[hyko]

I agree that we should work to undermine the forces of radicalisation; outreach and social justice efforts may bear fruit in decades or centuries. Democracy is at stake today.

We must acknowledge that all the rights and privileges we enjoy in a democracy exist because they are backed up with recourse to an organisation that can defeat anyone else physically. There can be no leniency when someone threatens the government itself with physical violence; it must respond to the threat totally and severely, or else it will cease to be the government. Perhaps that plays into the hands of someone trying to divide the populace; it doesn’t really matter. This is what an existential threat looks like.

If the government does not enforce its monopoly of violence, every week you will be fighting gun battles outside your courts and legislative assemblies, just like those other failed states we’ve all read about.

[rebuilder]

I think we'd need to get more specific to talk about what kind of response is warranted. I'm certainly not saying violent acts should be ignored. What I am saying is that it's important to prosecute criminals, not members of a radical group. That needs to be a clear message. Law enforcement is targeted at criminals, not groups of people. The radicals will try to paint any government action as unfair oppression, so it's important that the reactions do not overreach, or you get the dynamic I described above.