Terrorism Bill

I wish briefly to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and to speak briefly to my amendment No. 75 in the same grouping. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield rightly remarked, clause 20 really applies to the entirety of the Bill as it contains the definition of terrorism. As the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) reminded us yesterday, it applies particularly to clause 1, which he rightly described as the most offensive part of the Bill, and I agree with him. The question of what is terrorism brings us face to face with the most difficult decision: what is a freedom fighter, and who is a terrorist? It is extraordinarily difficult. At the moment, the Bill applies equally to those whom this House would regard as freedom fighters and those whom the House would regard as terrorists. The definition makes absolutely no distinction between the two. The question that we must ask is whether that is what we really want to do. The question can be judged historically. If we look back to the struggle of the Fenians in Ireland in the 19th century, was all of their violence improper, albeit that civilian casualties were involved? What about the struggle of the African National Congress in South Africa? Will we all say that its violence was improper? What about the struggle in Cyprus by the EOKA, the struggle in India against the British Raj, or the struggle against the British in Africa?