Assessing Damage, Urging Action “glorify”,325 “advocate” 326 or “promote” 327 terrorist acts. These provisions all tend towards a weakening of the causal link that is normally required in law between the original speech (or other form of expression) and the danger that criminal acts may be committed. The formulations set out in law, largely since 2001, cover a potentially extremely wide range of expressions, which, in a very generalised or abstract way, somehow support, justify or condone terrorism. The rationale provided to the Panel for this gradual extension of the concept of “incitement” was that individuals engaging in “radical” or “extremist” speech must be prevented from doing so, both when they directly incite violence, and when they contribute to a climate in which terrorism might flourish. The Panel learnt at the Hearing in Morocco, for example, that there was public debate, after the Casablanca bombings in May 2003, regarding the fact that the expression of “extremist” ideas, which had previously enjoyed much popular support, could create a real and heightened risk of violence against civilians. Officials in several Hearings raised concerns regarding the developments in communication technology (both the Internet and mass media), which can create an increased risk that radical speech and other expressions might inspire others to commit terrorist acts, albeit in an undefined future, and at undefined places. As noted earlier, however, statutes giving vague definitions of crimes are in violation of international provisions which require that individuals should be able to foresee whether behaviour is criminal or not. One of the most controversial examples of this trend was provided to the Panel at its UK Hearing. The UK legislation allows for the offence of “indirect encouragement” of acts of terrorism by “glorification” and outlaws certain forms of expression and organisations on these grounds. The offence of “indirect encouragement by glorification” is inter alia committed, irrespective of the intent of the author, if some members of the public may “reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated.” 328 For example, the UK government purports simply to be implementing the Council of Europe Convention, but fails 325 Section 21 of the UK Terrorism Act 2006 added as an additional ground for proscription of organisations, those in which the activities of the organisation “(a) include the unlawful glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; or (b) are carried out in a manner that ensures that the organisation is associated with statements containing any such glorification.” 326 Article 102.1 (2) of the Australian Criminal Code, as amended in 2005, provides for an organisation to be specified as terrorist if it “advocates the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act has occurred or will occur).” The term “advocates” is defined in law as: “the organisation directly or indirectly counsels or urges the doing of a terrorist act; or the organisation directly or indirectly provides instruction on the doing of a terrorist act; or the organisation directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment …..to engage in a terrorist act.” 327 In India, Section 35 of the 2004 amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 allows the Central Government to proscribe an organisation as a terrorist organisation if it believes that the organisation is “involved” in terrorism, defined as follows: “…(c) promotes or encourages terrorism…or (d) is otherwise involved in terrorism.” 328 See Section 1.3(b) of the UK Terrorism Act 2006. 129