XPost: ie.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british   
   XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism   
   From: stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com   
      
   Howard9 wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com says...   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >   
   > This argument doesn't make sense.  Suggesting that we cannot make one   
   > kind of incitement (terrorism) illegal unless we make all incitement   
   > (anti-social behaviour) illegal is utterly silly.   
   >   
   > if the current laws are inadequate to prosecute the kinds of   
   > glorification that is evident so much nowadays then a new law is needed.   
   >   
   > If you think that existing laws cover it - then explain what parts of   
   > the law would apply and why they have not been used.   
   >   
      
   You're begging the question.   Why do you think 'the kinds of   
   glorification that is evident so much nowadays', as you put it, need   
   prosecuting if they don't actually constitute incitement or soliciting   
   to murder?   
      
   The fact that they're extremely distasteful and offensive isn't, in   
   itself, a particularly good reason to ban them.   And why do you say   
   that a new form of 'incitement' specific to terrorism is necessary as   
   opposed to a general extension of the law on incitement to cover (e.g.)   
   the glorification (or 'indirect incitement' as I think Lord Falconer has   
   taken to calling it) of drug taking, violence and murder in gangsta rap?   
      
   You're the one who wants the law to be extended; it's up to you to make   
   your case.   
      
      
   > I notice no comment on the imbecilic suggestions that this is about   
   > 'thoughts'...   
   >   
      
   Because, other than to agree with you that the idea the proposed   
   legislation is about thoughts is pretty silly, I can't think of much to   
   say about it.   
      
   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)