Robin Wilton's esoterica

« Beginning of Ramadan | Main | And another thing...... »

08 Oct · Sat 2005

UK law revised on "glorification" of terror...

Three weeks after proposing the creation of a new offence of "glorifying terrorism", UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke has revised the original proposal. Now, someone 'glorifying' terrorism would have to "intend to incite" further acts of terrorism in order to be committing an offence. The way Clarke phrased this was "make a statement glorifying terrorism if the person making it believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that it is likely to be understood by its audience as an inducement to terrorism". I think there are still two problems with this: first, I find it hard to see what proof a law enforcement officer is going to be able to offer in support of a claim of "intent to incite", and second, the qualification of "reasonable grounds for believing" once again shifts the liability for commission of an offence away from the "inciter" and onto their audience. That seems to me to be both subjective and similarly hard to prove. There is also a strand of the legislation aimed at creating "powers to close places of worship used to foment extremism". I think this is another worrying development, but I am not sure what the appropriate legislation would be. It's worrying because it seems to me to take that undesirable step of closely identifying a specific religious community with equally specific anti-terrorist measures. Bluntly: it is hard to see this as anything other than a measure aimed at radical Muslim clerics. I instinctively mistrust that as a basis for drafting any law.

Posted by racingsnake @ 06:31 PM GMT+00:00 [ Comments [2] ]

Comments:

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Posted by Richard Veryard on October 08, 2005 at 09:55 PM GMT+00:00 #

Thanks again, Richard. There I was thinking that these laws are being drafted by Big Ears, and it's actually been the work of Humpty Dumpty all along.

Posted by Robin Wilton on October 09, 2005 at 03:28 PM GMT+00:00 #

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
« December 2009
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Today