Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 15 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill 2005-06.
Terrorism Bill
The Home Secretary helpfully gave us a history of the origin of the word, which lies not in legal text, but in a pronouncement from an international organisation. It is none the worse for that, but translating pious aspirations into sensible law is the job of the House. It is not the job of the House to take every such pious aspiration and repeat it verbatim. The decision to repeat it verbatim was the Prime Minister’s when he concluded that there was political mileage in doing so. He kept it up even after I think the Home Secretary pointed out to him that the original idea was entirely unworkable. [Interruption.] In that case, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to intervene and explain why the original idea of a separate offence was dropped.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 442 c1440
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Civil liberties Incitement International cooperation Judges Internet Ethnic groups History Freedom of expression Police Powers Muslims Terrorism Training Encouragement of terrorism
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-09-24 16:03:41 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304938
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304938
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_304938