Incitement to Terror

Barclay (Dark Angel)

Ninja Hippy
Messages
3,489
Reaction score
0
Location
Warwick
The clauses in The Terrorism Bill 2005/6 regarding encouragement of acts of terror are deeply worrying - frightening even...

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...5/rp05-066.pdf+uk+anti+terror+bill+2005&hl=en

Clause 1 makes it an offence to publish a statement that is " a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commision, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

How the fuck do you define "encouragement or inducement".

It goes on, Clause 1 (2)... such statements will include every statement which, "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 could be emulated in existing circumstances"

WTF! Have you ever read such bad English? But leaving that aside - still - WTF!!!!!

Clause 1 (3) says that it will also be IRRELEVANT whether any person is in fact encourged or induced by the statement to prepare or instigate any such an act or offence.

You think that's the end of it?

Nope...

Clause 2 makes it an offence, punishable by up to 7 years inprisonment to disseminate or make available "a terrorist publication".

As Dave Technognome said in another thread - what about the suffragettes? They engaged in terrorist acts. So if I publish a book, praising women's fight for the right to vote...

I tell you, freedom's in the greatest danger, and I for one won't be silenced - and I don't give a damn if I'm jailed for it. Not that that's likely to happen. There aren't enough jails to imprison all those who speak out.

As for the criminal Blair, there's plenty of room for him...

Hugs,

Barclay
 

martin_e

Pantheistic Cyberneticist
Messages
9,057
Reaction score
7
Location
Living in a shed in Broadstairs
I'd be deeply suprised if it gets through the Lords. They have a keener grasp of the need for accuracy and precision in describing laws. To be honest I expect it to bounce back with their (hopefully crippling) amendments to a house of Commons which is still basking in it's success at defying the Labour 3 line whip on the 90 days clause...
Remember the first draft passed with only 1 vote - and the rebels have now learnt (remembered?) that they can say "no"
 

grokit23

God mintsmak
Messages
8,505
Reaction score
214
Location
Up above the streets and houses
Here's to hoping that they don't give in to the whips next time round.

That Clause 1 (3) is frightening, that's carte blanche for "we don't like what you've written". :ph34r:
 

Firinne

Just a girl
Messages
2,569
Reaction score
0
Location
Hitchin, Hertfordshire
I can see the point with things such as instructions on how to build a bomb, but the rest of it?
Freedom of speech, f*ck them. Although, I may rethink the topical debate on whether paramilitary actions are in some cases of benefit to society or not if it goes through :ph34r:
 

DJJD

Piechedelic
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
0
Location
Devonia
Bad bad bad. Imagine being at an animal rights protest or anti racism whatever whatever - if they think that you are a ALF or ANL affiliate, for excample, they couuld teoretically bang you up for a bit without charge! I might be wrong but that's how it seems.

Prepare for Conference hecklers being banged up!
 

martin_e

Pantheistic Cyberneticist
Messages
9,057
Reaction score
7
Location
Living in a shed in Broadstairs
One thing which has annoyed me with the media debates over this act is the number of people who even in this day and age assume powers will only be used against people who are actually terrorists (or in this case sympathisers).
No mention of the people protesting about the arms fair in London being arrested under the prevention of terrorism act (an irony also missed by the media at the time)... or the many other protesters who've been searched and harassed under it's present provisions.
Reading this provision for the slaughter of my rights to free speech make me wish I wasn't a pacifist - simply because it makes me want to write an incitement to terrorist action if they keep taking away my bloody HUMAN RIGHTS!
 

Barclay (Dark Angel)

Ninja Hippy
Messages
3,489
Reaction score
0
Location
Warwick
That's exactly the point Martin. It's not just about the wording of the legislation. It's also about how it's going to be used.

It's one thing, and all very well for Blair and Clarke to say that fair comment won't be covered by the Act. It's quite another when you see the Police administration of anti terror law thus far.

It's blatantly and obviously being used to silence protest, no matter how peaceful that protest is.

So, one of the most basic of human rights - the right to free speech - is directly threatened. The ramifications of that are enormous. The detrimental effect on "democracy" is huge. If ever there was an indication of the beginnings of a Police State, this is it.

What next? Book burnings?

It's for this reason that I'm taking a stand. Nothing in my Political life so far has mattered as much as this. Not the Poll Tax, not foundation hospitals, not even the second Iraq war. They all pale when compared to the right to dissent, and to free speech.

Hugs,

Barclay
 

Urk

Total Member
Messages
2,318
Reaction score
0
Location
It wasn me
It's *almost* as if the 90 day clause was a smoke screen to jimmy all the thought-crime stuff into the bill, without anyone noticing....

Defeat ?
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1683
The British public could be forgiven for concluding based on today's headlines that no new laws were passed because of this "defeat". Witness how voters are informed about politics in this "democracy".
 

Technognome

Professor of Ecognomics
Messages
7,053
Reaction score
221
Location
Henley-on-Thames Rah!
Err yes quite right cars are a bad idea.

However Golfcourses are the best target ever obviously not your municipal ones - St Andrews etc the ones where the Capitalist Pig Dogs hang out.

Few cans of petrol tipped into the sprinkler system should do the job :lol1:

PHLUR :sun:
 

Monkey Do

#1 Internet Toughguy
Messages
7,495
Reaction score
2
Location
I'm touching myself as I write this post.
Barclay said:
" a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commision, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

How the fuck do you define "encouragement or inducement".
Dunno, I guess a start would be killing the fuck out of a load of Iraqi civillians in an illegal war - if that won't encourage terrorist acts then nothing will.
 

Sturdy Pete

Sturdy Member
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
46
Location
Bristol
Monkey Do said:
Dunno, I guess a start would be killing the fuck out of a load of Iraqi civillians in an illegal war - if that won't encourage terrorist acts then nothing will.
i've often thouht that the one person who has *blatantly* broken these "anti-terror" laws, time and time again, is mr. blair.

anyone know any lawyers?
 
Top