See the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4714578.stm the gist of which is that, once gain, the government have overturned the Lords on an issue of civil liberties. To quote the BBC:

MPs reverse a Lords defeat for the government and insist there should be a new ban on “glorifying” terrorism.

Now a law against glorifying terrorism is so bizarre that I wonder how the courts can ever interpret it. The first problem is the old “terrorist” or “freedom fighter” arguement, with the terrorist defined by the winning side. Then there is glorifying – does this mean claiming that terrorist acts are glorious? You would think it would be easy to get round this one, even for the most enthusiastic terrorist, through clever use of language.

This sort of thing is definitely an own goal of the stupidest kind. Western society’s prime value is in its tradition of dissent and debate and the capacity to say unpopular things. This has allowed the development of science and technology, as people feel free to innovate and challenge. It is meant to have produced mature political systemswher we can tolerate other people’s opinions and challenge them. So how is it we can’t trust our own free speech traditions any more.

There are adequate laws in existence already against actual actions and against inciting people to commit violent crimes. So why do we need a meaningless new law that just shows weakness and further alienates those of us who believed that rationalitya nd freedom were worth defending.