MPs have voted to keep the clause in the Terrorism Bill 2005 that outlaws "glorification" of terrorism.
I watched the first half of the debate on BBC Parliament today. Several things about this are scarey;
1. there is no definition of terrorism.
2. there is no definition of glorification.
How can that be good law?
Blair said that retaining the clause is vital to protect the public from the likes of Abu Hamza. But Hamza was charged and found guilty BEFORE this bill has even been passed. Therefore the clause is unnecessary because the laws we have are sufficient.
Could I be charged under this section of the bill due to the content of my webpage on Israel which gives a truer and totally different view of the standard history of Israel we are given.
Could it be argued that pointing out the real, sordid history of Israel is "glorifying" terrorism?
This is the point that the Tories etc were making. The term "glorification" is so vague that interpretation of it can lead to abuse of the law, if passed. Its use could be applied with discretion, with some people left alone while others are charged and found guilty. We saw what happened at the Labour Party Conference when Walter Wolfgang heckled Jack Straw.
This is bad.
I cannot see how so many MPs could vote for this, unless they have been promised something in return, e.g. a new ministerial position such as The Minister for Chewing Gum.
1 comment:
Well, it has recently been reported that MPs are all getting new cars. They can choose between a Jaguar and something else. Maybe that's what he promised them - a new car!
Post a Comment