My amendment to the Terrorism Act was simple: if you glorify terrorism, you should face the law. No loopholes, no technical escape routes.
I would have preferred it to pass in that form. The Government has offered a different route. I hope we end up in the same place — a clear, enforceable ban on the promotion of terrorism in all its forms.
Because this is not theoretical. The stabbings in Golders Green did not happen in a vacuum. When terrorism is praised, excused or dressed up as resistance, it creates a climate where hatred grows, and violence follows.
Week after week, large demonstrations have taken place across London. Many attend peacefully. But alongside that, we have heard chants such as “from the river to the sea” and seen rhetoric that has, whether intended or not, fuelled hostility towards Jewish communities. Jewish families in parts of our capital now feel less safe. That should trouble every one of us.
Words matter. When terrorist groups are downplayed, when their actions are rationalised or excused, it lowers the barrier. It creates a space where hatred can take hold. We cannot pretend otherwise.
The current law is not strong enough in practice. It requires prosecutors to prove that a statement glorifying terrorism is likely to be copied by others.
In a world of social media and mass communication, that is an almost impossible test. It means behaviour most people would recognise as dangerous too often goes unchallenged. That is why change is needed.
Golders Green will be repeated until Britain closes its terrorism loophole | Getty Images
This is not about restricting legitimate protest or debate. People have every right to express views on international conflicts, however strongly.
But there is a clear difference between political expression and praising those who murder civilians. That line must be upheld - firmly and consistently.
And it must apply to all forms of terrorism. Islamist extremism, far-right extremism, any group that targets innocent lives - none should be excused, justified or glorified.
The law must be even-handed and clear. What happened in Golders Green is a warning. If we allow the steady drip of language that legitimises terrorism, we should not be surprised when the consequences become real.
Parliament now has a choice. However, we reach it - through my amendment or the Government’s alternative - we must deliver the same outcome: zero tolerance for glorifying terrorism. Because if we fail to draw that line, others will cross it.