I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but it is adequately covered by clause 1(1), which we have just discussed. We have had a disagreement about whether we should include an offence of specific intent, negligence or recklessness—we must consider that this afternoon—but clause 1(1) covers glorification adequately. Introducing the separate glorification subsection adds nothing except to suggest that laudatory talk—no more—about the activities of individuals in foreign countries, where the acts would be likely to take place, should become a criminal offence. That is undoubtedly a major infringement of free speech because no specific offence is being incited. It may be in breach of article 10.2 of the European convention on human rights on freedom of expression. It adds nothing to the Bill. The Minister made a sedentary comment about ““in existing circumstances””, but invoking Robin Hood may apply to existing circumstances.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c840 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 15:58:53 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273419
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273419
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273419