Sarah speaking about anti-terrorism legislation and freedom of speech (Slough Liberal Democrats)

Slough Liberal Democrats <johanney@hotmail.com>

Sarah speaking about anti-terrorism legislation and freedom of speech

February 18, 2008 12:30 PM
By Sarah Ludford in European Parliament
Originally published by Sarah Ludford MEP

Mr President, I believe that this is a good report and I subscribe almost entirely to the remarks of my chairman and political colleague, Mr Deprez. But I disagree with him and others on the proper scope of the anti-terrorist laws.

I do not believe it is helpful to criminalize glorification of, or apologia for, terrorism. I think the term 'justification' is also problematic. As many of us were earlier discussing with Dick Marty on the subject of terrorist blacklists and asset freezing, the law needs to be both just and effective if it is to remain credible and sustainable and have public support. There is a profound risk that extending the criminal law as proposed, beyond actions and intentions and into the realm of opinion, commentary, and even fantasy, carries the danger of creating thought-crimes.

This would have a potentially chilling effect on free speech. If I say I understand that the Kurds in Turkey have felt anger and disaffection at the suppression of their culture, language and identity and denial of their political aspirations, am I justifying PKK bombs?

There is hardly a person in the House - unfortunately, there are maybe a few - who would not glorify Nelson Mandela. But the ANC committed terrorist acts in fighting the utterly repressive apartheid state. There are people, now statesmen, who have been honored guests in this Chamber, who have a past as freedom fighters.

So am I just a woolly liberal, concerned only with free speech? No, because the law has to be effective. We already properly criminalize incitement to commit terrorism. And that gives wide scope to target behavior and speech that has, as its purpose, the instigation of a terrorist offence.

Last week, the UK's second highest court, the Court of Appeal, quashed the convictions of five men for possession of jihadist material precisely because there was no evidence of intention to encourage terrorism. The original convictions in this case created resentment among those - mainly young Muslims - who wanted to discuss, debate and criticize the foreign policies of Europe and the United States. That does not help combat radicalism. But these cases have also, by their collapse, left the law in a state of confusion and disarray, and that is good for terrorists.

Let us stick to getting convictions on the basis of incitement. Let us not stray into glorification and apologia.