Terrorism Bill

Be it far from me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to say that what was true in that discussion becomes germane when we think of glorification. I cannot believe that a simple explanation or understanding of the word ““glorification”” would be universal among the Muslim community. It might be, among some people, but that would be unusual. I do not know what its translation into the various languages involved would be, and it would be improper to refer to them in the House in any case. However, glorification is a concept that is not easy to pass around between those who have lived all their lives knowing it in its ecclesiastical context, and far more so for those who have had no such knowledge. There is a real problem that glorification could easily be misinterpreted by those in the ethnic community when they came to explain to their friends what the word meant. This is one of the most dangerous parts of the Bill. If the word ““glorification”” were misinterpreted by some, it could lead to people expecting a prosecution, because of the way in which they had interpreted it, only to have that expectation dashed because this curious figure, the Director of Public Prosecutions, had said, ““No, this is the sort of glorification that you can go in for. There are other sorts that you cannot go in for.”” The prosecution would therefore be prevented. The whole of the Bill has been overshadowed by the misinterpretation of many of the Government’s views. There is so much misinformation out there, and if we consider that alongside our discussions of other Bills—which we shall no doubt discuss again here—we see too many opportunities for misunderstanding being opened up among the minorities in this country. Clarity and sharpness in the language that we use is absolutely essential, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) so clearly pointed out. I turn now to the breadth of the circumstances in which the concept of glorification could be used. Unlike some of her colleagues, the Minister is not someone who eschews history. There is a tendency on the Labour Benches to talk as though nothing that happened before last week actually counts or has any real reference to today. I am one of those who thinks that if everyone learned a bit more history, they would have a bit more humility about the excellence of today’s ideas. History is important, and many of us like to be pretty biased about our history. I am pretty biased against Carson, and pretty much in favour of a number of those people whom I would see as freedom fighters in earlier years in Ireland. I have a pretty clear view of that, and history is made much more interesting if one takes sides in relation to it. I have therefore been guilty of an offence under the Bill over many years, although I hope that the DPP will not enforce it against me. In my enthusiastic pursuit of history, I have glorified a number of people who, in fighting for freedom, behaved in a way to which we would probably object today, largely because we live in a democracy and there are alternative ways of putting one’s case forward. One of the things that the Government have found so difficult throughout consideration of the Bill has been to understand that in many cases people have had to take action in a way that has meant the loss of life, because there was no other way of righting terrible wrong. In such cases, the fault lies with the system and the Government, rather than with those who took up arms to uphold such a right.