Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from William Cash (Conservative) 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

If we were to go through the clauses in which the term ““glorification”” crops up—including the definitions at the end of the Bill, the convention offences and the other stuff with which the Minister will be familiar—and we stick to the wording, but exclude all the subsections and paragraphs that include a reference to ““glorification””, we would still deal with the mischief that the Minister and the rest of the Government seek to overcome. That is a sensible proposition—and we would also link the provisions to the proscribed organisations, while knocking out the increasingly threadbare argument that the notion of glorification adds anything useful to the process. In fact, that notion is dangerous and unproductive. Furthermore, some have said—I do not want to make this into a certain accusation—that it was the Prime Minister who used the word ““glorification”” at some stage. Some people have suggested that this is a sort of face-saving operation. However, the real question is whether we are going to deal with the mischief that glorification would include. Am I getting a sense, from what the Minister is saying, that the Government are having second thoughts?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c992 
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