Terrorism Bill — Clause 3 — Application of Ss. 1 And 2 to Internet Activity etc. — capability — 15 Feb 2006 at 16:47
Brooks Newmark MP, Braintree voted in the minority (No).
This clause outlines how the "Encouragement of terrorism" and the "Dissemination of terrorist publications" laws (in Clauses 1 and 2) will be applied to the Internet.
Subsection 3(7) says:
...[A] statement or an article or record [ie a webpage] is unlawfully terrorism-related if it [contains]... something that is capable of being understood as a direct or indirect encouragement... of acts of terrorism...
The amendment made by the Lords, which was reversed by this vote in the Commons, was to change "capable of being" into "likely to be".
The thinking behind the MPs' view is that the police can decide a webpage is unlawful when they believe something is capable of encouraging terrorism, whether or not this is likely or intentional.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||176 (+2 tell)||0||90.8%|
|Lab||318 (+2 tell)||0||0||90.7%|