Archived version: https://archive.ph/7EVMt
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825172835/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66602814

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] its_prolly_fine@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get that. But I think the danger is from outside the country, so they aren't going to be arrested.

[–] lukzak@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark.

If we let them, especially external actors, influence our domestic policy, then they win. Look at what happened to the USA after 9/11. The terrorists won and it's proof that terrorism works. Not only do the people capitulate to the terrorists, but bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

The alternative is just laying down and letting medeival assholes decide domestic policies of the secular world. Don't let terrorism win.

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com 1 points 1 year ago

Personally this feels like a contradiction.

They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark..... bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

State surveillance measures taken after 9/11 is part of the anti-freedom agenda to me. To effectively screen or establish connection to an extremist groups requires enhanced surveillance for effectiveness and arresting anyone with even a distant connection seems dubious (what type of connection, family, friends, being tricked into going to one meeting, etc). The people defining what an "extremist group" is can also be nefarious if bad actors are in play (think of the anti-communism/socialism scare that is portrayed in the recent Oppenheimer flick).