Proceeding contribution from Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
That is but one of the many mistakes that we might identify in that speech. My recollection is that the Minister went further, saying that only those who sought to resist by non-violent means could be given support. That is palpable nonsense. The difficulty is that the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw between terrorists and freedom fighters, for example, is not always apparent at the time. It is an awful lot easier to judge that distinction with the benefit of hindsight and the clarity of history, but the clause makes no allowance for that point. In the case of Uzbekistan—my working example for the moment—we are relying extensively on the Uzbek Government for information on what happened in Andijan. That makes such judgments all the more difficult.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 438 c851
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal investigation Detainees Evidence Incitement Judges Police Powers Prosecutions Public interest Police custody Negligence Terrorism Training Remand in custody Encouragement of terrorism Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-09-24 15:58:42 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273459
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273459
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273459