Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The definition of "provocation" is too broad, as is the definition of "glorification". They are wide open to interpretation and abuse. As has already been stated by Deputy Carthy about what he termed the Kneecap clause, the broad definition of "provocation" could be used to target freedom of expression, an issue that I raised with the Minister in the Dáil. We have also seen how international groups like Al-Haq have been treated. It is a human rights group in Palestine that was pointing out the atrocities happening in Palestine before 7 October, yet it was deemed to be a terrorist group by Israel.

The last time I spoke with the Minister in the Dáil, I asked him whether he would attend commemorations of people who had been deemed to be terrorists at the time, such as Seán Lemass and Michael Collins. Deputy Carthy mentioned others who were considered terrorists at the time, such as Nelson Mandela, Bobby Sands and Che Guevara. I wear an Easter lily every year and wear it proudly to honour Ireland's patriot dead and I attend commemorations. Could this be considered glorification?

I was taken with something said by Deputy Farrell in the Dáil. I do not think it is being thrown at the Minister to open this up to interpretation, but we must future-proof this. If the Minister is not taking this as the interpretation we are giving him, then there is nothing to stop justice Ministers further down the line from having their own interpretations of this legislation. We need to future-proof this legislation because if we do not, it could be wide open to abuse in the future.