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</a> - Encouragement of Terrorism
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting Aye wished to change <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> according to <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-11-02a.832.6"> Amendment 79</a>.</p>  
  
  <p>Clause 1 of the Bill says:</p>
  
  <p class="indent">A person commits an offence if (a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his behalf; and (b) ... he knows or... has reasonable grounds for believing that members of the public... are likely to understand it as a[n]... encouragement... of acts of terrorism...</p>
  
  <p>The amendment would have changed part (b) into:</p>
  
  <p class="indent">(b) ...he intends or is recklessly indifferent to the fact that the publication will be understood as an... encouragement... of acts of terrorism...  (c) It is not necessary... that he intended to cause... a specific terrorist act.</p>
  
  <p>In other words, to be guilty you had to actually want to cause offence, as opposed to your words merely being interpreted as offensive, which is easily done even if it is not your intention.</p>  
   
  <p>The issue of this vote is almost exactly the same as the next one.  You can see a comparison between the two votes <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2005-11-02&number=73&number2=74"> here</a>.</p>
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  