XPost: ie.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british   
   XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism   
   From: stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com   
      
   banana wrote:   
   > 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?   
   >   
      
   Let's try a specific example.  People have sometimes quite rightly   
   complained that films about East End gangsters of the past have   
   'glorified' their criminal activities -- running protection rackets,   
   torturing and murdering informers and so forth.   Presumably, under the   
   proposed legislation, it would continue to be legal (though possibly   
   misguided and distasteful) to write such books about the Kray brothers   
   but not to write similar ones about Republican or Unionist   
   paramilitaries.   That seems completely illogical; the crimes that being   
   'glorified' or to which people might be incited are the exactly the same.   
      
   What's the difference between 'It would be a glorious and praiseworthy   
   act for someone to rob a bank and give the proceeds to al Qa'ida' and   
   'It would be a glorious and praiseworthy act for someone to rob a bank   
   and give the cash to me' other than that I'd probably do less damage   
   with the money?   
      
   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)