text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.i-iii.html"> Terrorism Bill</a> - <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/06055.1-7.html#jE002"> Clause 1(2)</a> - Encouragement of Terrorism - "glorifies"
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p><b>This appears identical to <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-11-02&number=75"> Division 75</a> on 2005-11-02.</b>  A comparison of votes can be seen <a href="http://publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-11-02&number=75&date2=2005-11-09&number2=87"> here</a>. 
  
  <p>Those voting Aye wished to delete subsection (2) of <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"> Terrorism Bill</a>.</p>  
  
  <p>Subsection (2) says:</p>
  
  <p class="indent">...[S]tatements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging... acts of terrorism... include every statement which-</p>
  
  <p class="indent">(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and </p>
  
  <p class="indent">(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.</p>
  
  <p>This is a clarification of subsection (1) which asserts that <i>direct</i> and <i>indirect</i> encouragement of terrorism is an offence.</p>
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  
  
  <p pid="a.409.0/1">I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).</p>
  
  <p pid="a.433.4/1"><i>Question put,</i> That the amendment be made:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.433.4/2"><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 280, Noes 305.</p>
  
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  