---

Terrorism Bill

Throughout our debate, I have tried to make clear that we look at the terms, the context and the content and then consider whether the circumstances are such that the offence is made out. If we look at the terms with which we must now deal, we must look at the specific provisions. I made clear that the glorification of terrorist acts in such a way that others could reasonably take it as a direction to them to emulate those acts should be criminalised. We made that absolutely clear. The Government do not believe that it is acceptable that people—we can all think of examples in the recent past—should be allowed to make statements that glorify terrorism and, in so doing, make it more likely that their audience will commit acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, there are young and impressionable people in our society who can all too easily be manipulated by those preaching or advocating a message of hate. Such people create a climate of hate in which terrorism can more easily flourish. I am sure that we do not need to trawl through some of the more graphic examples that we have had in the years before introducing the Bill. I take up a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, when he dealt with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. He suggested that the noble Lord did not support the offence of glorification in that report. That is inaccurate. At paragraph 21, he stated:"““The original version was in my view capable of drawing some odd results; the present version now concentrates in sub clause (2)(a) on statements designed to encourage emulation. What this means is that effectively the controversial idea of a separate offence simply of glorifying terrorism rightly has been dropped. A more specific state of mind is required of the putative offender. This is a sensible decision, consistent with the concerns I would have expressed about the original draft Bill shown to me. It was not workable in its original form." His report continues at paragraph 23:"““In my view this proposal in its revised form is a proportionate response to the real and present danger of young radically minded people being persuaded towards terrorism by apparently authoritative tracts wrapped in a religious or quasi-religious context. The balance between the greater public good and the limitation on the freedom to publish is no more offended by this proposal than it would be by, say, an instruction manual for credit card fraud were such to be published. I believe that it is Human Rights Act compatible””."