XPost: ie.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british   
   XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism   
   From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk   
      
   In article , Howard9   
    writes   
      
   >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.   
      
   But why don't you answer his main point? Incitement to murder is already   
   a crime, and the law against it is by no means a dead letter.   
      
   >if the current laws are inadequate to prosecute the kinds of   
   >glorification that is evident so much nowadays then a new law is needed.   
      
   Glorification is not currently a crime.   
      
   >If you think that existing laws cover it - then explain what parts of   
   >the law would apply   
      
   I thought he did.   
      
   >and why they have not been used.   
      
   Because they wanted a new more draconian law?   
      
   --   
   banana     "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you   
               give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to   
               Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the   
               rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)