text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Terrorism Bill - Clause 1 - Encouragement of Terrorism
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting Aye removed a Lords amendment to <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.1-7.html#jE002"> Clause 1</a> of the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.i-iii.html#top"> Terrorism Bill</a></p>
  
  <p>The original words of subsection 1(4) were: </p>
  
  <p class="indent">It is irrelevant... whether the statement relates to the [a] particular act of terrorism... or of acts of terrorism... generally; and whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement.</p>
  	
  <p>The Lords had changed this to:</p>
  
  <p class="indent">For the purposes of this [law] "indirect encouragement" comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.</p>
  
  <p>And those voting Aye in the Commons changed it back, before committing a number of other of their own changes listed at the bottom of the debate.</p>  
  
  <p>The dispute appears to be whether a statement which glorifies terrorism should be an offence, even if it has no effect and was not intended to have an effect.</p>
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  