Terrorism Legislation

In 2005 the Government attempted to extend the period of detention during which a person can be held without being formally charged with a crime from 14 to 90 days (see below). On losing the vote on that motion, the Government proposed a revision and put a ’28 day’ proposal before the House which it won.

In 2008, the Government sought again to revise this figure upwards asking the Commons to back an extension period of 42 days. The voting results for this motion are given below.

Those that voted ‘aye’ in this division were voting in support of the Government’s plans to extend the period of detention without charge to 42 days.

Counter-Terrorism Bill — Extension of period of detention to 42 days
11 Jun 2008
Division 219

 

Terrorism Bill — Extension Of Period Of Detention to 90 Days
9 Nov 2005
Division 84

This motion tabled in 2005 was the Government’s first attempt to revise upwards the time during which an individual could be held in custody without formally being charged with a crime. If accepted, it would have seen the detention period rise from 14 to 90 days.

The motion stated:

‘Amendment proposed: No. 55, in clause 23, page 22, line 19, leave out ‘three months’ and insert ‘ninety days’.’

Those that voted ‘aye’ voted in favour of the Government’s plans to extend the period from 14 – 90 days whilst those voting ‘no’ were voting against the proposed extension.

Terrorism Bill, Clause 1(2)
Encouragement of Terrorism — “glorifies”
9 Nov 2005
Division 87

In 2005, the Government also attempted to make a crime of the ‘glorification’ of terrorism. The motion placed before the House concerned subsection 2 of Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill and stated that:

…[S]tatements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging… acts of terrorism… include every statement which-
(a)    glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
(b)    is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.

Those that voted ‘aye’ were voting in favour of the plan to make the ‘glorification of terrorism’ a crime whilst those voting ‘no’, were voting against any such proposal.

Muslims argued at the time that the clause on the glorification of terrorism would stifle the legitimate support of those organisations and countries worldwide that were engaged in struggles against occupation and occupying forces.