Clarke 'flexible' on terror laws

Well apparently so, anyway. I personally haven't talked much about the detention period, I guess I oppose extending it so much, but I have had other things on my mind. Nevertheless:

"I am ready to look for flexibility to achieve agreement," he told Today, adding: "I don't think 28 days is long enough to meet the concerns that the police have set out, but of course I think it is necessary to see what agreement can be reached."

Whilst this is of course good news I can't help but feel that these are cosmetic measures, designed to curb the waiverers, so as to pass some of the frankly terrifying legislation on the 'glorification' of terror. And of course the hegemony of anti-terror rhertoric guarantees people will fall into line.

I mean look at the accusation that was levelled against the Lib-Dems, they are apparently:

"[W]eakening the common front of democratic politics against terrorism"

Heaven forbid that one might object to the word of the Lord Home Secretary. Again, however, some people are seeing that this law will either entail mass criminalisation or huge amounts of discretion and political targetting:

Mr Clarke has said existing laws covered somebody urging people to attack a particular Tube train.

But the new offence would target those urging attacks on the Underground network in general, he says.

Critics of the measure say the new offence has been drawn too widely.

They question whether it could have been used against those praising Nelson Mandela when his African National Congress was using armed struggle against apartheid.

Not only those people however, because as I have tried (repeatedly I might add) to drive home, terrorism is:

"terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
	(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
	(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
	(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
	(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
	(a) involves serious violence against a person,
	(b) involves serious damage to property,
	(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
	(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
	(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

Which rather destroys Charles Clarke's idiotic bumbling:

He said he could not "think of a situation in the world" where terror was justified for political change.

Committee chairman John Denham said this "presumably" meant Iraq was "the war to end all wars".

Mr Clarke replied: "It's not terrorist violence. This is about terrorism, not about violence used in the way that you describe.

So apparently, the Iraq war did not involve 'the use or threat of action', that 'advanc[ed] a political cause', and we all know it didn't involve violence, damage property, endanger life, create health and safety risks or interfere with an electronic system. Either that or Mr. Clarke doesn't understand his own legislation.

Maybe someone should prosecute the government as soon as this Bill is passed, though we know it would never be allowed to go to court, it would still be fairly fun, and entirely within the bounds of the statute.

Old news...

...nevertheless nicely written. A week ago now, Seumas Milne wrote a very good article in the Guardian on my bête noire, this horrible Terrorism Bill. I particularly liked this passage:

In fact, under the terms of the bill, anyone who voices support for armed resistance to any state or occupation, however repressive or illegitimate, will be committing a criminal offence carrying a seven-year prison sentence - so long as members of the public might reasonably regard it as direct or indirect encouragement. Terrorism is not defined in the bill as, say, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, let alone an assault on civilian targets by states - but as any politically motivated violence against people, property or electronic systems anywhere in the world. This is not only an assault on freedom of speech and debate about the most contentious subject in global politics. It also makes a criminal offence out of a belief shared by almost every society, religion or philosophy throughout history: namely, that people have the right to take up arms against tyranny and foreign occupation. Clarke made clear on Tuesday that this was exactly his intention. He could not, he said, think of any situation in the world where "violence would be justified to bring about change".

Which means, as most people of even a vague intelligence have realised:

Clearly, that did not apply to the invasion of Iraq or the bomb attacks on street markets carried out in Baghdad by US and British-backed opposition groups before 2003. But, as the mayor of London pointed out yesterday, support for Nelson Mandela, the wartime resistance and any number of anti-colonial liberation movements would all have been crimes under this bill.

Though as we know, Blair has (oddly) been prattling that it's all a matter of common sense, clearly the old boy hasn't read the Terrorism Act 2000. But, as we all know, this law is not 'designed' to 'catch' everyone, it's there to catch a few people. It's kind of like infect a whole population with a virus, and then only giving certain people the cure, as Milne puts it:

In practice, of course, the law is intended to be used selectively: it is aimed not just at those who praise bomb attacks on the London tube, but at Muslims and others who believe that Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans and others have a right to resist occupation.

Which, of course makes me seriously worry about the fate of the anti-imperialist left. As Milne correctly notes, the likely effect of this legislation is to likely to simply 'alienate' those Muslims who serve as its target. And we all know what this sort of thing ended up doing in Ireland.

All I hope is that people can avoid the smears of not caring about public safety and oppose this terrifying law.

Roundup

Right, well it seems technology has a grudge against me, what with me still having no internet, that stupid post destruction and, most gallingly the oddness surrounding my laptop. Nevertheless I shall persevere with a bit of a 'news' roundup.

Firstly, and importantly, the Terrorism Bill, amended, has been published. Against the odds, they've seen reason and 'ditched' the substantive glorification offence, however, it's not dead. Obviously this merits an at least brief perusal, as it is rather important. The substantive offence of 'encouraging' terrorism is still there:

1 Encouragement of terrorism
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his behalf; and
(b) at the time he does so—
(i) he knows or believes, or
(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing, that members of the public to whom the statement is or is to be published are likely to understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.

The offences are starting as they mean to go on, worryingly. Firstly, we see that old chestnut rearing its head 'objectivism'. The fact that you can be guilty of the offence if you have 'reasonable grounds for believing' that 'members of the public to whom the statement is or is to bepublished are likely to understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences' means it is irrelevant what you actually thought you were doing, the only relevant fact is what a 'reasonable person' would believe. This of course casts the net very widely, especially considering some of the latter points:

(2) For the purposes of this section the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which—
(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.

So glorification is back, despite Charles Clarke's assurances to the contrary and it is much the same as before. The funny thing is that this 'change' has simply smuggled the provision in through the back door. Whereas Clarke said the Bill would read:

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.

But in fact what we now find is that 'inducement to terrorism' simply includes glorification, the two proposals have simply been assimilated. Again:

(4) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2)—
(a) whether the statement relates to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism or Convention offences, of acts of terrorism or Convention offences of a particular description or of acts of terrorism or Convention offences generally; and
(b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or offence.

That's right, this isn't about terrorism, this is about enemies of the state (though the former is often shorthand for the latter). But don't worry:

(5) In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section it is a defence for him to show—
(a) that he published the statement in respect of which he is charged, or caused it to be published, only in the course of the provision or use by him of a service provided electronically;
(b) that the statement neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement (whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and
(c) that it was clear, in all the circumstances, that it did not express his views and (apart from the possibility of his having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection (3) of that section) did not have his endorsement.

If you don't really think it it's fine. Of course there are more crimes created, but I think this is the most relevant one. A lot of this might well hinge on the judicial construal of reasonable and glorify, both are these terms of rather indeterminate, and the judicary could go more than one way.

Rather heartingly (although disturbing from any legal nihilist's point of view), the judicary might well be able to stand up for themselves this time. Lord Phillips has expressed some rather strong views in a recent interview. The judicary, as of late, have been pretty good at looking after 'rights', and such a statement is nice, especially considering the heat the politicians are placing on the judicary.

What's disturbing about this is that it takes a bunch of white, middle-aged, highly educated blokes to guarantee the ability of progressive forces to organise against the wishes of our 'democratic' parliament. Such a situation does need a materialist explanation, and I hope someone will attempt it.

Of course this Bill underlines what I have been saying about this legislation from the get-go. The definition of 'terrorism', and the notion of 'glorification' are so broad, that huge swathes of people might be 'criminilised'. This means that any 'selection' of the offenders has to be done by the DPP, now I do need to read more about the DPP I admit, and I'll hopefully get a bit of info come Monday. However, there is still a very relevant point to be found here. I mean, examine this article, about academic freedom:

Jonathan Whitehead, the head of parliamentary and public affairs at the AUT, said the new clause still did not require someone to have an intent to glorify terrorism to be caught by the legislation. "A lecturer could still do it by mistake without realising it," he said.

Read the whole article, because it shows the massive indeterminacy that this sort of law will create. However, I'd suspect that most lecturers won't need to be worried, because they will be in that happy majority of people who are simply 'potential' criminals. Something tells me though that a problematic 'core' of people would be ripe for the convicting. Remember that the broad nature of this Bill would criminalise even support for the war in Iraq, this must mean there is an independent, 'non-legal' criterion to prosecution.

Now, let me explain myself further. I do not for one second take the claims of liberal legalism at face value. Firstly, the law and the rule of law are premised on violence, and since they are rooted in commodity production, they are premised on exploitation. Furthermore, I agree with the realists that law is inseparable from indeterminacy and politics. This being said, there are degrees.

Even if 'law' is indeterminate politics, it is indeterminate politics expressed a particular form. This is the form of 'formally equal' legal subjects locked into the concrete relation of dispute, governed by general laws. Now, obviously in practice there are no 'legal' reasons. But the legal form clearly provides a veneer of protection as against pure politics, this is especially so when class struggle is mediated through it.

But the current situation cannot be like this. Becuase although this content is expressed within a legal context, it makes a mockery of the legal form. This law is so broad-based that too many people will be offenders. Thus, the selection of these people can only be made with huge discretion to particular circumstance. Now, although this occurs all the time the degree to which this would happen here is startling. This means that what we are seeing is the 'selection' of people on a political basis so as to punish them. We are no longer dealing with sovereign individuals 'actively asserting' a 'right', we are dealing with a sovereign choosing people on political grounds to be punished.

When something is so broad it allows you to pick anyone, you need a new, exhaustive criteria to pick them. Whilst all laws do this none do so to such an extent. This means that the small protection afforded by the legal form has vanished. In practice many people will be eligible for detention etc., as was seen at the Labour party conferece. Furthermore, this is not some paranoid pipe dream, as historically laws have often been used for new 'purposes'.

Now, I don't wish to pull the 'cookie cutter' leftist card here, but this is a process that was extant in Nazi Germany. Here's a quote from Neumann and Kirchheimer's The Rule of Law Under Seige (p. 138):

'If the general law is the fundamental form of law and if the law is not only voluntas but also ratio, then one must state that the law of the authoritarian state has no legal character. Law as a phenomenon is only possible if it manifests itself as general law. In a society that cannot dispense with law complete gnerality of law is impossible. The limited, formal, and negative generality of law under liberalism not only makes possible capitalistic culpability but also guarantees a minimum of liberty...[In the authortarian state] general law and contract disappear and are replaced by individual measures on the part of the sovereign'

Of course, there are differences here. Firstly, the 'individual measures' are mediated by making the law too broad (note broad and 'general' are not the same thing). Secondly, Neumann traced this trend (as the CLS movement also does) to the increasing monopolisation of capitalism, the growth in state economic intervention and the fusion of state and monopoly power. Whilst I believe such a trend is evident, this legislation, in such an exaggerated form is clearly the result of a specific historical conjuncture.

Anyway, more news when I get it.

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism

Over six hundred people were detained under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Well, as I've said before all of the current legislation used to 'fight terrorism' is so ridiculously broad that it can be used for virtually any purpose. The '[a]nti-Iraq war protesters, anti-Blairite OAPs and conference delegates' were all searched under section 44 of the Act, even though 'none of them was suspected of terrorist links'. Section 44 of the Act reads:


44. - (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-

(a) the vehicle;

(b) the driver of the vehicle;

(c) a passenger in the vehicle;

(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.

(2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search-

(a) the pedestrian;

(b) anything carried by him.

(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.

(4) An authorisation may be given-

(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;

(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;

(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;

(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.

(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.

The 'problem' with this is that it is all too vague. Bearing in mind that 'terrorism' is the use of 'violence' for a political end the police, in terms of the statute, were acting perfectly legally. However, even if the police are being 'unreasonable', the law is a lived, material reality, if the police are allowed to do such a thing then the 'accurate' interpretation of the statute is ultimately rooted in what the police do, this is the position that a materialist must take.

What would be interesting to look at is how widespread the tendency towards broadness is. Becuase if such a broadness does tend to undermine the legal form, we can draw important theoretical conclusions about late capitalism.

Some more aimless ramblings on the 'glorification of terror'

A lot of people have pointed out that the definition of 'terrorism' in the Terrorism Act is so broad that it encompasses way too much. In particular the definition could easily be applied to the global 'good guys' and their actions in the war against terror. In fact, the term 'war against terror' is probably the perfect example of what 'terrorism' means in the Act, as it is clearly advocating political violence.

However, all prosecutions made under Charles Clarke's bill will be at the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, part of the CPS, which is the governmental judicial arm. Chris Lightfoot impeccably shows the logic of the bill:

So that's alright then: make everything illegal, and only prosecute the people you don't like. Top work.

(My one problem with this statement is the notion that 'everything is illegal'. Whilst I agree everything is potentially illegal, unless a norm is enforced we can hardly call that which it 'condemns' illegal, a law is only a law insofar as it is actualised in particular material situations).

This is then fogged up by the government claiming, very sensibly that people already know what terrorism means. But this is simply untrue. What is actually being created is a system whereby the state can pick and choose its enemies, before throwing them in the slammer. The brilliance of the scheme lies in its simulataneously broad and particular nature. Due to the language of the staute most people who take an interest in politics, and particularly international politics could be criminalised (inasmuch as politics is always potentially 'violent') but discretion is vested in the state, hence each prosecution will be even more particular than normal.

This means that the law resembles a series of discrete decrees rather than a law with particular enemies of the state being carted off as and when necessary. This is the sort of law that is completely opposed to bourgeois notions of the 'rule of law', since it is so wide it is virtually impossible to 'plan your life' by it.

In fact I'd say this is the sort of law that show late capitalism begins to erode the legal form, in that it is very diffucult to see how this is a 'general law' binding on legal, formally equal subjects and not a discretionary piece of 'adminstration' or the pure particularistic command on the part of the 'sovereign'.

Terrorism Bill

Right, so the Guardian has a draft of the Bill up, I will briefly peruse through some of its aspects, and consider the implications:

Encouragement of terrorism
(1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his
behalf; and
(b) at the time he does so, knows or believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that members of the public to whom the statement is or is to be published are likely to understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.

Furthermore:

(3) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1)—
(a) whether the statement is likely to be understood as an encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism or Convention offences, of acts of terrorism or Convention offences of a particular description or of acts of terrorism or Convention offences generally; and
(b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or offence.

Note however:

(4) In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section it is a defence
for him to show—
(a) that he published the statement in respect of which he is charged, or caused it to be published, in the course of providing a service electronically;
(b) that, in publishing it or causing it to be published, he acted on behalf of another, or did no more than make available a facility giving access to the statement;
(c) that the statement neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement; and
(d) that it was clear, in all the circumstances, that it did not.

So, if you are providing a 'service' electronically, or don't really think it, it's not an offence.

Onto the next salient offence:

(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his
behalf;
(b) the statement glorifies, exalts or celebrates the commission, preparation or instigation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; and
(c) the circumstances and manner of the statement’s publication (taken together with its contents) are such that it would be reasonable for members of the public to whom it is published to assume that the statement expresses the views of that person or has his endorsement.
(2) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1) whether what is glorified, exalted or celebrated is the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism, of acts of terrorism of a particular description or of acts of terrorism generally.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence under this section in respect of a statement glorifying, exalting or celebrating anything occurring more than 20 years before the publication of the statement only if the statement relates, whether directly or indirectly, to conduct or events specified for the purposes of this section by order made by the Secretary of State.

It seems to me that the latter is the more worrying of the offences, but I'll deal with the former first.

Right, to begin with this offence is very very vague, which could actually be a good thing. The first point to make is that it's quite disturbing that you need only 'reasonable ground to believe' that what you publish will directly or indirectly encourage terrorism. This means that you might not intend for what you are publishing to encourage terrorism, but you might realise it could. And if you realise it could, you're in trouble.

The next worriying part is this 'directly' or 'indirectly' business, this, combined with the above, seems to potentially criminalise a hell of a lot. Bearing in mind that the definition of terrorism what I posted previously the Iraqi resistance is a terrorist organisation. If the SWP in its Socialist Worker were to pubish an article saying 'the war is illegal' and therefore 'resistance is legitimate' surely this is an 'indirect' encourage, hell, simply saying the war is illegal or immoral seems to open us up to 'indirectly' encouraging 'terrorism'. Also the fact that no one need actually be incited is a worrying proposition as, in essence, it is not action that is being criminalised but mere publication.

The defences seem a little woolly, frankly I have no idea what 'in the course of providing a service electronically' means, what is a 'service'? Presumably this is there to cover news on the TV and internet etc. where publishing news about coalition abuses in Iraq might be seen as 'indirect' encouragement. But this surely wouldn't protect newspapers (though they might have the defence of not endorsing such views). And none of this protects the anti-war movement.

The glorification of terrorism offence is even more worrying. What especially concerns me here is that any support fo violent resistance now seems dead in the water. So for instance (not effected I know but still relevant) Monthly Review has an article about the Nepalese Maoists, stating:

The revolutionary forces in Nepal led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) have been engaged in a country-wide people’s war (“jana youdha”) against the royal government. Much of the country has been liberated.

Well, the Maoists certainly fit the bill as far as defintions of terrorism go in the Act. And liberated! LIBERATED!? Surely that is glorification or celebration not to mention the fact that the article is all about a successful attack on a government target. This sort of publication would therefore be criminalised under the Bill and there is no defence to this.

I don't want to phrase this in terms of abstract 'rights' discourse, but rather by its concrete effects today. Such a law can only serve to criminalise and delegitimise anyone who supports any kind of violent resistance. Obviously this is goin to hit Muslims hard, but it also has the possibility of hitting the anti-war movement, and the broader left as a whole.

Therefore this law needs to be combatted. Now I'm not some kind of organsational genius butI do have some suggestions:

1) There need to be a poltical mobilisation right now lobbying MPs, protesting etc. Such a movement can be based up a broad coalition, and we should ally with virtually everyone. Particularly the civil libertarian organistions that exist (Liberty, etc,) and any libertarian parliamentarians, this unity is only on the basis of a single issue, much like the No2ID campaign.

2) Should a law be passed then it needs to be opposed in court. Because the wording is loose there is a possibilty that the judges will interpret it narrowly, so as to protect 'free speech'. In order to make sure this happends we need to keep up the pressure, and left leaning lawyers (there are a few)/libertarian lawyers will be needed.

3) There is also the possibility (slim perhaps) that such a law can be challenged under the Human Rights Act. On the basis of A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department any derogation from the ECHR must be proportionate, this means:

a) there must a threat to the life of the nation
b) there must a legitimate aim to the interference with the 'right'
c) the means must be rationally related to the end
d) there must not be an excessive or arbitrary imapct

Following the London Bombings A and B would certainly be fufilled. I'd also imagine that the London bombings mean the judges will be very careful not to interfere with 'terrorism prevention' (see e.g. Michael Howard's 'warning').

This is all very disturbing.

Defining Terrorism

Terrorism Act 2000:

1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
	(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
	(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
	(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
	(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
	(a) involves serious violence against a person,
	(b) involves serious damage to property,
	(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
	(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
	(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
	(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
	(4) In this section-
	(a) "action" includes action outside the United Kingdom,
	(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
	(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
	(d) "the government" means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
	(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

So, if we keep this as our provisional definition or terrorism, and combine it with the statements made by Clarke, everyone should be opposing this law. Now, obviously this definition could be applied to pretty much any military action taken by a government, but since this is at the DPP's dicretion, this is not likely to happen.

But, assuming this definition holds, think of what it will be illegal to do. Clearly all the resistance movements in the world today fall under this definition of terrorism, so proclaiming their 'right' to resist might well become illegal. Now, of course it will be said that this is only temporary, and will only be used against Muslim extremists. DON'T BUY IT. The apparently temporary public order act, prohibiting the use of political uniforms, so as to combat the fascists was used against the IRA god knows how many years later. Right, more on this later, but work awaits.

Oh dear...

The Guardian is reporting all about the new 'anti-terror' offensive here, quite apart from the obvious there are also some pretty damn worrying implications for everyone:

Encouraging and glorifying terrorism: Two offences, carrying a jail sentence of up to seven years. Covers published statements, including internet ones, which amount to the "direct or indirect encouragement" of terrorist acts or those which "glorify, exalt, or celebrate" such acts.

This very wide offence seems like it could be somewhat troublesome. Firstly, what constitutes terrorism here, consider the Iraqi resistance is often painted as a terrorist organisation what implications does this have for groups that support its 'right' to resist. Furthermore, encouraging terrorism, directly or indirectly, could be very easy, encouragement is an objective fact, although I suspect there will be a subjective test (either you intend that such statements encourage or you were aware they might). But what constitutes encouragement? Would calling the US imperialist count? If you say that the Iraq war was an illegitimate imperialist war and therefore should be resisted are you encouraging terrorism?

And I wonder what counts as 'exaltation' or glorification, such a point of course needs clarifying, but should it be read widely enough it might well punish those who say a particular act is legitimate. And this is just staying within the Muslim paradigm, but, correct me if I'm wrong, several leftist parties, e.g. the CPN(M) are classed as terrorists. Does this mean that glorification of their actions (whether it involves a battle with the military, taking over a town etc.) is tantamount to an offence? Worrying stuff.

What I'd like to see is the statute which is going to be produced, and a few cases to see how the judges read it. As I will eventually discuss interpretation is very important in the law and hopefully it be made so this is not read so widely as to criminalise anyone who supports resistance or liberations movements across the world.

I don't think we can find the solution to this in the law. Such laws have to be defeated by political mobilisation. Of course we can try to utilise the law for defensive purposes but as my passing comments have show, this sort of legislation can only be transcended by politics.