16 September, 2005: Democracy in action

So, the Home Office has now published its new draft Terrorism Bill, which creates offences of encouraging and glorifying terrorism, as discussed a little while ago in the context of exclusions and deportations. I couldn't find the document on the Home Office site, but the Guardian has a story about the proposals and have mirrored the text of the Bill.

It looks like it's going to be pretty fucking stupid. In particular, the new Bill states explicitly (s. 16(1)) that,

Expressions used in this Part and in the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) have the same meanings in this Part as in that Act.

and therefore, the same catch-all definition of `terrorism' applies (it is trivially amended -- s.28 -- to include acts designed to influence `an international governmental organisation' rather than just those which influence `the government'). The new Bill does contain an exception (s.2(3)) for glorification etc. of acts of terrorism done more than 20 years ago:

A person is guilty of an offence under this section in respect of a statement glorifying, exalting or celebrating anything occurring more than 20 years before the publication of the statement only if the statement relates, whether directly or indirectly, to conduct or events specified for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State.

i.e., Charles Clarke gets to nominate historical terrorist events which were so bad that anyone glorifying them should still be liable for up to five years in jail (the 11th September 2001 attacks are presumably an example of such events). Presumably he won't be adding events which are terrorism under the 2000 Act but sensible people don't regard as such (e.g. D-Day, per previous example).

Of course, this doesn't save people who want to make statements like,

I think it was jolly splendid that Britain and the United States invaded Iraq and deposed evil dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.

which is glorification of terrorism; or like,

I think the government should bomb Iran to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

which is encouragement of terrorism.

As with the recent incitement to religious hatred stuff, it's not quite as bad as it might be; the new offences of encouraging and glorifying terrorism can only be prosecuted with the consent of the relevant Director of Public Prosecutions (s.15). So that's alright then: make everything illegal, and only prosecute the people you don't like. Top work.

Comments

Posted by jamie, Friday, 16 September 2005 11:40 (link):
You are of course dead right. There was a lot of talk about the ANC test and they put Vera Baird (QC no less) up on the world tonight yesterday to try and defend the policy. Her argument went that sane people in society all know what terrorism is and what glorfying it would mean. So a jury or a lay magistraite "with a lot of common sense", assuming one is used, would be able to tell the difference between the freedom fighters (the one's we like) and terrorists (the one's we don't). She said there would be no question of prosecuting someone who said something about Barder Meinhof or Nelson Mandela.

Of course this is absolute bunkum as you point out. What is and what is not terrorism is contingent in time and space (as Rt. Hon. Peter Hain MP knows all too well). You would be, in essence, asking a jury to determine whether any conflict is just or unjust not only now but for the forseeable future. So while we might not lock someone up for praising the "struggle" against apartheid today Maggie, or a jury, probably would have done in the 1980s while celebrating Saddam Hussein as a wise president of Iraq would have been fine.

Incitement to violence catches the person who shouts fire in a crowded theatre. We shouldn't be locking up the person who says that buring it down is a good thing.
Sometimes I think they are just doing this to annoy me.

Reply to this.
Posted by Chris Lightfoot, Wednesday, 21 September 2005 15:30 (link):
Just as a brief update, Owen Barder has transcribed last Friday's Today interview with the Prime Minister. Blair made some rather telling comments:

Do you really think people have a difficulty with defining terrorism? I mean, it is the, it’s the, killing of innocent people, um, deliberately, innocent civilians. And when people go on a bus or on the underground or in a café or a bar or a restaurant and kill as many innocent people as they possibly can quite deliberately that is something I don’t think it is just that people sort of recognise it when they see it. I think in practical terms most reasonable people have no difficulty with this definition.

Isn't it odd that Blair's preferred definition (killing of `innocent' civilians -- it's not clear who qualifies as a `guilty' civilian; one in Iraq, perhaps?) doesn't in any way resemble the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000?

Jim Naughtie then asked him whether Ken Livingstone could have been jailed under the new Bill for ``[leading] standing ovations for Gerry Adams at Labour Party fringe meetings, when there were IRA bombing campaigns in London''. Blair replied,

I don’t think that is true in fact because -- oh look, I can't... to be absolutely frank you may have a better recollection of exactly what Ken was saying in that particular time than me -- erm, but, let’s be absolutely clear: there will be all sorts of people who say for all sorts of reasons: ``look, I understand why the terrorists do it, and you know, you can sympathise with their motivation.'' Now I happen profoundly to disagree with that, but I am not suggesting that you make that a criminal offence. Er, what I am suggesting should be an offence is somebody who in effect by glorifying is inciting and is saying to people -- particularly impressionable people -- and we know, look, that this is a modern phenomenon that we have, this extremism based on a perversion of Islam -- is in effect saying to impressionable young people: this is something you should do.

-- that is, he believes that the new Bill will only prohibit incitement to `terrorist' violence. Incitement to violence is, of course, already illegal, though the new Bill would if passed it illegal again in s.1(1). But it does more than that, also (s.2(1)) prohibiting the `glorification' of terrorism, whether or not it incites or is intended to incite terrorism. The only get-out clause is that you are allowed to glorify acts which happened twenty or more years ago, unless they are named as exceptions by the Secretary of State.

So, what's going on here? Either the Prime Minister has neither read nor been briefed on the contents of the Bill, or -- relying on the BBC interviewers to be (as usual) basically ignorant of the subject matter -- was simply lying. It's possible that Blair doesn't want a Bill which does more than prohibit incitement to `terrorist' violence (again), and the Home Office has come up with something more wide-ranging than asked for, but that's no excuse for not knowing or lying about the contents of the Bill.

Reply to this.

Post a new comment.

Comments copyright (c) contributors and available under a Creative Commons License. See also the comments policy.