How very true. And this is a sentiment which has clearly been equally embraced by the Government when it comes to law-making, as evidenced by the ludicrous glorification provisions in its new Terrorism Bill, which made it through the Commons this week by a far more comfortable margin than expected.
The government originally planned a separate offence outlawing glorification of terrorism but later decided to include it as part of a more general offence covering encouragement of terrorism.
But in the report stage debate on the Terrorism Bill, Lord Lloyd said the glorification plan was still unworkable and incomprehensible and the Lords ousted the clause last month. The Lords’ sensible amendments however, were overturned by 315 votes to 277, by MPs and glorification of terror is now back on.
As prominent human rights lawyer, Louise Christian, points out: “This despite the views of the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, who said that to make glorification an offence would offend against the requirement of Art 10 of the Human Rights Act that restrictions on freedom of expression should be proportionate. She expressed particular concern that the new provisions do not require any evidence of intent to encourage terrorism.”
Only 17 Labour MPs voted against the Government, after a week of pleading, arm-twisting, hand-wringing and, almost certainly, a bit of plea-bargaining. Because, surely, it can’t just be me that thinks many potential rebels were bought off with the promise of a free vote on the smoking legislation?
Personally, I think Blair played a blinder, albeit a sneaky one: putting it about that the Government was split over the smoking proposals, reluctantly allowing a free vote on the issue and thus getting the total smoking ban that he wanted and getting his silly terror law proposals through – reverse psychology at its most basic and that bleating bunch who supposedly represent us fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Regardless, however, of how the votes needed were wangled, unless the Lords mount a battle of colossal proportions (and thus, no, doubt lay themselves open to charges of glorifying terrorism), we will soon have a law on the statute books which reads as follows:
Encouragement of terrorism
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his behalf; and
(b) at the time he does so—
(i) he knows or believes, or
(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing,
that members of the public to whom the statement is or is to be published are likely to understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.
(2) For the purposes of this section 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 which—
(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.
Pardon me if I’m being dense, but what on earth does that mean? On the face of it, what’s to be offended about: of course MPs are going to vote for it, no-one wants a scumbag running round glorifying terror do they?
A few questions: What does publish mean? Does it cover the spoken word? Does it cover the internet? How many people need to see it? Who decides what an act of terror is? How does one define glorify – would one have to say that the bombing of the twin towers was “excellent” or would just saying that it was “perhaps not such a bad thing” suffice? What if you said it was “wicked”, which, of course, has totally opposite meanings depending on which generation you belong to? What standard of proof is required? Is it a subjective or objective test? Would it be taken as read that someone was instigating a reasonable person or a fanatic? Do these members of the public read the Daily Mail?
Honestly, how many holes can an Bill’s section contain? If this nonsense had been in force at the relevant times, Robin Hood, Bonnie Prince Charlie, Oliver Cromwell, Hereward the Wake, Wat Tyler and the Peasant's Revolt, Michael Collins, Nelson Mandela, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and any of the 'Founding Fathers' of the United States of America would have been banged up for up to seven years – and where would the world be then?
The question of that worries me the most is ‘Who decides what an act of terror is?’ Presumably it is the Government, in which case we’re stepping into seriously scary Orwellian territory here. Take away the woolly language s 1 (2), taken to its extreme, could be construed as meaning that anyone who protests against the Government’s so-called war on terror, or many of its other actions come to that, is guilty of an offence.
Charles Clarke argued that existing laws did not allow police to act against the (over)-reactionaries who yielded placards calling – amongst other delights - for the beheading of those responsible for the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Utter cobblers. The existing incitement laws – not to mention numerous public order laws – would have been more than enough to get the protesters arrested: the police simply chose not to because they thought it would spark off something much bigger and more violently serious.
Yeah, yeah, the Government can offer as many assurances as it likes about how it would never use the provisions to suppress legitimate free speech, but once something is on the statute book, it’s their forever (or until it is repealed), so it would be there for a less cuddly future government to use for far more nefarious ends and the police will have no choice but to enforce it.
As Abraham Lincoln put it: “…although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed.”
If this bill becomes law, yet again, it would seem, we are going to have to look to our judiciary to go through contortions to try and construe its provisions in a way which finds the right balance between protecting our country’s security and retaining our rights of free speech. The Government with this bill is potentially tipping the scales too far against the latter, while utterly failing to show that it will do anything for the former. Vague law does not make good law.
As Bertrand Russell said: “Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise.”
|
