The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. One difficulty is that the discussion on the definition of terrorism—to which he has paid a great deal of attention—has been deferred until tomorrow’s debate. I tabled an amendment, which I deliberately tried to introduce into clause 1, so that we might have that discussion at the same time as our deliberations on the clause, although I do not criticise the Clerk for having moved the amendment away.
The right hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that it is possible to look at this issue from another angle, which involves the definition of terrorism. At the moment, however, we have to proceed on the basis that the Government’s definition of terrorism is extremely wide. Moreover, they are seeking for the first time to create a worldwide jurisdiction with the capacity to criminalise anyone in the world for making a comment that falls within the UK definition of terrorism, which is intended for conditions in this country. I have to say to the Minister that that is a bold thing to try to do.
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 c841 
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_273429
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273429
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273429