---

Terrorism Bill

As a non-lawyer, perhaps I may ask for some clarification. I agree entirely with what has been said. It is quite wrong to confuse admiration for courage and belief in a cause with conceding the people involved the right to threaten and terrorise. The kind of terrorists I hope we are aiming at are, for instance, those people in the animal rights movement who believe it is right to threaten and attack others—as I believe recently happened to the entire board of the Bank of England. Those people are terrorists, but we are also talking about people who I agree are quite different. We are talking about those who have passion and courage in defence of a cause, but who are fighting, not terrorising. Is there no way that we can devise a definition to divide those two quite separate issues?