At least if the government has its way, according to a policy paper
" # Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations".
Dated September 2023
O their Prophetic Souls.
Maybe Sir Kid Bomber will save us.
Except that it’s all based on Tony Blair’s Terrorism Bill of 2000. Tony B. Liar is probably still advising on how to make the most of it.
I took this from the latest draft which is Sep. 2023, but I don’t know what parts are actually new or may exist already.
Proscription makes it a criminal offence to:
belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas (section 11 of the act)
invite support for a proscribed organisation (the support invited need not be material support, such as the provision of money or other property, and can also include moral support or approval) (section 12(1))
express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation, reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation (section 12(1A))
(And …Other stuff about belonging, meeting, clothing etc)
So what does the govt want to do to you?
Depends on the ‘offense’. Though not really…“whatever they want to” is allowed by the wording.
The three categories of the Terrorism bill referred to here are .
The penalties for proscription offences under sections 11 and 12 are a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or a fine. The maximum penalty for a section 13 offence is 6 months in prison and/or a fine not exceeding £5,000.
So a ‘uniform’ offense is the same, the same six month job. Unless it somes under ‘support’.
But if you look at the bolded bits, the ‘invite support’ and ‘express a view’ parts relate to section 12 and the whopping “14 years in prison”
Or you might get off lightly with an unlimited fine.
I haven’t seen any reactions on this, so I don’t know how real this prospect is.
Saying for example Hamas aren’t terrorists, or calling for a ceasefire would count as expressing suppport for Hamas.
Not because of any terrorist activity, which you might argue in court, but because they are proscribed by the government - which you can’t argue with as it’s a fact.
But the idea clealry seems to be to suppress dissenting commentary by designating it support for terrorism.
And for there to be fewer freedom to vocie disagreement here than you might have in Myanmar.