| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
David T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the enormous delay in the effecting of those arrests and the very small number of people who were arrested, given the large number who were protesting, show that action has not been taken as expeditiously as we would expect—and, indeed, as we saw in the case of the counter-demonstrators who were arrested there and then, and in that of the people who protested in support of liberties in the countryside a few months ago outside the House.
Mr. Clegg: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the curious delay in the action taken by the police in arresting the placard protesters, but that is not really relevant to the fact that a law is already available to allow such prosecutions and arrests. There is no obvious loophole that the offence of glorification, even as a subset of indirect encouragement, is required to fill.
Thirdly and most important, the insistence on the term "glorification" will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. It will lead, in effect, to self-censorship. Its application to any events—I think that this phrase in clause 1 is in parentheses, but it is important none the less—
casts the net extremely wide. Muslim communities in particular, who have an understandable interest in debating and speaking out about conflicts on the west bank or in Gaza, or in Iraq, Chechnya or Kashmir, will find themselves especially vulnerable to the loose application of a poorly worded law. Is that really what we want at a time of heightened sensitivity between Muslim and other faiths?
Of course acts of terrorism, in those places as anywhere else, are abhorrent and must be condemned; but freedom to discuss them should not, surely, be threatened by such loosely worded legislation.
Dr. Julian Lewis : Is it not bizarre that while the Home Secretary seems to think that the exclusion of the word "glorification" from the Bill will send a signal to judges—who ought to know better—that the House of Commons thinks that it is okay for people to glorify, he is not worried about the possibility that the inclusion of the word will send the communities to whom the hon. Gentleman referred a misleading signal that they should not dare to mention such subjects in a legitimate debate?
Mr. Clegg:
That is an excellent point. The heavy-handed indifference to the effects on our culture of freedom of speech, and particularly the effects on certain communities, is both cavalier and dangerous. We are simply not going to win the battle against terrorism by driving debate underground. That is the fundamental problem with the Government's approach, and their insistence on the use of the word "glorification".
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1674
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): My hon. Friend is right to say that the measure will lead to self-censorship. Those of us who have debated the issue at length know that the Government accept that. It is not that they are indifferent; they want us to be censored and self-censored. We see that in many Government proposals. It would be legitimate for the Government to take that view if they had any evidence that sacrificing a freedom would help rather than being counter-productive. There is no such evidence, and we are in danger of losing our freedoms to a Government who do not care about the importance of freedom of expression.
Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. They strike at the heart of the imbalance in the Government's approach to tackling terrorism, which is sacrificing our cherished freedoms in the way described.
John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clegg: Yes, but I am keen to make progress.
John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, in the circumstances, for his generosity. He will be aware that a significant number of people from Darfur are in this country seeking asylum or exceptional leave to remain. Would it not be an abomination if such people—in expressing support for the Sudanese People's Liberation Army, or strong opposition to the Government of Sudan or the Arab militias—were held up as supporters of terrorism when what they really want is the opportunity to enjoy civil rights and to live in a free Darfur?
Mr. Clegg: Indeed, and the grotesque effect of poorly drafted legislation that the hon. Gentleman describes is also retrospective. Those who celebrate the Easter uprising or write about the American war of independence could be scooped up by the law in a way that no reasonable person would consider desirable. That is why the amendments before us to clauses 1 and 3, on "indirect encouragement", deserve support from all parts of the House. Their wording is more precise in law, easier to read and more clearly understandable than the convoluted and garbled text on glorification.
Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clegg: If I may, I shall now address my remarks to the Home Secretary, who referred to the Opposition parties' attempt to find a way to satisfy the rather petulant insistence on the use of the word "glorification" by qualifying and defining it in a way that neuters its ill-judged effects. It was a serious, concerted and sincere attempt to secure agreement in all parts of the House, and if his only reaction to it is to make crass debating points, it will discourage further attempts in other situations to achieve cross-party consensus.
Mr. Charles Clarke:
First, the hon. Gentleman should think carefully before describing the United Nations Security Council as petulant in its use of the word
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1675
"glorification", particularly given that he represents a party that has a strong tradition of internationalism and of support for the UN. Secondly, such efforts to reach agreement involved the two Opposition parties; they did not involve the Government at all.
Mr. Clegg: With the greatest respect to the Home Secretary, his reaction to our sincere and, as it happens, rather open attempts to reach agreement, as revealed by the amendment, will discourage us the next time that we wish to achieve cross-party agreement on such matters. My recollection is that the UN's use of the word "glorification" was heavily qualified by legal understandings of intention and purposeful activity in the act of glorifying—understandings that have been excluded from this Bill. So the read-across to the UN understanding of "glorification" is not entirely valid.
David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): Surely the Home Secretary's point does not stand up, given that the word "glorification" appears nowhere in the statute book and has never been clarified by the courts. So there is a difference between what happens in diplomatic negotiations and what should be in British law.
Mr. Clegg: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think that it was addressed to the Home Secretary, and I look forward to his providing clarification.
The Government and the Home Secretary claim that they do not intend the term "glorification", as a sub-clause to the definition of "indirect encouragement", to be used in an unduly lax or imprecise manner, so there appears to be agreement on that, at least. If so, the amendments before us deliver precisely what they want. They also include the refinements described by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), which extend the wording to encompass listener, reader or viewer. There is simply no reasonable reason or excuse left for the Government not to abandon the Prime Minister's stubborn, ill-judged obsession with the word "glorification".
Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, for obvious reasons. I want the Lords to continue to oppose the inclusion of the word "glorification" on the face of the Bill. I am no more a supporter of criminal terrorist acts than is any other hon. Member, but using such loose wording in legislation could be very dangerous. It could lead to some very dangerous and perverse prosecutions.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) gave some examples of how that could happen. Over the years, I have been to many meetings when the virtues of the Easter rising have been extolled, and the speeches made at those meetings could well be construed as glorifying what some people would call a terrorist act. In my part of London, Sir Roger Casement is a figure of veneration, rather than of condemnation, and there is no doubt that that is true in many other places. I have also attended celebrations of India's independence day, when speakers have extolled the virtue of the various figures who played a part in bringing about that independence. In certain circumstances, I am sure that those speakers could be prosecuted under the Bill.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |