![]() |
|
You are here Home | Government | Encouraging and glorifying terrorism Next or Previous « Four models of Euro economics... | Main | For F***ks Sake Will You Listen To Us »
SOS - Save Our Slugger!
Help fund Slugger's new software: Or mail it direct to Slugger! |
September 16, 2005 Encouraging and glorifying terrorism Crooked Timber's Chris Bertram picks up on the announcement yesterday by the UK's Home Secretary Charles Clarke of draft amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and argues, in reference to the amendment which will make it an offence to glorify, exalt or celebrate acts of terrorism, unless they occurred over 20 years ago or are included in a list which Charles Clarke will draw up - "it is just incompatible with a free society for it to be in some politician’s gift to decide which historical events it is or isn’t acceptable to 'glorify'." - as you would imagine, that 20 year limit has some bizarre implications here. That amendment in full, via the Home Office website, which was helpfully linked by this Daily Telegraph report - 2 Glorification of terrorism etc. So, it will be an offence to glorify, exalt or celebrate acts of terrorism unless they occurred over 20 years ago - unless those acts are included in a list of specified events. It seems a completely abitrary line, and one which brings up the ludicrous prospect of it being an offence to glorify, exalt or celebrate, for example, the bombing of London Docklands in 1996.. but not the attempted assassination of an elected government, as in the bombing of the Brighton Grand Hotel in 1984.. nor, indeed, will it be an offence to glorify, exalt or celebrate the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 - unless they are include in Charles Clarke's list. According to the the Daily Telegraph report the Home Office have suggested that the list is designed to create exemptions for such events as the 1916 Easter Rising and the French Revolution - The Home Office said: "Events which are still felt to be raw will be contained in an order attached to the Bill. For example, in 20 years people may still feel that September 11 or July 7 were events that still ought not to be glorified. The Guardian helpfully itemises the changes - Clampdown and controls
Wait until 2016 and you can say Canary wharf was great. It'll be ok to say the Dublin and Monaghan bombs were wonderful but you go to jail if you say the same about the Sean Graham's bookies massacre. This just shows what utter junk most of the legislation is. Knee-jerk/Panic measures that won't tackle terror. A government action that can primarily tackle terrorism is investment in intelligence monitoring and evidence gathering not pointless laws. However, you can't have lots of press coverage about that, a chance to scare the populace or to score political points off your opponents. Sensible measures like phone-tapping and bugging admissibility are ignored but stupid legal measures that drive terrorists or their supporters underground further making intelligence gathering even more difficult. Posted by: fair_deal at September 16, 2005 05:26 PM alas this will be another law which will not apply to the north, much like the 11 plus et al Posted by: Brian at September 16, 2005 05:44 PM Is glorifying terrorism spreading news? Posted by: Friendly Fire at September 16, 2005 05:54 PM Brian It will apply to Northern Ireland. "Section 33(5) Subject to section 13(6) and to subsection (4) of this section, this Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom." Posted by: fair_deal at September 16, 2005 05:55 PM What does it say about a government composed largely of solicitors and barristers that it can come up with such bad law? Posted by: Fanny at September 16, 2005 07:12 PM Fanny, We have the same cute whores on this side of the Atlantic. Must be the common (smarmy) gene pool. Posted by: Alan McDonald at September 16, 2005 07:18 PM So this would mean that the orange order not only breached the determination of the Parades Commission on several ocasions during last Saturdays parade, but would also have been liable to prosecution under this new legislation. The fact that an orange lodge taking part in the parade last week, carried a bannerette commemorating uvf killer Brian Robinson, would presumably have led to prosecutions. The bannerette was carried during the parade in 2003 and was mentioned in the parades commission report after the march.It was carried by former shankill butcher Eddie McIlwaine(complete with orange sash).The lodge in question,the Old Island Boyne Heroes LOL633 was led by the Shankill Star flute band, which also carries the name of uvf man Robinson on its drum and insignia. You can read about Mr McIlwaine below. http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=425976 The orange order gave an undertaking that it would no longer be carried during the annual parade. Until last week, that was. I googled Brian Robinson