Revised proposal for terror law
rrrr | 06.10.2005 23:35 | Analysis | Repression | Social Struggles | Terror War
'Glorifying' terror plan revised - a victory for civil rights or part of the plan
A proposed new law which would have criminalised the "glorifying" of so-called terrorist activities has been revised following criticism. The revised proposal apparently means that somebody would have to "intend to incite" future terrorist acts in order to be convicted.
The mainstream media spin is that this change represents a 'Climb-down' by the Home Secretary Charles Clarke. However, I see things a little different. This is all 'double speak', just part of a well rehersed game we have seen over and over again to hoodwink us.
A proposed new law which would have criminalised the "glorifying" of so-called terrorist activities has been revised following criticism. The revised proposal apparently means that somebody would have to "intend to incite" future terrorist acts in order to be convicted.
The mainstream media spin is that this change represents a 'Climb-down' by the Home Secretary Charles Clarke. However, I see things a little different. This is all 'double speak', just part of a well rehersed game we have seen over and over again to hoodwink us.
How often do we hear about outrageous new legislation being proposed and then 'watered down' after challenges? It seems to me that new legislation is deliberately drafted to include extreme implications so that we feel relieve when it is modified to correct the extremes. These 'victorys' don't stop the gradual errosion of our civil liberties and the rights which our ancestors struggled to win.
Mr Clarke says that the new law, as now proposed, would make it an offence to "make a statement glorifying terrorism if the person making it believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that it is likely to be understood by its audience as an inducement to terrorism".
The partners in our pretend democracy back the changes, of course. "It's a climb-down - common sense has finally prevailed", said the Conservative shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten sai, "The new definition is a major improvement.
Regardless off the slight tweaking of the proposal, the fundamental problem remains. This new law that can't differentiate between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. We all know that the word terrorist has lost any useful meaning in the hands of the worlds biggest terrorists so how could we doubt that this new law will be used as a tool of oppression?
Mr Clarke says that the new law, as now proposed, would make it an offence to "make a statement glorifying terrorism if the person making it believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that it is likely to be understood by its audience as an inducement to terrorism".
The partners in our pretend democracy back the changes, of course. "It's a climb-down - common sense has finally prevailed", said the Conservative shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten sai, "The new definition is a major improvement.
Regardless off the slight tweaking of the proposal, the fundamental problem remains. This new law that can't differentiate between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. We all know that the word terrorist has lost any useful meaning in the hands of the worlds biggest terrorists so how could we doubt that this new law will be used as a tool of oppression?
rrrr
Comments
Display the following 2 comments