: Absolutely. The point is that this creates an atmosphere that becomes perverse and dangerous. As has been indicated in earlier debates, my constituency, like many other London constituencies has been the home of many people who were exiled leaders of revolutionary organisations in other countries. We had the leadership of the African National Congress, the SWAPO leadership, people from the Congress party in India and many others who have been condemned for terrorism. In public meetings from time immemorial through to the present, they would make speeches about liberation struggles in other parts of the world that could be construed as glorifying terrorism. I would probably argue that that was not the case, but as has been said, it only takes the failure of one prosecution to damage the law and create martyrs.
The Bill creates an atmosphere in which people feel constrained from speaking out or discussing anything in a rational, political way. It is important that we defend the right to free speech and to discuss history. It is important for teachers and professors to deal in detail with what may or may not have happened in a historical context. Free speech is a precious and important thing.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 16 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
443 c1677 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 16:03:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309369
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309369
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_309369