Thou Shalt Not Glorify Abstract Nouns *UPDATED*
The Labour Party's gaberdene rush into insensibility lept forwards today with their passing of the terror bill's provision to make 'glorifying terroism' a criminal offence.
Of course nobody has actually defined terrorism, which would lad logical minds to ponder the usefulness of the law. For example I fully supported the ANC's armed struggle against apartheid, including the use of bombs. Have I just broken the law? Should I be dragged off to Belmarsh because I support Nelson Mandela? Should I be rendered to countries unknown because I firmly believe that Guy Fawkes was the only person to enter parliament with honest intentions? Should I be up in fron of the bench for singing songs in praise of Robin Hood?
Actually the answer is no because of this clause:
Well, 20 years... That means it's OK to glorify the IRA's attempt to blow up Tony's idol, the Blessed Margret and her cabinet in Brighton 1984.
And what is 'glorification' in legal terms? Is mild praise legal? When does something stop being praise and becomes glorification?
So, we need this to enable us to jail someone already jailed under existing legislation?
Answers to:
The Labour Party
Fantasy Island
London W1.
Britain's Dying Democracy
Even more sinister is the hubris of New Labour and their anti-democratic practices. Take a look at something Blair said in the debate:
This means Blair can propose any extreme and unworkable proposal he wants: those who oppose him are aiding terrorists. But all this tedious getting stuff through parliament is coming to an end with the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. Sounds deathly dull, doesn't it. It isn't. It's horrifying and I'm not exaggerating:
(a) reforming legislation;
(b) implementing recommendations of any one or more of the United Kingdom Law Commissions, with or without changes....
...(3) An order under section 1 may for the purpose specified in subsection (1)(b) of that section also makeâ€â€
(a) provision amending or abolishing any rule of law;
(b) provision codifying rules of law....
...6) Criminal penalties
(1) Provision under section 2(1) may not create a new offence that is punishable, or increase the penalty for an existing offence so that it is punishableâ€â€
(a) on indictment, with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;
Got that? This is what it says in plain English:
Laws can be made, altered and changed by a Minister WITHOUT having to go through parliament for a vote or even a debate. I bet you think I'm making this up, but I'm not.
The wide-ranging power in Part 1 of the Bill potentially allows ministers to amend, repeal or replace any legislation, although the Government has committed itself to not using the procedure to deliver “highly political measuresâ€Â.
That's from House of Commons Library Research Paper. Now isn't it reassuring to hear that New Labour have given a commitment. Thet always keep their commitments, haven't they.
Oh.
Ane those inconvenient elections, you know the ones Tony might not do well in? Like the May 2007 council elections? they might be scrapped.
UPDATE:
Consider this briefing Paper from well known bunch of leftie hippies, City law firm Clifford Chance.
I totally agree with the
I totally agree with the sentiment expressed.
I don't think the glorification clause above is still part of the government proposal. They abandoned that and replaced it with some guff about "indirect incitement" to terrorism. This post is worth reading.
If the government gets their way the police will have the ability to ask for websites to be shut down without judicial involvement.
If that 20-year expriry date
If that 20-year expriry date is true, then I suspect Bin Laden can start planning to 'glorify' 9/11 in 2021... Frankly, Charles Clarke's example of a protestor with a banner saying 'I Glorify the 7/7 bombers' was pathetic: a protestor that simplistic is asking for trouble. A placard saying 'Remember 7/7' could be construed as a warning against inciting racial hatred rather than as a threat or incitement. Presumably, the slogans as well as the demos will have to be approved by the police beforehand in future.
REPOSTEd Postman Patel What
REPOSTEd Postman Patel
What does Glorification mean ... whatever Plod / CPS / the Minister /
Rupert Murdoch / The Anti Defamation League etc etc., want it to mean
... see Humpty Dumpty.
Here goes, I think Tony Blair, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw, Gordon Brown
are doing a really fantastic job terrorising the population of the UK
and I think they are absolutely right not to condemn the abtics of the
night shift at Abu Ghraib.. that's what those terrorists deserve... the
UK Government are absolutley right to terrorise the terrorists or at
least ally themselves with people who do.
I am enormously proud that the |Foreign Office have , and manitain
inoffice people like Sir Michael Wood who evidently know how to deal
with terrorists on their own terms, boil them , beat them, kill them
without wasting time with legal niceties such as Geneva Conventions,
Human Rights...yes TONY BLAIR IS THE TERRORIST PAR EXCELLENCE.
I wait for Plod to come knocking.ziz
Reposted Unity
Reposted Unity TalkPolitics
Sadly, glorification is back in although it took some finding -
correction posted at my place.Unity
http://www.talkpolitics.co.uk
REPOSTED D-Notice True they
REPOSTED D-Notice
True they only back-date it 20 years; however, Mr Mandela was still in
prison 20 years ago, say maybe it does cover any praise of him!D-notice
REPOSTED Unity
REPOSTED Unity TalkPolitics
I hate to say this, but the glorification clause you have there may not
be the right one - it looks very much as if the 20 year limit and list
of state-sanctioned terrorist that can be glorified is out of the
Bill.
What is left may well look like this:
For the purposes of this section [Encouragement of Terrorism] the
statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as
indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of
terrorism or Convention offences include every statement whichâ€â€
(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in
the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could
reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being
glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing
circumstances.
Guess we're all fucked if that is what's in there.Unity
REPOSTED Lynne hi, found you
REPOSTED Lynne
hi, found you via a link from MuppetLord.
I think you've summarised the situation very well :-)
I wish the ability to step back and look at this whole thing the way
you have existed in so many more people....*lynne*
Sooner or later this package
Sooner or later this package of measures that has been assembled (the 28day without charge holding power, the amending of law without debate, the locking up of people for words), is going to be used. We have to assume that the powers-that-be are at least rational, if not sensible and honourable, therefore they MUST PLAN to use these powers.
Unless its all just meant to chill debate.. when you need to show ID to get your train in the morning, a red-flag for political blogging isnt going to seem worthwhile is it? not when it means a 10 minute discussion and bag search every morning at 5:15am on a train platform.