As a non-lawyer layman, I am always nervous about entering into a debate about definition that seems to be largely conducted by lawyers. It seems to me that given the scale of the problems that we face, it would be better to move towards a definition which provides a greater disincentive to anybody to do or say anything that might be construed as pro-terrorism rather than be a prisoner of the past on other issues. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that layman’s perspective?
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Adrian Bailey
(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 c1443 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:03:38 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304953
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304953
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304953