debate.

II. The UK is built on Chirstian Values

I find arguments like these silly. The UK was built on religious values, until it was one of the first two nations on earth to declare secularity. The other being the US. The right to free religion was the defining value of the UK at the time, and highly celebrated. The UK may of been built upon christian values at one time, but for the past 220 years, the British people have long expressed a nation adaptable to all races, creeds, and religions.

It is only a few old time nut jobs who wish to live in the past. If you are denying outside opinions, then you are denying progress. If British citizens wish to forge their own beliefs, you cannot persecute them for doing such. Or else someone, somewhere, would have an excuse to persecute christians for being to fundamentalist. Who are you to subjectivy others beliefs? And to clarify, my opponent seems to be greatly confused between the laws in the Church of England (Not including Scotland) and the laws of the UK itself. Just because the queen is in charge of the church, doesn't mean people are forced to worship there, or to believe the silly anglican doctrine. If you ask me, I am one of the billion who want to see the queen down in the dirt. The monarchy isn't exactly great for your guy's foreign relations.

III. Understanding of extremism

My opponent dropped most, but not all of this contention. The point he is not grasping, is that you can't subjectivy extremism. It's in the eyes of the beholder. Even if people aren't convicted of (snooty british) "high treason", you are still allowing the majority party to jail anyone they interpret as an extremist. My opponent simply says they're talking about terrorism, but that is not what his resolution, statements, and even the treason act of 1695 imply. It is very loose and not well defined. You are opening a gateway for government abuse.

IV. British Nationality

This is the stem of the problem, which made me tackle this debate. I have, and politely, concluded that there is a great deal of xenophobia, nationalism, and "smart discrimination" going on with the OP. My opponent is stating that people should be jailed who teach extremism against british nationals, learn extremism against british nationals, and put into effect extremism against british nationals (which could be something as innocent as a protest, or rally).

Who is he to say who is a national within the UK? They have citizenship, and are living within Britain, yet he keeps implying these aren't true Bristish citizens. This is very annoying, and should be disregarded. Once again he is subjectifying a group of people, with no real reason for doing so. This is known as "smart discrimination", where one insults or oppresses a group of people without the brutality of open bigotry.

Now, this all comes back to the fact, that he thinks muslim extremists are out to destroy british nationality. Has he ever thought that they might be forging their own identity? That Britian isn't a piece of sludge, that can't be molded by a new generation? This is a huge flaw in the OP, and one I wish he would be able to address.

Anyways, thanks for the good debate, and cheers!

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by BritishNDL 2 years ago
BritishNDL
Well not really, as you made the debate about right wing to get your point across. You've actually done no debating at all, which is why you couldn't even attack with a strong debate on points I made to which you clearly missed..
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Well, this would of been perfect for the debate....

http://sheikyermami.com...
Posted by BritishNDL 2 years ago
BritishNDL
It's not about Islamaphobia, which clearly when someone mentions they are against what is being taught in the name of Islam is brought into question.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Islamaphobes these days....
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 2 years ago
Osiris_Rosenthorne
YES! And against organised crime as well. Any chance we can bring back the old method for executing traitors as well?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
BritishNDLChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was for condescending your opponent for not being British, which is completely irrelevant and offensive. ~"on the simple grounds my opponent isn't a British National and so no clear understanding of what is happening in this country other than what is portrayed in the media." |Riling up personal attacks have no place in a civilized debate. Thus, Conduct to Con. As for arguments, Pro did not properly address correlations between British Muslims and the treason act. Pro was too fixated in proffering a case based on legal backgrounds with little correlation to how muslims are if they support extremism. There are rhetorics which link it, but that is the only correlation I've come across. Strong Legal Argument, Weak Framework and correlation. Con proffers a case based on relativism, that vs a weak framework, I have to say arguments to Con for clarity. Sources however to Pro as Pro backed his legal case with sources from various acts. Pro offers the best sources, but a weaker Arg.
Vote Placed by Comrade_Silly_Otter 2 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
BritishNDLChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: My vote goes to ChosenWolff. Spelling and Grammar are tied. Pro is the only one that used links Con has a better conduct, seems more organized. Along with a nice touch of bold letters. However, Chosen Wolf has more convincing arguments in my eyes, considering he did shoot down the " Christian principles " and how extremism is on the eyes of the person looking at it.
Vote Placed by Laprlev 2 years ago
Laprlev
BritishNDLChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I strongly agree with Pro on this debate. Pro is the only one the used sources. Therefore, along with the arguments made, that supports his arguments. I have looked through ChosenWolff's debates and he has extremely poor conduct and twists and manipulates things to his advantage. In very smart ways, but with intelligence comes responsibility and he does not use it responsibly.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
BritishNDLChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had stronger pointss
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BritishNDLChosenWolffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not demonstrate the BOP commitment that Britain should charge extremists with Treason, Con rebutted most claims well enough, British is no longer worshiping the Queen as next to God, so is no longer a Christian Nation, nor is supporting a different opinion in a country with Freedom of Speech grounds for such extreme penalties for those who sell British secrets to the enemy. Pro did not demonstrate this at all as it was Pro's BOP to show this.