XPost: ie.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british   
   XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism   
   From: stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com   
      
   Howard9 wrote:   
   > In article <0sd_e.750$9l4.602@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,   
   > stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com says...   
   >   
   >>Howard9 wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>In article ,   
   >>>stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com says...   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>SNIPPED   
   >>>>I strongly suspect that this proposed offence is there to be dropped as   
   >>>>a pseudo-concession for retaining equally unpleasant stuff like allowing   
   >>>>terrorist suspects to be held for three months without charge.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>A lot of technical mumbo jumbo with little or no argument about the core   
   >>>principles of the issue.   
   >>>   
   >>>Try putting an argument for or against the principles instead of making   
   >>>an idiotic argument based on claimed inconsistencies in draft   
   >>>legislation.   
   >>>   
   >>>I personally believe that glorifying terrorist murders is the same as   
   >>>incitement to further terrorism and murder.  So I support completely any   
   >>>law that competently deal with this situation.   
   >>>Existing laws cannot do so because they were introduced long before this   
   >>>kind of extreme situation was ever thought of. If existing laws could be   
   >>>reformed then fine.  But reforming complex laws has a poor record and   
   >>>introducing replacement laws is usually a better route.   
   >>>   
   >>>If you don't agree then put your argument - without the hyperbole and   
   >>>bluster.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>Clearly you *don't* believe that glorifying terrorist murders is the   
   >>same as either incitement to terrorism or soliciting to murder, both of   
   >>which are already illegal; if you genuinely thought there was no   
   >>difference, you'd think there was no need for this proposed legislation.   
   >   
   >   
   > English appears to be a challenge for you - otherwise you could read   
   > what I wrote.  I DO believe that glorifying terrorist murders is the   
   > same as incitement to further terrorism and murder.  As I said above ...   
   > and repeat here for your attention is:   
   > "Existing laws cannot do so because they were introduced long before   
   > this kind of extreme situation was ever thought of. If existing laws   
   > could be reformed then fine.  But reforming complex laws has a poor   
   > record and introducing replacement laws is usually a better route.   
   >   
   > If you don't agree then put your argument - without the hyperbole and   
   > avoiding the subject.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   What existing laws do you have in mind that 'were introduced long before   
   this kind of extreme situation was ever thought of'?   Presumably not   
   the Terrorism Act 2000 or the Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security   
   Act 2001.   Nor, I think, can you properly argue that Soliciting to   
   Murder, contrary to section four of the Offences Against the Person Act   
   of 1861, is, while certainly old, ineffective since Abu Hamza is facing   
   ten charges of doing just that in his sermons and Abdullah el-Faisal was   
   sentenced to nine years for that offence a couple of years back.   
      
   Your problem must be, I think, with the old common law offence of   
   incitement.    You want the law to cover behaviour that hasn't   
   previously been considered to be incitement.  Fair enough.  Just explain   
   to me what you think that behaviour is that isn't actually incitement as   
     the law has previously understood it but which you think should be   
   proscribed and why you don't think it should be prosecuted as   
   incitement, if that's what it is.   
      
   You might also explain why you think 'glorifying' terrorism is more of a   
   problem now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, when, ISTR, PIRA and   
   Loyalist paramilitaries were quite active and were both certainly   
   'glorified' in some quarters.   
      
   My objections to the legislation are that it's vague and that it's   
   unnecessary.   If it's incitement then prosecute it as such.   
   Alternatively, change the law on incitement in general, so you also   
   catch (e.g.) rappers who are 'glorifying' all manner of other   
   anti-social behaviour.   However, if you want to explain to me, in   
   specific terms, why we need to extend the law on incitement to cover   
   terrorist offences but no other ones, and what exactly you think it   
   should catch that can't presently be prosecuted as incitement, then I'm   
   all ears.   
      
   Steve   
      
   --   
      
      
   "It has been said," he began at length, withdrawing his eyes   
        reluctantly from an usually large insect upon the ceiling and   
        addressing himself to the maiden, "that there are few   
        situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and   
        without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or   
        by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a   
        precipice on a dark night."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)