Frankly, the idea of glorifying or celebrating terrorism makes me sick to my stomach.
But, so does this:
"Tony Blair promised last night that the police and courts would take action in future against demonstrators who carried placards praising terrorism and calling for more suicide bombings.
After seeing off another revolt by Labour MPs and securing backing for a new offence of glorifying terrorism, he said the Government had won the argument for tougher anti-terrorist laws."
Tony Blair makes his point during the debate on anti- terror laws yesterday
The new law, which has still to be approved by the Lords, would send "a clear signal" that those who incited acts of terrorism or glorified terrorism would be prosecuted."
Sounds acceptable, right? Why not prosecute people who "incite" terrorism? But, how do we define this? And how in the world do we define "glorifying terrorism"? Wouldn't half of Bruce Willis's films be illegal. And then the article goes on to say this:
""The law that we passed today will allow us to take far stronger action against people who don't just directly engage in terrorism but indirectly incite it," he said."
"Indirectly incite it"? Again, I know what placards he speaks of, and they made me ill as well. But, again, a free and open society cannot criminalize speech simply because it makes us ill.