That sort of language should not be protected simply because it is in holy scripture if it constitutes indirect incitement according to a narrow intentional or subjective recklessness test. The problem lies not with the fact that it is scripture, but with the width of the law. The fact that it is scripture should not confer on it any protection or any extra liability.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Evan Harris
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c403 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:00:53 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272657
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272657
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272657