I shall not. The hon. Gentleman can make his point when he makes his speech.
The deficiency becomes particularly obvious in connection with clause 2, which deals with the dissemination of terrorist publications. Those who drafted the Lords amendments perhaps did not intend them to have that narrowing effect, but they unquestionably do have precisely that effect. I regard that as a serious problem because I do not believe that any form of indirect encouragement or other inducement to terrorism should be acceptable. It is also a problem because the Council of Europe offence on which ours is modelled was clear on precisely that point. The offence was intended to capture ““public provocation””, as well as other forms of encouragement or inducement to terrorism. The European convention on the prevention of terrorism includes provocation, so we should include provocation, too. Like glorifying terrorism, it is possible to provoke it without describing or referring to it.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Charles Clarke
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 15 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
442 c1434-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:03:44 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304909
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304909
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304909