He was not a bore, but I may be one. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Churchill’s comment, particularly if made among the right audience—that is what is so pernicious about the offence; it depends so much on unpredictable local and special factors—could have fallen foul of the clause. It depends not only on the factors of one’s audience, but on who is doing the speaking. If I spoke praise of Saladin, it is likely to excite little impression on the minds of radicalised youth, but if I happened to be an imam and started to talk about Saladin, the code that I might be using could fall foul. That is effectively what the offence is designed to tackle—using code to incite or encourage terrorism. That is the meaning of the phrase ““indirectly encouraging””. It refers to encouragement by a sort of code. If I were an imam praising Saladin to my congregation, I would be committing an offence under the clause.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Geoffrey Cox
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
439 c425-6 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:00:27 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272713
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272713
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_272713