Extremist Islamic groups to be banned in Britain

Alan Travis:

Extremist Muslim groups who "glorify" terrorism are likely to be banned in Britain as early as this summer after Tony Blair yesterday overcame his second backbench rebellion this week to impose new laws designed to clamp down on the celebration of terrorism in speech, placards or on the internet.

MPs voted by 327 to 279, a majority of 38, to reinstate the laws banning the glorification of terrorism, a phrase untried in the legal battle against terrorism in Europe or the US. Only 17 Labour backbenchers rebelled yesterday, 10 fewer than the last time MPs debated the issue in November.

Two of the prominent groups likely to be banned are Hizb ut-Tahrir and Omar Bakri's al-Muhajiroun, groups already named by Tony Blair.

Ministers by convention usually wait two months to implement new legislation but the home secretary, Charles Clarke, is to accelerate this timetable to ensure police and security services can use the new powers as soon as possible.

Mr Blair, relieved at navigating three perilous votes on identity cards, smoking and terror, described yesterday's victory as "comprehensive" and "a signal of strength".

He said the passage of the law yesterday means that any repeat showing of the kind of offensive placards celebrating the July 7 bombings exhibited at the demonstration a fortnight ago in London will lead to prosecutions. Critics claim existing incitement laws already make such prosecutions possible.

Officials are expected to start work on drawing up proscription orders, to be approved by parliament, banning extremist groups who "glorify" terrorism. The legislation also allows successor groups to be banned to overcome the problem of organisations that simply go underground by changing their names.

This will extend proscription for the first time in Britain beyond those organisations which are directly involved in terrorist activity.

A triumphant Mr Blair claimed the government had won the argument. He said: "The new law will mean that if people are going to start celebrating acts of terrorism or condoning people who engage in terrorism, they will be prosecuted, and if they do not come from this country, they should not be in this country. We have free speech in this country, but you cannot abuse it."

He said yesterday's vote represented a vital signal of strength "in circumstances where the threat is not just from the individual acts of terrorism, but the people who try to entice other people or recruit other people into doing it".

His aides argued that this week's trio of votes strengthened Mr Blair's hand ahead of a potential showdown over the education bill, due to be published later in the month after the parliamentary recess. They also suggested that it doused speculation that Mr Blair would have to give way to his chancellor, Gordon Brown in the near future.

There had been fears, expressed in cabinet last Thursday, that this week could see Commons defeats and a possible ministerial slanging match during the smoking vote. Mr Blair saw his plans for ID cards sail through the Commons on Monday, albeit with concessions.

The battle yesterday on terror laws raged both as a broad political trial of strength between the parties in the fight against terrorism, and as an often obscure legal dispute over which wording in the legislation clamped down most effectively on rhetorical encouragement of terrorism.

The shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve claimed Mr Blair was staging a fake confrontation, posturing to the world, seeking cheap headlines and then leaving others to clear up the mess he had created. William Hague, standing in for David Cameron at prime ministers questions, accused the government of "press release politics" and "ineffective authoritarianism".

The Tories claimed a new criminal offence of indirect encouragement of terrorism was sufficient. Such was the anger on Tory benches that Mr Cameron left the hospital bedside of his wife and newborn son to vote.

The home secretary Charles Clarke claimed the Tory backed motion, built round debarring indirect encouragement of terrorism, was too narrow, and drafted to exclude written encouragement of terrorism, including on placards and internet sites. Mr Grieve appeared to accept this by admitting in debate yesterday he could reword the amendment to cover placards and the internet.

Mr Clarke also limited the rebellion by repeatedly reassuring backbenchers that the glorification clause would only cover those who clearly and recklessly intend to encourage terrorism.

He said the word glorification had appeared clearly in the Labour manifesto, and had been endorsed in a recent UN security council resolution. Mr Clarke added he was willing to review the phrase if Lord Carlile, the government's terror advisor, came up with a fresh definition late this year.

Will laws silence hate preachers?

Peers plan for Terror Bill fight

How new bill will change the rules of the game

Blair sends his tough signal and provides an alibi for failures of the past