The hon. Gentleman is a very conspicuous character, so if he had been in Committee for 95 per cent. of the debate, I would have noticed. I will come to the comments that have been made about various people’s statements—for example, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) raised that very issue. It is invidious for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and say what is criminal and what is not, because those are matters for the courts to decide.
There are very serious concerns whether people can say, ““Wasn’t it fantastic what happened on 7 July?””, knowing or believing that the people to whom they are speaking will be encouraged to emulate that behaviour. That is the territory in which we find ourselves, and the issue is very serious. Some of the fanciful suggestions that we have heard this afternoon have not helped to advance the argument.
It is already an offence directly to incite a person to commit a specific act of terrorism. What is not an offence is to incite people to engage in terrorist activities generally or to incite them obliquely by creating a climate in which they may come to believe that terrorist acts are acceptable, and we are trying to close that gap. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) that we must get our legislation into such a shape that we can target particular kinds of mischief. I shall address some of his serious points about intention and the threshold, because I am interested in introducing practical, effective and workable legislation that protects the citizens of this country, and I know that he shares my aim.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) raised the question of the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists several times on Second Reading, and I know that he feels strongly about the matter. I am genuinely surprised that he has not tabled an amendment seeking to define ““freedom fighter””, although he may find it difficult to construct such a formulation. It is too late for him to table an amendment, but no doubt he will participate in tomorrow’s debate on the definition of terrorism.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Hazel Blears
(Labour)
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 c871 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 15:59:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273506
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273506
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273506