I will agree that the criticism in the Telegraph is weak in its use of 'One man's Terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter', but it picks on the two contraversial parts of the bill namely what constitutes 'glorification' and who is or is not a 'terrorist'.

The definition of a terrorist and a terrorist act has not been an issue before. With earlier incitement based legislation as it is clear to see what incitment is and what a terrorist act is and thus who is a terrorist. However once you get into the less substantial area of glorification, things get muddier. Under the legislation the awarding of Nelson Mandela the Nobel Peace Prize would clearly be a criminal act, hence the 'Mandela Measure'. Thus we need a better definition of a Terrorist and/or someone in the the government or judiciary to publish and maintain a list of who is or is not Terrorist, lest we talk in appropriately about the wrong person. Similarly under the legislation Steven Spielberg's film 'Munich' would potentially be illegal. Thus we also need to have a better definition of what 'glorification' is.

This also leads to some potenially interesting questions, for example one could be serving a substanital prison sentance for gorifying someone who on the day after your conviction was removed from the list of Terrorists. Now should you be released early still with a criminal record, should you have your conviction totally quashed and removed from your record, or should you still have to serve whole sentance? What if you have served 9years 11months of a 10 year sentance, had all your assests ceased, your business destroyed and your marriage broken up, when the person is removed from the list, particularly if the reason you got put in prision is because you were trying to convince the government that they has got their terrorist list wrong, by listing the person (Mandela Measure again), should you be released and more importantly should you compensated?

I am not saying that the legislation is wrong per se nor are many of its opponents, what we are saying is that whilst attempting remove from society those who would glorify terrorists, the legistlation may also criminalise legitimate debate and the recording and reporting of historical events and the praising of those who have clearly shed their terrorist past.

The whole issue of ID cards is total misnomer in relation to the fight against terrorism and the government have admitted this, particularly since the scheme will be voluntary and the carrying of the card will not be mandatory. The major contraversy is arround the amount and security of data the government will have, who will have access to the data, and the cost both of the implementation and to the individual. Also from the government's own trials there will be 100,000+ people for whom the bio-metric data on the cards/database will just not function because the the combination of iris and fingerprint recognition will just not be able to differentiate them. Apparently there is a whole ethnic group for whom iris recognition does not work. What provsioning will be made for these people, are they to spend their whole lives being arrested because they cannot prove their identity and will this provsioning be a loophole to the whole system?

----------------
Edit:

Having posted this, I came up with a further example of problem with the issue of glorification and its definition e.g. we are discussing and comparing ME Terrorists and Irish Terrorists and I raise the factual point that the Irish Terrorists differed from the ME Terrorist because they gave warnings which allowed civilians to be evacuated. If not phrased correctly this could be construed as praising (glorifying) the Irish Terrorists for thier action. As a result I fall foul of the legislation

Good point, bb. I had a good chuckle out of that one. Your points are well taken. We in the West can not help but involuntarily chaffing at the bit when it comes to the prospect of potentially criminalizing the freedom to express a personal opinion or belief. Certainly it would be helpful to actually write these concerns into the proposed statute as a legislative safeguard against judicial imprudence. But, I would like to spend more time looking into the nuts and bolts of the deal before speaking further.

I enjoyed the Shaw's Corner reference. You appear to live in a quite scenic part of the country. Funny how our minds work. The two items that I found the most interesting was how similar GBSs writing hut was to Thoreau's cabin on Walden Pond. (The coaster effect designed to catch the sunlight was a concept after my own heart.) The other was his rather eclectic collection of hats. The picture seemed like somewhat of a snapshot into the more personal side of the man.

There is no doubt that I could easily spend month upon month just traveling through the British Isles, hunting and pecking at all the interesting tidbits. It seems quite likely that I will one day decide to just pick up and do it before too terribly long. Perhaps this is part of the reason why I've become determined to understand some of the more pressing issues that Britain faces right now.

There is no doubt that Great Britain is in a very difficult and unenviable position regarding the War on Terror. (See references 2 & 3 below) In particular, this new Anti-Terrorism Law is critical to Britain’s strategy.

