Terrorism Bill

I think not, and that is not because I suspect that my hon. Friend will raise a point that I had not thought of. With respect to the context of the use of the word ““glorification””, I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s view that the Prime Minister is on a bit of an ego trip. The Prime Minister has stuck closely to the assumption that the word has to remain in the Bill. The word is defined in various dictionaries and that, after all, is the only basis on which the courts can make a construction. For people who are concerned about the connection between glorification and terrorism in the Islamic context, the rather dangerous first definition—from the point of view that things could spin out of control—is that the word means to praise and worship God. Those who know and understand something about the meaning of Islam and the proper reverence attached to the word Allah will realise that it could mean that anybody who was found to have glorified God in that context would automatically find a conflation between God on the one hand and terrorism on the other. That is an extremely difficult area. I notice that the Home Secretary is chuntering and saying ““Ridiculous””. If he thinks that that was ridiculous, he should look at the dictionary. The courts will have to construe those words and that was the first definition given.