Terrorism Bill

The concept of unlawful glorification is alien to our law. On the whole, if people wish to go out and glorify something, they are free to do so. Indeed, as the House will be aware, the origin of the provisions seems to have come from a decision by the Government at some time in the summer that they wanted to make glorification a separate offence. That attracted much adverse public comment and, as a result, the Government decided shortly before the Bill was published—a previous draft Bill contained the separate offence of glorification—to collapse glorification into the single offence of encouragement of terrorism. The impression that was given at the time was that glorification had disappeared, but unfortunately it has not. It is present as a distinct subsection in clause 1. It is difficult to understand why it has been left there. I can easily think of examples of someone glorifying something that might amount to an incitement to commit a terrorist offence, because the words of glorification could clearly relate to incitement. But if there is indeed no incitement, to identify glorification as a form of incitement and as something that is likely to be understood by members of the public"““as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation””" of an offence seems quite wrong. It imposes a burden on anybody who wants to glorify historical events to think carefully, because they may find themselves liable to criminal prosecution and subject to a term of imprisonment of seven years. That is not a reasonable way for Parliament to proceed. If somebody incites terrorism, even by indirect means—oblique references, nudges, winks or suggestions that terrorism is an appropriate remedy—I am happy to criminalise them and happy that they should go to prison for seven years if the offence is serious enough. But it is not right that the mere glorification of the commission of a terrorist offence, which, under the Bill, could include the past activities of Robin Hood, Wat Tyler or Guy Fawkes, should be sufficient to found the basis of a criminal offence, if the statement was one from which"““members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated””." I am sure that there was a Wat Tyler society when I was up at Oxford and, as I said on Wednesday, many student societies of a slightly anarchic kind might have dinners or meetings that glorified Wat Tyler or John Bull—names that used to have a great appeal for Labour Members, which has disappeared under new Labour.