Lords blow for bid to outlaw terrorist 'glory'
scotsman: The government's Terrorism Bill faced a fresh setback last night when the House of Lords voted down plans to outlaw the "glorification" of terrorism.
Lawyers and civil liberties groups have warned that the planned offence was too broadly cast to be practicable. And last night, the Lords voted by 270 to 144 to strike out the clause.
In its place, the Lords proposed a narrower offence of "indirect incitement to terrorism".
The government is likely to try to reverse the Lords defeat when the bill returns to the House of Commons.
"We do not believe it is acceptable that people should be allowed to make statements which glorify terrorism and thereby make it more likely that others will commit such acts," said the Home Office. Link
IRR: ... The obvious concern is that people who express support for armed resistance to the occupation of Iraq - resistance that many people around the world feel is legitimate - could be caught-up in the new laws. To vocalise one's support for the Iraqi resistance may constitute 'glorification' for the purposes of the legislation. Simply stating that one can understand what leads some people to become suicide bombers may also lay people open to prosecution. It is clear that Muslims feel particularly exposed to the possibility of being criminalised as a consequence of this provision in Clause 1. Link
db: Blair has previously claimed that he is not seeking to curtail public debate, and has stated that the 'world famous' capacity of the British for 'common sense' will be deployed in judging what is and what is not 'glorification' of terror.
Remember Walter Wolfgang - the 82 year old Labour Party member dragged out of the party conference by stewards for [like a terrorist sympathiser] daring to yell 'nonsense' at Jack Straw? You may also remember that they used the Prevention of Terrorism Act to stop the old chap from returning to the debate. This is the kind of 'common sense' you have to guard against.
Lawyers and civil liberties groups have warned that the planned offence was too broadly cast to be practicable. And last night, the Lords voted by 270 to 144 to strike out the clause.
In its place, the Lords proposed a narrower offence of "indirect incitement to terrorism".
The government is likely to try to reverse the Lords defeat when the bill returns to the House of Commons.
"We do not believe it is acceptable that people should be allowed to make statements which glorify terrorism and thereby make it more likely that others will commit such acts," said the Home Office. Link
IRR: ... The obvious concern is that people who express support for armed resistance to the occupation of Iraq - resistance that many people around the world feel is legitimate - could be caught-up in the new laws. To vocalise one's support for the Iraqi resistance may constitute 'glorification' for the purposes of the legislation. Simply stating that one can understand what leads some people to become suicide bombers may also lay people open to prosecution. It is clear that Muslims feel particularly exposed to the possibility of being criminalised as a consequence of this provision in Clause 1. Link
db: Blair has previously claimed that he is not seeking to curtail public debate, and has stated that the 'world famous' capacity of the British for 'common sense' will be deployed in judging what is and what is not 'glorification' of terror.
Remember Walter Wolfgang - the 82 year old Labour Party member dragged out of the party conference by stewards for [like a terrorist sympathiser] daring to yell 'nonsense' at Jack Straw? You may also remember that they used the Prevention of Terrorism Act to stop the old chap from returning to the debate. This is the kind of 'common sense' you have to guard against.
posted by exoplanet at 7:17 AM
<< Home