UK Parliament / Open data

Terrorism Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Deben (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 15 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.
My hon. Friend exposes why the use of the word ““glorification”” is so uniquely ridiculous, and makes clear how important it is to get this right. It is a delicate matter because it is so close to things that people feel very deeply. In a very delicate eye operation, for example, a tiny move can destroy the eye that was meant to be healed and therefore negate the whole purpose of the operation. The Home Secretary is capable of understanding and sensitivity, and that is why it is worth trying to pursue this matter. My final point is a reinterpretation of my first. The matter is very delicate and so needs language that is different from that used to send political messages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) noted, language has many purposes. All hon. Members have a range of different languages. If we used in the House the language that we used to speak to our children when they were young, we would sound pretty peculiar. Some hon. Members use language in the House that would sound better in a bar, while others use language that would sound better at the Bar. Most try to speak in a language suitable for debate. It is part of your job, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make sure that in general we abide by language that is suitable for debate. There is no place in the world where people are more careful about the language that is used. Over many years, we have created circumstances that allow us to speak the truth, even if it is extremely hard, in a way that does not lead to brawling. We use the third person, and stand and sit far enough away from each other to make brawling difficult. That is important because we recognise that free speech is difficult. It must be nurtured and protected very carefully. One protection is to make sure that we use the right word. Including in the Bill the word ““glorify”” would open the door to misunderstanding of what we are about. It would be bad enough if the ethnic communities misunderstood us, but that misunderstanding could reach many small groups in society for which belief in God is the key issue. The language that they use is important to them: they wish to know precisely where they stand, and it is up to this House to make sure that they do.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
442 c1458 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top