In Hong Kong people protest not to have politicians impose their rulers, to limit their freedoms.
Here we'll soon be told who the politicians think are unacceptable, and who they'd like to see banned from speaking.
Should we see any similarities?
Should we kick out ancient freedoms on a whim? Should we overturn traditions for votes? Should we silence critics of a system even if we disapprove of them? Who decides who's unacceptable? The Conservatives? Labour? Or another party you may disagree with?
If you support terrorism it's already illegal. I don't see the need for knee-jerk laws.
Who will decide what is extreme? A few years ago fighting for 'gay marriage' would be viewed as extreme. Nowadays fighting against it might be viewed as such by those in power.
A few years ago the secret police spied and bugged CND activists. Who decides who is next and if the state has these new powers, who might they seek to silence?
It seems to me we have more than enough powers to deal with those who support terrorism. Racial and religious hatred is already illegal. Even "homophobia" is (via the -- fnarr fnarr -- back-door) illegal. So why any need for a questionable new law?
It seems more to do with winning over The Sun newspaper ahead of the general election than any serious measure to deal with a threat from a vocal minority of Muslims.
It may not be the start of any curtailment of our freedoms. But ask yourself these two questions:
1. Why take the risk?
2. Do you trust politicians to do what's right?