Comparison of Divisions: Terrorism Bill — Clause 1(2) — Offence of Glorifying Terrorism — 2 Nov 2005 at 15:57 with Division No. 87 on 9 Nov 2005 at 20:00
(Swap the two divisions around).
Vote (a) : Terrorism Bill — Clause 1(2) — Offence of Glorifying Terrorism - 2 Nov 2005 at 15:57 - Division No. 75
The majority of MPs voted to make glorifying the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism an offense.
Those voting Aye wished to delete subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill
Subsection (2) says:
- ...[S]tatements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging... acts of terrorism... include every statement which-
- (a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
- (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.
- This provision interprets subsection (1) which asserts that both direct and indirect encouragement of terrorism is an offence.
Vote (b) : Terrorism Bill — Clause 1(2) — Encouragement of Terrorism — "glorifies" - 9 Nov 2005 at 20:00 - Division No. 87
This appears identical to Division 75 on 2005-11-02. A comparison of votes can be seen here.
Those voting Aye wished to delete subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill.
Subsection (2) says:
...[S]tatements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging... acts of terrorism... include every statement which-
(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
(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.
This is a clarification of subsection (1) which asserts that direct and indirect encouragement of terrorism is an offence.
Difference in Votes - sorted by name
MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) differed from their vote on Motion (b). You can also see just opposite votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)
Division Similarity Ratio
The measure of similarity between these two divisions is a calculation based on a comparison of their votes.
There were 646 MPs who could have voted in both of these divisions, and 556 voted the same way, with 7 voting in opposite ways. There were 22 MPs who didn't vote in either division, and 61 who voted in only one of them.
We invert the vote on the second division if it makes the distance closer (since the meaning of 'Aye' and 'No' are often interchangeable depending on how the question was put). In this case, they line up the same way. An 's vote in in only one of the divisions contributes a factor of 0.2 to the distance. The calculation runs as follows:
([same-votes] + [differing-votes] + 0.2x[abstain-in-one])
(556 + 7 + 0.2x61)
575.2