| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that celebrations of certain parts of
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1676
Irish history could include readings from the poetry of W.B. Yeats, which could also be caught by the definition in the Bill?
Jeremy Corbyn: I always read Yeats' great poetry to myself, quietly at home, and never in public. However, I take the point: plenty of writings extol things that could be caught by the Bill. Indeed, history is full of accounts of the dreadful things done by British forces abroad—such as massacres in India and elsewhere—that I would argue could be interpreted as terrorist acts. I am not in favour of prosecuting anyone for talking about such matters, but that is the danger of the Bill.
The Home Secretary said that the leaders of the Muslim community in this country have condemned the language used in the demonstration outside the Danish embassy. That is true, but as far as I know, they have not supported the use of the word "glorification" in the Bill, because they see the dangers that would ensue. It does not take a huge imagination to work out that utterly ridiculous and perverse prosecutions could be brought under the Bill. However, it is also possible that a very serious prosecution could be brought—for example, in respect of what an imam might have said after Friday prayers. The matter would be dragged through the courts for months. The prosecution case might collapse, or the imam might be declared innocent, but a cause célèbre and a martyr will have been created in the meantime, and community relations will have been damaged. That is the danger of having such loose wording in the Bill.
Mr. Graham Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House might be being too kind to the Government by assuming that they have a rationale for the use of the word "glorification" in the Bill? Is it not possible that the Government's aim has been to create an entirely artificial division in the mind of the public? The argument makes the Government appear to be strong on terrorism, while leaving everyone else who oppose the Government—on the Conservative, Liberal Democrat or even Labour Benches—looking somehow weak on the matter. Does he agree that this dangerous legislation could have been introduced for such cynical reasons?
Jeremy Corbyn: No. I always want to be kind to the Government. I am sure that they would not want to promote any such cynical thoughts, although I admit that cynicism sometimes does creep into politics.
A person who plants a bomb that kills people is committing a criminal act, and I remind the House that 12 people from my borough were killed on 7 July last year. Obviously, those responsible should be prosecuted, as it was a criminal act. We already have a law under which such people can be prosecuted for such acts, but I do not understand how loose wording such as "glorification" can help anything. I believe that the use of that word is damaging, and that the perverse prosecutions that I mentioned earlier could create a dangerous situation in community relations.
Jim Cousins:
Does my hon. Friend not see that the problem with which the House is now grappling is not that there will be more than a maximum of one prosecution using this concept of glorification—because
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1677
it will fail at the first hurdle—but rather that the impact of the concept on what I might call the "Holbeck Faults" of our society might be very grave indeed?
Jeremy Corbyn : Absolutely. The point is that this creates an atmosphere that becomes perverse and dangerous. As has been indicated in earlier debates, my constituency, like many other London constituencies has been the home of many people who were exiled leaders of revolutionary organisations in other countries. We had the leadership of the African National Congress, the SWAPO leadership, people from the Congress party in India and many others who have been condemned for terrorism. In public meetings from time immemorial through to the present, they would make speeches about liberation struggles in other parts of the world that could be construed as glorifying terrorism. I would probably argue that that was not the case, but as has been said, it only takes the failure of one prosecution to damage the law and create martyrs.
The Bill creates an atmosphere in which people feel constrained from speaking out or discussing anything in a rational, political way. It is important that we defend the right to free speech and to discuss history. It is important for teachers and professors to deal in detail with what may or may not have happened in a historical context. Free speech is a precious and important thing.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He made the point that the person who placed the bomb that affected his constituents was committing a criminal offence. I think that he will agree with me that the person who caused that bomb to be placed should be committing a criminal offence. That is the case because we have the incitement laws. Does he understand why the incitement laws are suddenly felt to be entirely inadequate for the purpose for which they were passed, and why they are not used to prosecute people who should be prosecuted?
Jeremy Corbyn: I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is clear that placing the bombs on the bus and the train, which killed my constituents and many others, was an illegal, criminal act. The same is true of supplying the material and planning the attack. I fail to understand how putting the word "glorification" on the face of the Bill makes anybody more secure. I think that in reality it creates a more divided community. The police say privately that what is important for security is co-operation between communities. If we reduce that co-operation by criminalising sections of the community, we are on a slippery slope.
Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) (Lab):
To pursue the intervention by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), does my hon. Friend understand any way in which the word "glorification" will strengthen the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described? As far as I can see, it will do nothing of the sort. It does not add to the situation at all. As my hon. Friend suggested, it can only lead to fraught and unhelpful situations.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1678
Jeremy Corbyn: There is a feeling in Government—it is the same in all Governments—that when something awful happens, they have to be seen to be doing something. The only thing Governments can do, apart from making statements and providing resources for the forces of law and order, is to pass new legislation. So that is what they do, and I suspect, to some extent, that is what we are doing here today. I hope that the Lords stick with it on the issue of glorification. I think that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) wants to intervene, or maybe he is just waving at me. I am not sure—[Interruption.] Oh, he is just drowning! I give way to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris).
Dr. Evan Harris: In partial, but only partial, defence of the Government's intention, it is fair to point out that while terrorist acts and incitement offences occur, the convention against terrorism requires the Government to introduce a measure against indirect encouragement or incitement, which is what the Bill does. However, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, the convention does not require the inclusion of the word "glorification" for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman and other Members have given, which is that it is too vague and too broad.
Jeremy Corbyn: I can but agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the wording is vague and too broad, we will end up with a dangerous situation.
We are all concerned about many issues in the UK and around the world. We want an inclusive society, where people feel able to express their political point of view and to represent causes all over the world. The Bill has international reach; indeed, it has global, even intergalactic, reach—it knows no limit. So let us suppose that we invited elected Members of the Palestinian Authority to address a meeting in the House, as many of us have done over the years. Their speeches describing the situation could be construed as glorifying terrorism. I do not necessarily think that would be the case, but it could happen.
We are moving into dangerous, uncharted waters with the Bill. Perverse prosecutions will bring about serious breakdowns in community relations, and I urge the Government to think carefully and seriously about such a vague and sloppy word as "glorification", when a much closer definition would meet the need for decency and security and deal with people who commit criminal acts, because that is what we are talking about.
Mr. Cash: I have been listening to the debate for some time, and if there has been any serious examination of the meaning of the word "glorification" it has escaped my notice. One might be forgiven for assuming that there was no reference to its interpretation in the Bill.
In earlier debates on the measure, I pointed out that I thought it would be extremely difficult for courts to construe a meaning. The definition in clause 20 notes that glorification
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |