Surprised there doesn't seem to be any discussion of this here but the Terrorism Bil currently going through Parliament could have serious consequences for forums such as these. From the reports I've read, the bit that's really worrying me is the prohibition on "glorifying" terrorism. For a thorough analysis see Liberty's commentary here - Liberty Briefing - particularly paragraphs 4-11.
In short what it could mean is expressing support, sympathy or understanding of, or being interpreted as doing so by whoever reads it, any act of violence carried out by a non-govermental group in any media, no matter however legitimate or not you may believe their cause to be and however oppressive the regime, could lead to charges against you under this bill on grounds of "encouragement of terrorism", should it become law. It could also lead to the prosecution of those hosting those comments - such as newspapers, broadcasters or those hosting internet forums. This has the obvious freedom of speech connotations, but goes further as confirmed by Charles Clarke as it would include those who express support for the actions of animal liberation "extremists" such as the ALF or those who express some understanding or sympathy for Palestinian suicide bombers. These examples were picked up in little commented upon article a couple of weeks ago in the Guardian - Guardian Article - in relation particularly to statements made by Cherie Blair regarding Palestinians. While this particular example was denied by Clarke, it is contended by Liberty to full within the Bill's remit. He goes on to admit that expressing support for those who may use violent means to oppose the Burmese or Zimbabwean regimes, such as the Shan people in Burma, would fall foul of the bill. Of course, expressing support for violent regime change by a couple of rogue states wouldn't fall foul of the bill as that's not terrorism, is it? Or for that matter expressing support for an oppressive regime, like say China.
Whether or not you believe in the supposed terrorist threat in the UK, or support the "war on(of) terror" globally, surely this is a step too far in a supposedly liberal democratic regime? And a further tool in the armoury of those allegedly trying to destroy western democracy and all its superior advantages over any other type of society, as well as a victory for them. As Liberty point out, existing English law already prohibits incitement to violence, racial hatred, etc., so there is no need for such a law.
I would also contend that should this become law it would actually run counter to its objective. "Extremists" would become isolated and their views and grievances could not be aired in public and therefore subject to critque which may lead to abandonment, dilution or compromise of their "illegitimate" ideas. As such, there would be a greater danger surely of the festering of fundementalist ideals and therefore a greater likelihood of extreme acts being carried out. Or is this maybe what the government wants? Anyone read Toni Negri's Crisis of the Crisis State?
One last point to consider is that the BNP are given party political broadcast slots in the run up to elections, and they are a blatantly racist party and yet it is surely better to let them air their plainly ludicrous ideas because then all can see what a load of bollocks they talk (also when they show their faces you know who to punch when you encounter them in your local supermarket). Yet I see no intention in this bill to band the BNP!!!???? |
