MPs Vote To Ban Glorification (Islam

Tony Blair has won a key battle over his plans to toughen anti-terrorism laws, after MPs voted by 315 to 277 to make "glorification" of terrorism a criminal offence.

The result overturns an amendment to the Terrorism Bill by the House of Lords which sought to strike the offence from the legislation.

Opposition peers will now have to decide whether to try to reinstate the amendment when the Bill returns to the upper chamber - triggering a constitutional stand-off with the Commons.

The result will come as a relief to Mr Blair, who was facing his fourth possible Commons defeat since the general election, having gone the previous eight years without losing a vote in the lower chamber.

Earlier he told MPs that removing the offence of glorification of terrorism from the Government's anti-terror legislation would send out a "massive counter productive signal".

The Prime Minister urged opponents not to "significantly dilute and weaken" measures in the Terrorism Bill, saying that to do so would raise question marks over Britain's willingness to deal with terrorism.

But opposition critics complained that the notion of glorification of terrorism was too vague and ambiguous to feature in legislation, arguing that it could describe celebrations of Robin Hood or Che Guevara.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, accused Mr Blair of "ineffective authoritarianism" and said he was proposing "press release law designed to catch the headlines" rather than effective policy that would tackle terrorism.

And Sir Menzies Campbell, the acting Liberal Democrat leader, said that rather than introducing "ambiguous and controversial" offences such as glorification, the Government should move to allow phone-tap evidence in anti-terror trials.

"Why? I think it is a great idea."

I hope the people of Iran will revolt against their undemocratic government and free themselves, violently if they need to. I also think the Boston Tea Party was a fine day.

Dammit, infringed that pesky law twice already!

On principle I don't like to support any law that, during the debate, the government says 'oh yes, well it could be taken to mean that, but we won't really use it like that'. Now, in fairness, this law is worded so poorly that the likelihood of any successful prosecutions is slim, and any that do occur will be eventually reversed on appeal, as the law is in pretty clear contravention of the European Convention of Human Rights, but the principle is still there.

We are constrained here by the first ammendment. Our british friends have no such constraints. And they are far closer to the epicenter of the war on terror, the middle east. We are seperated by the atlantic and pacific oceans. Anything they can do over there, however severe, will greatly constrict any threats to us here. But glorification of terrorism, in any case, would likely fall under non-protected speech. But they can do things legally that we cannot do..

"On principle I don't like to support any law that, during the debate, the government says 'oh yes, well it could be taken to mean that, but we won't really use it like that'. Now, in fairness, this law is worded so poorly that the likelihood of any successful prosecutions is slim, and any that do occur will be eventually reversed on appeal, as the law is in pretty clear contravention of the European Convention of Human Rights, but the principle is still there."

ELEVEN TRUTHS ABOUT TYRANNY
1) Any law the electorate sees as being open to being perverted from its original intent will be perverted in a manner that exceeds the manner of perversion seen at the time.
LibertarianInExile's Corollary
Executive officials will develop implementation policies that further pervert the law from the stated intentions of those voting for it (e.g., zero-tolerance, may-issue, etc.).
2) Any law that is so difficult to pass it requires the citizens be assured it will not be a stepping stone to worse laws will in fact be a stepping stone to worse laws.
3) Any law that requires the citizens be assured the law does not mean what the citizens fear, means exactly what the citizens fear.
4) Any law passed in a good cause will be interpreted to apply to causes against the wishes of the people.
5) Any law enacted to help any one group will be applied to harm people not in that group.
6) Everything the government says will never happen will happen.
JoeSnuffy's Corollary
Elected representatives who voted for a law will later claim they had no idea that law would be 'abused,' even in the face of opponents to the law stating the contrary prior to its passage.
7) What the government says it could not foresee, the government has planned for.
8) When there is a budget shortfall to cover non-essential government services the citizens will be given the choice between higher taxes or the loss of essential government services.
9) Should the citizens mount a successful effort to stop a piece of legislation the same legislation will be passed under a different name.
10) All deprivations of freedom and choice will be increased rather than reversed.
11) Any government that has to build safeguards into a law so that it will not be abused is providing guidelines for abusing the law without violating it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.