Not sure that hate crimes count as terrorism, but be that as it may: of course it should count for other kinds of terrorism. Why would you think it wouldn't?
Why would
you think I think it wouldn’t?!
(Heh, sorry, couldn’t resist that! But once again, you’re reading in my posts what I’d not intended, nor what I’d actually written. I was
asking if you’re good with that, not claiming you aren’t. And I was asking because, as far as I am aware --- although I’m admittedly not very aware about this subject, but still --- no one that is guilty of other non-Islamic crimes that might be described as terrorism has, thus far, had their citizenship revoked; so, fair question, I hope you’ll agree.)
Also, you don’t touch on that other big category: organized crime. I’ll take it, then, that you’re agreeable to having those guilty of such also shipped out, if that citizenship loophole might apply to them?
You’ve already said you’re agreeable to having this apply to non-Islamic terrorism. If you’re also agreeable to having this apply to organized crime, then cool, just like I’d agreed your position isn’t discriminatory in racist terms, likewise I’ll then agree your position is consistent and not discriminatory/selective in these terms either. All good, in that case.
Except for one observation: If UK actually starts doing this thing, catching hold all of the filth to whom that citizenship loophole applies, and de facto shunting them off to whatever other country, then, regardless of whether those other countries hang these people, or do the lethal injection thing, or else keep them in filthy disease-ridden cells, or else have them loll around in plush comfortable correctional facilities: but I can see all of those other countries not being very pleased with the UK about it! (Because, law or no law, it is hardly fair, right? That someone born and bred in your country, that you couldn’t keep from jumping into organized crime, or that you couldn’t keep from getting radicalized with crazy religious beliefs, you then shunt off to some other country that has nothing really to do with the specific crime/s?
I wouldn't be surprised if these other countries then started creating laws of their own to stop this this weird practice of UK of dumping its particularly nasty criminals onto whomever it is able to.)
There is no distinction in British law for membership of a terror group: legally, it's all the same. That makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise, everyone could join a terrorist group, and then play theprestige's "cosplay" defence and walk away. If you don't want to be treated as a terrorist, don't join a terrorist organisation. I don't accept- and neither does the British legal system- your concept of 'terror-lite'.
I submit that it makes sense to you because of your idiosyncratic viewing of the options available. You seem to see this in terms of either some terrorist gets the worst you can throw at them, or else that terrorist “walk away”. Speaking merely from common sense not actual knowledge of UK law, that appears nonsensical to me. No terrorist should ever “walk away”, every terrorist should necessarily get a stiff and exemplary sentence; certainly that makes sense to me. But beyond that, what makes sense to me is that someone that has actually killed and maimed and blown things up will get far harsher punishment than those that haven’t done any of this. To treat a killer-many-times-over terrorist the exact same as a never-actually-killed-anyone-never-actually-hurt-anyone terrorist, that doesn’t make any kind of sense to me, no.
