The Bill seems not to require that, to be caught by this provision, the person or organisation singing the republican songs must be intending to provoke further violent conduct; it is simply a question of whether it might reasonably be expected that someone will take from such songs a general encouragement to emulate such conduct in current circumstances. I can think of situations where that might be so—if, for example, an event were taking place in the Province at a very sensitive time. I give this example so that the Minister can offer some insight into how such a situation might be affected by this clause.
The phrase"““glorification . . . of acts of terrorism””"
is vague and is such an innovation that it will be susceptible to very wide interpretation at various future points. I am not sure why it has been included. I am entirely content that organisations be proscribed that in other ways are plainly trying to encourage violent activities. Given yesterday’s very narrow majority, may we have an assurance that the Government will consider before Report whether this vague term—the ““glorification”” of such conduct, be it in the past, present or future—might not more sensibly be removed from the Bill altogether?
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clarke of Nottingham
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 3 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c987 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:42:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275307
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275307
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275307