Looking at the larger picture, for a moment, it appears to me that Western Democracies are currently going through some growing pains. Namely, every law must be completely “fool-proof.” However, it is simply not possible for any written statute to fully anticipate, account and pre-decide for all the possible circumstances that go into the commission of just one single criminal act. Still, the electorate is so (justifiably) sensitive to any potential for the abuse of power by the state (due to ongoing corruption and incompetence) that even the most remote possibility that some piece of legislation might somehow legitimize any sort of possible “tyranny” sends everyone, average citizens and politicians alike, into a complete dither trying to “make certain that they can prevent every this and that tyranny from ever happening.” Under these circumstances, it is far too easy to mistakenly “throw the baby out with the bath water.”

We really need to get a firm grip on ourselves for a moment. Abuses of power by those with power can not be caused, nor can they be prevented, simply by passing a law. This is a naïve and unrealistic interpretation of reality. People engage in behaviors, not laws. Accordingly, it is the strictness of accountability of the people in government (or legislature/judiciary) to the governed who ultimately decides what unlawful behavior is, and whether such behavior should be punished. The vanguard for this system is a free press with the legal right of access to any information necessary to maintain this requisite level of accountability.

Legislation is merely a formal articulation of the guiding principles and values of the culture which people then use as guidelines for determining the future consequences of specific behaviors. It is judicial decisions which continually refine and redefine the actual implementation of these statutes in accordance with the specifics of the behaviors (violations of statute) called into question. The judiciary considers two basic questions. Is this particular interpretation of the statute consistent with the broader intent of the law? What will be the consequences/impact of this specific interpretation of the statute upon future similar situations for which this law was originally intended to apply? It is drafted with these considerations in mind. Ultimately, every law calls upon the proper exercise of solid reasoning and good judgment on the part of the arbitrator.

In exactly the same manner, the British voter is now expected to make the same kind of reasoned decision. He must ask himself: Which set of abuses are we more capable of monitoring and controlling: Those of the judicial interpretations of this law; or the behavior of the terrorists themselves? Which threat poses the most immediate and greatest risk to society as a whole? Which threat do we honestly consider the more likely to actually occur? Upon which decision are we willing to risk the lives of potentially hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings?

Quite honestly, sometimes there are often no “good” solutions, just “the best of the bunch” decisions. We must never forget that every “safeguard” that we insist upon writing into this law inevitably weakens the law by providing greater opportunities for the terrorists to exploit these very same gaps that we insisted upon building into it – a particularly nasty “Catch 22,” as it were.

Frankly, I as a British citizen would feel much more comfortable placing my and my family’s well being in the hands of a slightly imperfect English legal system and the integrity of the British culture, than I would by putting it at the mercy of butchers who possess no such values.

From where this Yank sits, it is your “characteristically British” unflappable resolve and steadfastly united faith in each other that has made you who you are.

Good Lord, ‘If it isn’t bloody well broke, then bloody well don’t fix it!’


Footnotes (in a post, really?)
For a practical analysis using a similar legal perspective and written within the UK, I submit the following short article written by Brian Reisman, publisher and founder, “The Law Journal UK”
1. http://www.thelawjournal.co.uk/Anti-Terrorism%20Acts.htm

England is in a unique position in this War: Written in 2001
2. http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=398
(Appendix A, the Statement of the World Islamic Front, is worth a read.)

England is in a unique position in this War: Written in 2005
3. http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=537

Excellent article that succeeded in illustrating the differences between authentic Islamic beliefs and those which are being espoused by the protestors. It all made complete sense - right up to the last sentence of the last paragraph:

"Islamic ethics is based on 'limits and proportions,' which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy."

How can Westerners possibly believe that it is really not "all Muslims" given the sheer number of Muslims protesting in almost every Islamic nation? Is the author simply being a well-intentioned apologist, or are we mistaken in our impression that about 90% of Muslims are ideologically aligned with these protestors?

Well, the news commentators that I read say that the total numbers really aren't that big compared to the crowds that can be assembled when they really want to make a big propaganda splash. A recent article in the Guardian by an interesting British journalist (who is very much a Palestinian apologist) made that point, but estimated the numbers in one unusually large crowd to be only one twenty-fifth the size as my preferred commentators did.

So you have to beware. Somebody is slanting the news. My own take - given that the crowds are professional rioters marshaled in some places by undercover police, I would expect that ordinary human survival instinct would cause most people anywhere near to sort of espouse whatever line the rioters pushed, without any necessary deep convictions on the subject.