Common Sense Prevails?
"Another bomb, another bill" was the phrase used by Ken Clarke, last week, to describe the government's commitment to strike out further human rights with every new bomb. And yesterday we have an unexpectedly welcome but limited u-turn by the government, following criticism by Law Lords.
And yet the government's new proposal still goes too far. The new proposal is:
"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."
Is there a difference?
And yet the government's new proposal still goes too far. The new proposal is:
"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."
Is there a difference?
posted by Tsuchan at 2:47 pm
1 Comments:
My comments were written following the announcement of a Panorama programme containing stinging criticism of the government's "anti-terror" proposal by former Law Lord, Lord Lloyd. The government was pre-shown the programme, and hence changed its policy.
Panorama re-interviewed Lord Lloyd and included this in the version of Panorama which was eventually aired on 2005-10-09. Lord Lloyd has made exactly my point - the new wording is hardly better than the old.
Post a Comment
<< Home