That is entirely right.
Let me deal with the detail of clause 1. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I paraphrase because its language is complicated. It provides that an offence is committed by a person if that person publishes a statement, knowing or believing that those who hear or read it are likely to treat it as an encouragement to commit an act of terrorism The Bill defines the sort of statement that falls into that category as including every statement that glorifies terrorism, whether in the past, the future or generally, and that might encourage others to emulate such conduct. The Bill does not provide for intent. The provision is far removed from an offence of incitement with intent.
Historians or those who write about the past will inevitably be caught by the legislation. Let us consider those who have written about the 19th century struggle of the Fenians against British occupation in Ireland, or the African scholars who write about the Mau Mau revolt against the British empire in Kenya, or the Greek Cypriots who praised EOKA in its struggle against the British Government.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Hailsham
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 26 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c367-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 15:58:25 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270177
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270177
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270177