---

Terrorism Bill

First, their intent has either to be to encourage the commission of those acts of terror, or to make statements, knowing it will encourage acts of terror to be committed, but are reckless as to those consequences; they may say, ““I will do it anyway””. Similarly, someone may say, ““I wish to blow up an aeroplane. I do not wish to kill any of the people on the aeroplane, but I intend to put the bomb on the aeroplane and I am reckless as to the consequences””. If you intend to do something, the consequences of which are known to you, and those consequences occur, you must be held responsible for what you have done. In the description that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford gives, it would be perfectly possible for the person making that speech to make a distinction between the cause and the way in which others pursue it. It would be possible to say that I absolutely abhor all forms and acts of terror and I do not believe it is possible to legitimately pursue these aims using those acts of terror, albeit that I understand the mischief from which you suffer and which you seek to address. It is perfectly possible to make a speech in which one clearly disassociates oneself from the type of acts of terror which are used by individuals to pursue their aims. This Bill says, ““If people do not wish to endorse those acts of terror, they should make it plain that they do not seek so to do””. I do not believe that that is beyond the wit of man to make that distinction. Innumerable people have done that. The behaviour and statements of Gandhi—at a time when terror was being used—made it absolutely clear that he agreed with the independent struggle and with change but he fundamentally disagreed with those who used acts of terror to pursue that cause.