An individual can be found guilty of the offence if they encourage others to commit acts of terrorism through direct or indirect means (such as glorifying terrorism). This latter offence of glorifying terrorism has courted much publicity.

The government argues that such legislation is necessary in the post 9/11 world because people who glorify terrorism help to create a climate in which terrorism is regarded as acceptable. Critics argue that the offence criminalises people for what they say and not what they do.

Whether or not one is persuaded by the governments’ position, the offence is now on our statute books and those found guilty can find themselves being sent to prison for up to seven years.

For those who attend and participate in events where the plight of Muslims in places such as Palestine, Kashmir or Chechnya is discussed and debated, it is important that they familiarise themselves with the basic tenants of the new provisions. Ignorance of the law is no defence for those who find themselves in trouble with the authorities.

Three elements to the offence The Act makes it very clear that for the offence to be made out it matters not whether someone is in fact encouraged to commit acts of terrorism.

One simply needs to encourage others to engage in terrorist behaviour in the way described below for the offence to be committed.

Firstly, an individual must publish a statement or cause another to publish a statement. The published statement can be in the form of any communication of any description. Such a statement may be written or oral or both. It may be composed of words or images or both.

Secondly, the statement must directly or indirectly encourage members of the public to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism. Directly encouraging acts of terrorism may be self-explanatory, how one indirectly encourages such actions is less clear. The Act attempts to clarify the issue by stating that a person can indirectly encourage terrorism if they: a) glorify the commission or preparation of a terrorist act, and b) it can be reasonably assumed that the conduct being glorified should by copied by others in today's circumstances.

Glorification includes any form of 'praise' or 'celebration' of past acts of terrorism, future acts of terrorism, or acts of terrorism generally. In establishing whether a glorified act of terrorism was designed to encourage others to copy or emulate, one must look at the contents of the statement as a whole and the circumstances in which it was published.

Thirdly, the individual responsible for the statement must either intend members of the public to be encouraged to commit acts of terrorism or they must be reckless as to whether members of the public are encouraged to commit acts of terrorism.

An individual acts recklessly if he knowingly takes an unreasonable risk that he will encourage terrorism. As to the definition of 'terrorism', the Act refers us back to the long winded definition provided in the Terrorism Act 2000.

In essence, actions designed to influence the policy of a government and which involve the use (or the threat of use) of serious violence against persons or property in order to advance a political, religious or ideological cause risk being classified as terrorist actions.

To give an example of the kind of behaviour which might be caught by the new Act, let us take the example of a student who attends an anti- Israel march in central London wearing a t-shirt printed with the words, "Hamas needs you!" These three words being expressed at such an event may be sufficient for the offence to be made out.

Firstly, they are being expressed at an occasion in which one is protesting against the policies of the Israeli government.

Secondly, the first word, Hamas, make reference to an organization which has an established history of deploying suicide bombers to combat and influence Israeli policy.

Finally, the words, 'needs you', imply that one should join or attempt to join this organisation which famously use suicide bombers.

Combined, these three simple words, expressed in the setting of an anti-Israeli protest march, may be sufficient for an inference to be drawn that one is encouraging others to emulate terrorist behaviour.

Shahzad Aziz is a Barrister specialising in Human Rights and Terrorism Law.