As I have tried to explain, the glorification provision is a guide to the courts that the behaviour of celebrating and praising terrorism is the kind of conduct that would meet the direct and indirect incitement definition, so it is a useful addition because we now face the threat of people glorifying terrorism. Those people are very careful to try to ensure that they do not fall within the criminal definition, so it is important that we can tell the courts which sort of behaviour we want to outlaw.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield said that, if someone’s glorification of terrorism amounted to direct or indirect incitement, such behaviour should be criminalised. That is exactly what we seek to do in subsection (2), which says that glorification includes the behaviour set out in clause 1. He has said that he accepts that such behaviour ought to be criminalised. I can therefore see no reason why he has a problem with the glorification provision. I cannot understand his fundamental objection, other than that he finds the concept of glorification distasteful. I am afraid that we are here not to legislate on the basis of what he finds distasteful in terms of a concept of English law, but to set out what we think is important in tackling this very real mischief.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Hazel Blears
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c431-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:00:33 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272736
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272736
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272736