Proceeding contribution from Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 3 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
We have had a useful discussion, but one aspect that needs to be emphasised is an echo of yesterday’s discussion on clause 1. It is the fact that it is possible for an individual, as well as an organisation, to fall foul of the provision merely because of a perception on somebody else’s part. We should criminalise the intent of the individual or organisation, not the way in which somebody else might see their actions. Many organisations that try to highlight issues in connection with places such as Palestine or Kashmir will have to tread an exceptionally fine line, and it should not be the business of the House to proscribe their activities simply because somebody else may feel that they have crossed that line.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 438 c990-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Criminal investigation Asylum Companies Directors Liability Incitement International law Nuclear weapons Protest Proscribed organisations Radioactive materials Terrorism Training Trespass Encouragement of terrorism
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 22:45:15 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275314
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275314
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275314