Terrorism Bill

The Government cannot turn around and say, ““We are allowed to do that. This refers to something quite different.”” I very much dislike the idea of extending the Government’s powers so that they can decide what is and is not suitable for me to glorify. That is my first objection. My second is this. If the clause does not refer to that, how can it refer to anything that is not covered by the rest of the clause, which deals with the encouragement of terrorism? That is the distinction that seems to me so difficult. If it does mean something different, what it means seems to me to be something that should not be made illegal and punishable by seven years’ imprisonment. It is part of life that we must put ourselves in the position in which others find themselves and, in doing that, we may have to glorify actions which we would not only consider entirely wrong in our own democratic society, but might well not have the guts to perform ourselves, in view of fatal flaws that might result from not having been pressurised in the same way. There is, then, a genuine present reason for the amendment. Let me end by suggesting a reason from the past. I was lucky enough to be taught history very enthusiastically. Part of my historical bias arises from a wish to fight out again the issues that mattered at the time. The glorification clause could so easily be seen as a restriction. I am sure that that will not be the case in the classroom or the local authority, but I warn the Minister that the BBC and organisations that deal with the national press are all too likely to say, ““I think this may be a bit dangerous. Let’s not do it quite like that.”” Our experience of people allowing the public to see what an abortion is actually like—which is not glorification—shows what happens if organisations such as the BBC and ITV are allowed to control the expression of powerful feelings and emotions more than is absolutely necessary.