Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister described the existing Act as clunky. I think it is one of the clearest provisions one could see. It is fairly straightforward. It speaks of "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence". What does that mean? It means "intentional distribution ... by whatever means of communication ... of a message to the public, with the intent of encouraging, directly or indirectly, the commission by a person of a terrorist activity".

That is actually as clear as day. I know what that provision means. I can see where the Garda, the DPP and the courts would fall on any given act in respect of that. What is it being replaced with? The Minister likes repeating the first part of the new section 4A:

... he or she, with the intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity, distributes or publishes ... to the public ... a message— (i) inciting, or that could reasonably be construed as inciting, persons to commit [an activity] ...

What would the Garda, the DPP or the courts consider to be reasonably construed as inciting? Can we say with absolute certainty that what they would consider to be reasonably construed is the same as what the Minister intends?

There is a second way in the Bill that someone can be considered to have the intention of inciting persons: "that glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity". We have already had a long discussion as to what exactly is a terrorist activity and what would, therefore, be considered to be praise or celebration. The second part of this section reads: "... such distribution or publication gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result." Not "is likely", "is possible" or "has", which is probably how the law would define it. Rather, it is "could thereby result". We have spoken about what is implicit in the legislation. This provision is implicit, as a person does not actually have to have committed a terrorist activity. Rather, there just has to be a reasonable apprehension that it might incite, on the basis of a message being pursued, or could "reasonably be construed" as inciting. Does the Minister not see the red flags in all of this and the gaping potential abuses that could arise from it? Does the Minister not see where the dots could be joined to bring us to precisely the type of situation where, for political purposes, bands like Kneecap or others are arrested because of what they do or say on stage or for what could be chanted by people at a protest? I accept that some of the things could be absolutely deplorable or disgusting to us all, but would such words being uttered warrant a ten-year term of imprisonment, which this Bill would allow for?

Without continuing to repeat myself, I do not believe the Minister has set out in any clear terms that members of the public would understand the rationale for having such a gaping piece of legislation before us. The Minister has indicated nothing that would ease my concerns in respect of this section. I will continue to oppose it.