A recent heated battle in the English Parliament resulted in a win for Prime Minister Tony Blair over the issue of ‘glorification of terrorism.’
The House of Commons voted 315 to 277 in favor of laws that will take legal action against citizens who perpetuate terrorism without actually being a terrorist.
The debate pitted conservatives against liberal Democrats, Blair against William Hague, specifically over the vague and loose interpretations of the word ‘glorification.’
The obvious consequences of such laws will seem very familiar to those here in the United States who have questioned the unclear limitations of the Patriot Act.
It is clear that these new measures act as avenues for the British government to go unchecked in attacking those who act as a catalyst for terrorism without breaking any concrete laws.
This whole issue has brought something else to light for me, British politicians and Islamic fundamentalists feel the need to capitalize and attempt to surpass American antiterrorist culture in order to further their agenda.
Only a British politician would argue over the need to keep a word as flowery as ‘glorification’ in law.
If Blair wants to pull a George W. and fight for irrational specifics of law, making it strong and nationalistic. At least the propaganda in the Patriot Act is forward.
There is no subtlety there. Blair needs to work on the way he subversively dictates his country.
Try fighting for a word that is less than 10 letters long. Something like, ‘I don’t know yet.’
But it’s not just the liberal Democrats suffering from this problem. In a recent New York Times article, House Conservative Leader Hague is quoted as saying, ‘It is the glorification of terror which, in the view of the government, is an essential method for those individuals and organizations who pursue terrorist ambitions and seek to get individuals, like the 7/7 bombers, to commit to their suicidal and destructive ends,’ referring to the terrorist acts against London’s mass transit on July 7.
Did you catch that? The ‘7/7’ bombers? Does every leader around the world think that since Sept. 11 they can title a local terrorist act by the date?
I don’t think so. Try something more original. Remember Bloody Sunday?
Maybe not the best example to present to a British politician, but that’s a start. It is memorable, refers to a day of the week and was a great U2 song. Plus, ‘7/7’ doesn’t have the snap that ‘9/11’ has. It kind of sounds like casino jargon.
One of the reasons that Blair has brought the whole ‘glory-hole-ification’ to the table may possibly be in response to hostile acts against the Danish Embassy in London following worldwide Islamic outroar against the now-famous cartoons depicting Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
According to the same New York Times article, demonstrators at the Danish embassy ‘praised July 7 killers as ‘the fantastic four.”
Can’t these demonstrators call their martyred heroes something authentic to their culture?
I would suggest a British action comic hero, but those don’t really exist. Future British Islamic fundamentalists should stick to something British, like, say, ‘the Fab Four,’ when praising fellow British Islamic fundamentalists.
Furthurmore, and this is not exactly congruent with my point, 22-year-old Omar Khayam was arrested at the same demonstration for dressing up like a suicide bomber, on which Blair commented after his victorious vote, ‘[The new legislation] will allow us to deal with those people and say, ‘Look we have free speech in this country, but don’t abuse it.”
First off, does dressing like a suicide bomber have anything to do with abusing free speech?
Do we really need any new legislation to apprehend someone who is dressed like a suicide bomber?
Shouldn’t anyone at a demonstration who resembles, even to the smallest degree, some sort of a bomber be arrested under even under the most liberal laws just to be safe?
How do you even tell the difference between the two?
And what is Khayam thinking in this situation?
I recently read an amusing article about the Golden Globes, where an attractive interviewer made some sexual innuendo involving her ‘golden globes’ and winner Jeremy Piven, who replied, ‘Honey if you are going to pull a knife, you’d better use it.’ This applies here.
In the current terrorist-sensitive climate, no person (especially any Arab person in a country controlled by Caucasians) should ever dress up like a suicide bomber anywhere.
I’ll leave you with a quote by Captain Obvious, Mr. Blair. ‘If they are here, they are going to be prosecuted, and if they don’t come from this country then they shouldn’t be in this country.’
Way to sound more like Bush with every quote, Mr. Blair.
Try sticking to your roots, along with the rest of your country.
Julian Camillieri is a third-year English major. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Filed Under: Opinion