and came up with the following pics. http://www.ipecobservers.org/photos.html Posted by: tra g at September 16, 2005 09:00 PM Sorry, but I think it would be difficult to bring a prosecution under the circumstances you mentioned. Using your interpretation of the law, one could argue that voting for Sinn Fein ought to be a punishable offence. Posted by: TAFKABO at September 16, 2005 09:41 PM *shakes head* Posted by: Yoda at September 16, 2005 10:34 PM yoda have you got a medical condition Posted by: tony at September 16, 2005 10:57 PM No. Just a healthy sense of disbelief. Posted by: Yoda at September 16, 2005 11:09 PM Perhaps an elaboration on your disbelief would assist, Yoda. Posted by: peteb at September 16, 2005 11:18 PM Ok, I'll try. I simply don't know how this was seen as a serious solution by intelligent people. It creates the absurdities your piece points out. I'm stupefied by this in particular: "Some examples which have been put forward of events that might not qualify for inclusion are the Easter Uprising or the French Revolution." *Boggle* The proposal admits to the historical merits of "terrorism" while wanting to disavow them: on the one hand, "terrorism" is a powerful and progressive force, and on the other, "terrorism" is a purely destructive force that *must* be condemned (for twenty years anyway). "Terrorism" is clearly both. It's like an edict to stop history. Maybe Fukuyama was on to something... Also, the notion that certain "events" can be deemed to be "absent from the limit" worries me as well: who gets the job of parsing history to make up the list of exclusions? What criteria would they use? Public opinion? Private conscience? Would that then be the "official" history? The state will always seek to appropriate all violence to itself; it gets annoyed when it is no longer the sole one able to do violence to or kill its own citizens. This just seems like an unusually cackhanded way of revealing that. Posted by: Yoda at September 17, 2005 12:19 AM Good comment Yoda, history is written by the victors, but maybe if it is legislated properly for history can be written by anyone! Also it would be important to point out that Provisional Sinn Fein claim a direct line from the Sinn Fein of old and claim to be a revolutionary party which has the names of many PIRA men attached to their cummain. If this legislation is to pass will the British government be rounding up and imprisoning ALL members of PSF? Posted by: Raff at September 17, 2005 07:40 AM So does that mean i have to wait the best part of 2 decades before i can glorify the war against Weapons of Mass Destruction ? And another whole year before i can celebrate the US bombing of Tripoli and the dozens of civilians killed there, followed by the US Panama invasion a few years later. Well, at least i can celebrate the bombing of the "Rainbow Warrior" in New Zealand by the French in 1985. Posted by: abucs at September 17, 2005 08:09 AM The middle finger to all you wooly liberal whingers ;) Posted by: spirit-level at September 17, 2005 11:22 AM The middle finger to all you wooly liberal whingers, where ever you are :) Posted by: spirit-level at September 17, 2005 11:24 AM
Posted by: Raff at September 17, 2005 06:43 PM What's the legal definition of "terrorism" in terms of this law? Or perhaps there isn't a definition written into law? I remember seeing a definition in Irish law that seemed to me to include organising an everyday strike by a trade union. Posted by: Occasional Commentator at September 19, 2005 01:24 PM |
Slugger O'Toole records news, commentary and diverse opinion on Northern Ireland. Produced by Mick Fealty News, tips or crits here: mick.fealty -at- gmail.com Topics a long peace?books Britain Conflict Culture Economy Education election 2003 Election 2005 Enviroment environment Europe Gaeilge Glossary Government Highlights Human Rights Humour International Manifesto Media Nationalism Negotiations Parties Policing Soapbox Society Sport the south unionism
Highlights
Out with the crystal ball...Just a Mo... Commenting Policy A backgrounder on the McCartney affair Northern Bank raid and political fallout, so far
Readers comments
More corrupt than last year? - (4)Living on an island or in a state? - (31) a combination of historical ignorance and monumental self-pity - (42) Payout time... - (4) New Lansdowne revealed - (24) Far right 'imagination'... - (13) Nazi comments were a sectarian slur - (3) The price of peacemaking... - (17) belfast metropolitan area plan unveiled - (23) Why (or rather how) Alec Reid was right... - (37)
Archives
October 2005September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 July 2004 March 2004 October 2003 September 2003 May 2003 |
|
Design: River Path Associates Comments: Big Blog Co Powered:
Movable Type 3.15 Copyright © 2003 Sluggerotoole.com
All rights reserved.
|
<a href="(URL)">hyperlink</a>
It is important that you include http:// when adding the URL.