130 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights to integrate into UK law the requirement that there be an “intent to incite”.329 Many participants at the UK Hearing raised concerns that the breadth, and the ambiguity, of the offence of “glorification” create a risk of arbitrary and discriminatory application. The risk of such abuse is exacerbated by the fact that the offence applies also to past acts of terrorism and to terrorist acts occurring in other countries. Witnesses expressed concern that such wide-ranging laws reduce legitimate political debate, particularly within immigrant or minority communities. Government representatives repeatedly assured the Panel that targeting a particular community was neither their intention, nor the result of the “new” offences, but other witnesses testified to the marginalising impact of this type of legislation on their communities. The Islamic Human Rights Commission at the UK Hearing testified that “certain statements made by Muslims will be regarded as “glorification” due to its delivery to a Muslim audience; similar comments made by members of other communities will not be held to the same standard”.330 The representative of the Mayor of London also stressed to the Panel the counter-productive effect this legislation could have on anti-terrorism operations: “Preventing terrorist attacks, relies heavily on intelligence, which can only come from our communities…laws that criminalise non-violent behaviour and groups, perceived as unfairly targeting Muslims and stifling legitimate debate, will lead to a breakdown in trust, resulting in a reduced flow of information….” 331 Human rights violations flowing from broadly formulated speech laws are particularly likely in situations where there are poorly entrenched traditions of free speech, weaker judicial oversight, and/or serious internal conflict. The concern about broad legal definitions, and the lack of an independent judiciary, was raised particularly forcefully at the Maghreb Hearing. The risk that legitimate expressions of dissent could be treated as terrorist acts, or justification of terrorism, was also raised in the Hearing in the Russian Federation.332 Amendments introduced a broadly defined new offence of “public justification” of terrorism.333 There is also an act of “extremism” under the Russian law on extremist activity, triggering a range of additional legal consequences.334 Government officials 329 Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention. 330 The telling parallel was drawn, at the EJP United Kingdom Hearing, between the likelihood of Sheykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi being arrested for glorification of terrorism (when publicly stating that he understood why oppressed Palestinians might become human bombers), and the same happening to Cherie Blair (wife of the then Prime Minister) who made a similar statement. See, written submission by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, p. 9. 331 See oral testimony by Rebecca Hickman, Mayor of London Office, EJP Untied Kingdom Hearing. 332 See the summary of the EJP Russian Federation Hearing. See also written submissions provided by the Centre for Democracy and Development, the Sova Centre and the Human Rights Institute. 333 See Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 135 FZ July 2006. 334 See Russian Federation, Federal Law on Counter-action of Extremist Activity, No. 113 FZ July 2002, Articles 6-16, as amended in 2006 and 2007. Organisations, including NGOs and media organisations, that distribute materials, containing public appeals “justifying” terrorism or of an “extremist” nature can be closed