Second chance for Blair's `Glorifying Terror' bill
With the Lords soon to vote for a second time on the `Glorification of terrorism' clause in the terror bill, Tony Blair must be concerned his political standing may take yet another damaging setback. Despite successful votes in the Commons on ID cards, smoking and anti-terror, his position is still precarious. Last week at his monthly news conference Blair accused Amnesty International and a cross-party committee of MPs of looking at Britain's treatment of terrorist suspects "the wrong way round". His comments evoked a furious response. Even the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, accused Blair of helping the US to run "Idi Amin-style" tactics in the war on terror. The Prime Minister has been in a foetal position ever since, as illustrated by the extraordinarily defensive posture in an article for The Observer entitled `I don't destroy liberties, I protect them'. He is likely to remain curled up if the Lords repeat their rejection of the term `glorification' to the Terror Bill, for that is what is actually now at stake. Blair's personal credibility is in the balance simply for the addition of a single word to the proposed legislation. The original clause on glorification of terrorism in the draft of 15 September states "A person commits an offence if he glorifies, exalts, or celebrates an act of terrorism whether in the past or in the future". Lord Steyn of Swafield, a former Law Lord commented "In particular I draw attention to the width of this proposal: that will found to be far too excessive and it will be found to be in breach of Human Rights law and in particular of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We live in a country that Voltaire called `the country of liberty '; isn't that being endangered?". Lord Lloyd of Berwick stated that "Now to me that is a very odd provision. I have never seen anything like it in an Act of Parliament. And I pity the poor judge who's going to have to explain those words to a jury. Glorify, there again glorify, exalt or celebrate. Presumably they all mean something different otherwise you wouldn't have three words instead of one, somebody in the Home Office must have thought they mean something different. But how is a judge going to explain the difference between them?". Commentators from all sides agreed the debate boiled down to two words, whether it is more desirable to pursue those who `glorify' terrorism, or those who persuade others to `emulate' terrorists. So on 17 January, Tory frontbencher Lord Kingsland moved a motion in the House of Lords to replace the glorification provision with a definition of `indirect encouragement' as "Describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it". It was carried without a vote. Lord Lloyd later argued the proposed offence had attracted ridicule and it was apparent that it would be unworkable in practice adding "I have never known a case where the commentators have been so united in their views about any clause in any bill before this House...This section of the bill will have to go. It is unnecessary. We do not need it to meet our international obligations. Cases of provocation, encouragement and incitement all mean exactly the same and are amply covered by our existing law ". Blair's defence in the Prime Minster's Questions of 15th February was as follows: "...If we remove "glorification", we send out a massive counterproductive signal. It is a word that members of the public readily know and understand and that juries would understand. It is in the United Nations resolution, and removing it would send completely the wrong signal ". William Hague referred to this as `ineffective authoritarianism'. The Daily Telegraph agreed with the comment of the Shadow Attorney General, Dominic Grieve MP that , the proceedings were merely a stunt designed to make Tony Blair look tough . Henry Porter called it `silly' and Louise Christian argued it was both `hypocritical and a threat to legitimate debate'. Of course glorification is not the only issue in dispute. Peers, for instance, were worried librarians could be caught by the new laws on disseminating terrorist publications but arrived at a compromise so only people acting recklessly or with intent could be prosecuted. However, with the odds stacked against him, it will be interesting to see how exactly how our Prime Minister fares when the vote is fixed.
Second chance for Blair's `Glorifying Terror' bill 
