---

Terrorism Bill

My name is also on this amendment and I would like to give strong support to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. When the Government decided to merge an originally separate offence of glorification into the wider offence of encouragement, the word ““glorification”” became pointless. The definition of terrorism is so wide that it includes many events that have been glorified for years, and even centuries—for example, the American War of Independence, which involved a violent struggle by a number of people against a lawful government. So glorification of past acts, which may have fallen within the definition of terrorism, are not automatically an offence. It was originally proposed that there should be an exemption for acts more than 20 years old, which would be subject to a black list of acts which were more than 20 years old but which the Home Secretary thought still ought to be treated as being beyond the pale. That particular proposal I think sank under its own absurdity. So, glorification as a definition of terrorism is not automatically an offence. Glorification remains permissible, unless it carries the inference that the conduct being glorified should be emulated. But once you find someone saying that you should emulate what happened on 9/11 or 7/7, they are plainly encouraging terrorism in any meaningful sense of the word. Therefore, reference to glorification, if coupled with a requirement that the conduct being glorified is to be emulated, adds nothing because it is already within the ordinary definition of encouragement. I believe, frankly, that it is only being included in the Bill in order to save the Government’s face, as the Labour Party manifesto promised to make glorification of terrorism an offence. I recall that the Labour Party also promised to make condoning terrorism an offence, but that promise has widely been forgotten. All subsection (4) does is to make the Bill less comprehensible. It is already far too elaborate. This is a wholly unnecessary bell and whistle on what is already an overcomplicated Bill, and, frankly, Clause 4 should be removed to the knacker’s yard—if I may mix my metaphors.