---

Terrorism Bill

I want to add one more example to the Minister’s interesting explanation. When there is a constitutional or democratic route to change a government, all of us understand that the case for terrorism becomes extremely weak. If there is no such route—if no method of peaceful and effective protest exists—does the situation not change somewhat, particularly in the strongest case given by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about terrorism against property? For a long time, Umkhonto we Sizwe of South Africa was the outstanding example, in so far as it did not have a strategy of attacking people but did have a clear strategy of targeting property. Most or many people of this country fully approved, because there was no other route that existed by which they could constitutionally pursue their attempt to change the regime. Does that not make a difference, and is it not characteristic of some of the positions that our Government—and that of the United States, to give another example—have taken? The non-existence of a democratic challenge alters the basis upon which one may or may not accept methods that are necessarily extra-parliamentary and possibly violent.