Queens Speech: Legislation to make it criminal to glorify/condone Terror

[bennywhale]

To publicly glorify or condone terrorism will become a crime, it is to be announced in the Queens speech. Does this extend to insurgents in Iraq? Chechnya?, how will this affect communities in Northern Ireland? Will one be able to say they understand why a terrorist attack has taken placed without being nicked?

Will this legislation kill debate on terrorism? I think it will, if we can't get to the root of terrorism it won't stop. This law it seems will be authoritarian, against the principles of free speech and counter productive.

[thethinker]

1. I can't believe this

The queen wants to make it criminal to discuss terror. In other words, if you say you understand why Iraqi people might want invaders out of their country you can go to jail. Is that what she is saying?

If I lived in England I would not want any of my tax dollars supporting a worthless person that didn't understand my right to free speech.

I think the queen has lost touch with the real world, or is getting some extremely bad advice from someone.

[bennywhale]

2. This isn't the Queen, this is Blair. The Queen's speech is just a

tradition used to set out the agenda for the next parliament. The Queen no longer holds any power in England. Hasn't done since the 18th century. However you're still right, this is a disgraceful piece of legislation.

"Condoning" terrorism is so ambiguous, you could in theory have news commentators arrested. Also depends who classes what as terrorism. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

This is Blair at his authoritarian worst. We've had our rights and liberties chipped away at since he's been in power. He's a tyrant and i can't wait till he's gone.

Fortunately there is already a campaign to block this. I hope it doesn't get through the houses of parliament. If it does i hope the cobwebs in the house of lords block it.

If it does pass, i'm going to stand outside parliament and shout that i think terrorism is wonderful just to test it. If i'm arrested, i'm sure the media will hammer it. We have a good independent media in Britain, many of whom are quite libertarian.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

3. The legislation sounds too frivolous to be workable

I doubt that they could convict on it - and if they did I would suspect that convictions will be overturned by the European Courts.

It goes against free speech and it simply stifles debate about important subjects.

[Nihil]

4. It is all about killing free speech and dissent

> I doubt that they could convict on it - and if they did I would
> suspect that convictions will be overturned by the European Courts.

Given the expense and time taken by the "legal" process these days,
simply being charged with this "crime" could ruin your life.

This is merely the latest attempt to prevent criticism of our glorious
fuhrer and his cabal (not to mention the noble leaders of our fair and
trustworthy allies).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. I don't think it's even about that.

I don't think the government is worried about criticism, and I don't think it seriously expects this legislation to do *anything*; it just wants to look "tough on terrorism". It's not even repression, it's simply and empty gesture. Which doesn't mean that it won't be repressive, alas.

Is it worse to be locked up by a government who genuinely believes you threaten it, or by one who is simply using you as a demonstration?

[Guy_Montag]

7. The problem is, after this has been introduced

even if only too look tough, it can then be used by a future govt. to its full effect.

[Nihil]

8. Ask the people in Belmarsh ...

> Is it worse to be locked up by a government who genuinely believes
> you threaten it, or by one who is simply using you as a demonstration?

... you know, the ones who haven't been charged with anything (else
they'd be able to prove their innocence in court) but haven't been
released (else they'd be able to tell the world about the injustice).

This government is already locking up people who it doesn't like
(usually those with foreign-sounding names, a different skin colour
and religion). Now they want to put thought-crime on the books too.

FWIW, I believe you are wrong on both of these points:
> I don't think the government is worried about criticism, and
> I don't think it seriously expects this legislation to do *anything*

This government is run on spin, on image and on appearances.
It worries about criticism in case dissent spreads.
I think it seriously expects this legislation to get through even
though it doesn't intend to use it straight away. This would mean
that it can be invoked whenever circumstances change to "require" it
in the future.

[sweetheart]

6. Its all down to the lords

It seems the new status quo to introduce stupid legislation that is
already enforceable under hate and race crimes.

Gosh, as usual, the HOL will have to save britain from the stupid.
I'll wager that this crap never makes it through the HOL without
significant clarification.

By that standard, by saying it would suit Mr. Bush to meet an untimely
end, that i have blessed terrorism, depending on how you interpret
this very wide vision. I hope that they can leave out prayers for
justice, that the most evil mass murdering authoritarian criminals
like blair and bush leave the stage, and to mean this not out of
terrorist intent, but out of pure intensity. It is time for an
impeachment, and if not that, a lynching. Civil society is anything
but as long as a mass murdering liar is the king... that by his very
speach to create war and mass murder, blair and bush will be charged
under this new legislation... irony upon irony.