---

Terrorism Bill

Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord. It seems to me that however tight the present legal definition of terrorism might be, there is huge confusion in people’s minds. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and before that the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Ahmed, referred to certain causes that one might or might not support. The long tradition of Christian thinking on the subject makes a very clear distinction between the morality of a person’s cause, which may or may not be justified, and the morality with which they pursue that cause. That is a separate issue which, again, may or may not be justified. So a person’s cause may be morally legitimate, but they pursue it with terrorist tactics; that is, tactics designed to engender terror through attacks on civilians or attacks which are essentially indiscriminate. A precise definition of terror would be a tactic which is indiscriminate and disproportionate. What worries me about this debate, and why we are in such confusion all the time, is that people are slipping between discussing a cause which may be regarded as morally legitimate or illegitimate and having at the back of their mind certain terrorist tactics. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that until we have a much tighter definition of terrorism, we will continue to sway in our minds between considering causes and considering the conduct with which those causes are pursued.