The new anti-terror laws that the UK government have been trying to pass since the London bombings got me thinking. One of them in particular, which is the new law about 'Indirect Incitement' whereby people said to incite terrorist acts can be prosecuted. This is all seems alarmingly vague so lets get some definitions...
Terrorism as defined by the US Department of Defense is "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
That seems both a reasonable and clear definition. So what does 'Indirect Incitement' constitute?
Hazel Blears the police minister…
"[it] would apply to people who seek to glorify terrorist activity, perhaps by saying: 'It's a marvellous thing that this has happened. These people are martyrs.' " Such comments could be construed "as an endorsement of terrorism".
Asked to define "indirect incitement", she said: "It is very difficult to give examples of this. It would depend on what words were used. Were they an endorsement, were they a glorification? In some cases, the tone of your endorsement might take it into glorification."
The new offence would also apply to both public and private statements, Miss Blears said.[i]
This means a whole host of things will have to banned. One of them is the UK national anthem 'God Save the Queen'. The fourth verse of this song states that...
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush
This song of 'hatred' then is clearly invoking religious power ('Lord Grant that Marshal Wade...') in order to achieve a political aim - hushing sedition - and also to achieve this by violence by crushing 'Rebellious Scots'. If any Englishman attacks a Scot therefore, he could be said to have 'indirectly incited' by this song. Not only will he be arrested but so could anyone else who has sung this. Say goodbye to the national anthem.
Another favoured song down in England (not in Scotland) is 'Jerusalem'. It is often sung at state events and also in Churches up and down the country. It is a song that clearly invokes religious, middle-eastern and violent imagery...
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among those dark Satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land
This song clearly suggests that God is on the side of those wishing violence upon others. It also has defined religious and political/military objectives. If someone goes on holiday to Jerusalem and takes home a souvenir have they been incited by this song to rebuild it in England? This one then, will also have to go.
 (some people inciting terrorism)
Other laws are being enacted to deal with so-called 'Radical Clerics'. This should please the Northern Irish Catholic community who have been dealing with a community 'incited' by a radical cleric who holds a seat in the Northern Irish Assembly...Ian Paisley.
 Some Ian Paisley quotes...
"I will kill all who get in my way", after a loyalist rally in 1968. He shouted this out at some reporters
During a visit from the Pope, Ian Paisley yelled "I denounce you. Anti-Christ" several times at the European Parliament.
After a Loyalist rally in 1968, Ian Paisely justified outrages by claiming: "Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners"; he also said the massive discrimination in employment and allocation of public housing for Catholics existed because "they breed like rabbits and multiply like vermin".[ii]
Surely then this religious and political leader is fomenting intolerance,violence and hatred and should be subject to arrest under the new laws?
So when the laws come into effect we can expect mass arrests at football matches, rugby matches and churches up and down the country. All those caught on camera singing some of these songs at the remembrance day services will have to be retroactively arrested. The majority of the English public will be imprisoned. Only a few 'rebellious Scots' and ethnic minorities will be left in all of Great Britain and the English public, protected inside their prisons, will be free from all the horrors that Scots, immigrants, Catholics and Muslims always seem to be trying to inflict on them.
[i] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/16/ncleric16.xml
[ii] From http://www.answers.com/ |
The DoD definition isn't so ridiculous, unfortunately it isn't the one used by British legislators. Last time I looked, I couldn't find a defintion in the new Bill. Presumably, therefore, the definition contained in the Terrorism Act 2000 will remain in force. This is considerably wider.
It was argued by some at the time it came into force that it could even be applied to anti-GM campaigners destroying crops. Could we therefore see Greenpeace charged under the glorification law?