The decision by MPs to criminalise the “glorification” of terrorism is not as bad a result for Islamic extremists as it is a good result for Tony Blair. The three Commons defeats of his premiership have been on terror-related issues, all in recent months. A fourth would have raised more questions about his ability to continue effectively in office. Thanks to a forceful and uncompromising Question Time performance, Mr Blair’s score so far in his supposed “week of Hell ” is: won 2 (ID cards and terror), got out of jail 1, (the free vote on a smoking ban). After a difficult few weeks, the Prime Minister can move with a little more confidence. Perhaps he will even feel strong enough to carry out the Cabinet reshuffle he has ignored for more than 100 days. Or perhaps not. The biggest test of his authority, his education reforms, is yet to come.
The substance of his hard-won victory, though, is questionable. Mr Blair’s argument against amending the terror Bill was essentially twofold: juries will understand “glorification” when they see it, even if the concept defies easy legal definition; and to drop the word from the Bill now would “send the wrong signal”. The problem with both points is that they suggest the exercise at hand is one of striking a pose rather than making law. Being tough on terror is laudable, but passing legislation that does not work is worse than doing nothing. A law, like a new pet, should be regarded as being for life. And there is serious doubt about whether the measure will work as intended.
There are plenty of examples in which “terror” can be glorified in innocent fashion. What of those who celebrate the Easter Rising? Or who light a bonfire on November 5? Future ministers may find themselves embarrassed. If the terror Bill had been on the statute book ten years ago, would those who encouraged Iraqi dissidents to overthrow Saddam Hussein have been guilty of glorifying terrorism? It is never sensible to pass laws whose effectiveness requires promises that they will be interpreted with common sense. That is not always a concept noted for its abundance in the prosecution of the law. As such, much time is likely to be spent trying to prove cases of “glorification” that have no merit. Such a process will only deepen ethnic or religious rifts in some communities.
Stripped of its bluster and point-scoring, yesterday’s debate boiled down to two words, whether it is more desirable to pursue those who “glorify” terrorism, or those who persuade others to “emulate” terrorists. We would have felt more comfortable with the latter. It covers the same ground without raising the ambiguities of the former. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, used the hateful placards seen recently to try to inject urgency into the Government ’s case. This was a red herring. Laws against incitement already exist. They succeeded in convicting Abu Hamza al-Masri for seven years — the problem in that case was not a lack of legal weapons but the unacceptable delay in using them. But wielding them against misguided marchers is not necessarily the answer. We are at the early stages of a campaign against extremism. It will be a long struggle. It is far from clear that yesterday’s vote will help.
