XPost: ie.politics, uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british   
   XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism   
   From: stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com   
      
   Howard9 wrote:   
   > In article <3QS_e.5881$DO.3842@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,   
   > stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com says...   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >   
   > You really do write some bullshit sometimes.  Since when has anyone   
   > suggested that writing a book is glorification ? Get a life.   
      
   ' A person commits an offence if -   
      
   (a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on   
   his behalf;   
      
   (b) the statement glorifies, exalts or celebrates the commission,   
   preparation or instigation (whether in the past, in the future or   
   generally) of acts of terrorism; and '   
      
   Do you not think that covers books?   The Bill covers 'communications   
   of  any  description,  including communications without words consisting   
   of sounds or images or both', which seems reasonably comprehensive to   
   me.    Or do you suggests that books are, or should be, exempted from   
   the proposed legislation?   
      
   OK, let's have people making films about the Kray brothers and similar   
   ones about PIRA.   Is one caught and the other not?   Or don't you think   
   films can glorify things, either?   
      
   >   
   >>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?   
   >>   
   >   
   > I see no basis for this argument.  It makes perfect sense for terrorism   
   > to be treated differently to ordinary crime/murder.   
   >   
      
   Why?   Robbing a bank is robbing a bank, surely, and running a   
   protection racket is running a protection racket.   OK, the funds might   
   do more damage if they go to 'the cause', whatever the cause happens to   
   be,than to a non-political criminal but the crime's the same.   
      
   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)