Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Tá Sinn Féin i gcoinne an Bhille seo mar atá sé comhdhéanta faoi láthair. Is drochreachtaíocht í. Ní féidir linn glacadh leis an alt a bhaineann le gríosú.

Sinn Féin is opposed to the Bill as it is currently constituted because some of its provisions are authoritarian, uncalled for and open to abuse, particularly regarding the section that would expand the definition of public provocation to commit terrorist offences. I am surprised the Minister has brought forward this legislation. It is legislation that essentially parrots the language of the DUP and others with regard to the so-called glorification of terrorism. It is exactly the type of language that has been used, in the North in particular, to attempt to curtail the rights of families to remember loved ones killed in the conflict in the Six Counties. It has equally been used in arguments against commemorating the 1916 Rising or wearing an Easter lily. The question has to be asked as to why we would want to include such a provision in the law of this State, given that we know that such a provision could be misused and abused, as they have been in the past. Why would we want to bring in something like what those in the DUP use to prevent the commemoration of those who fought for Irish freedom?

I note the heavy weight the word “intention” carried in the Minister’s remarks. I invite the Minister to go back to the so-called hate speech legislation and the difficulties that his ministerial colleague encountered precisely because of the issues with the interpretation of the word “intention”. While robust legislation to tackle the real threat of violence and extremism is of course necessary, we need to be very vigilant about the misuse of terrorism-related provisions to target legitimate political protest, activism and freedom of expression.

The expansion of the definition of the provisions relating to the provocation of terrorism is deeply problematic. I have termed the provocation of terrorist section "the Kneecap clause” because there is a real fear that this inclusion could lead to charges against political activism and legitimate freedom of expression, similar to the manner in which Mo Chara from Kneecap is currently facing terrorism charges in the UK. Sinn Féin will oppose any such attack on free speech. The provisions are too broad and they are open to abuse. Public provocation charges can be brought where no terrorist offence has been committed. The Minister has acknowledged that, yet the people charged could face ten years in prison. The provisions are so broad that a person could be guilty of a terrorist offence of provocation if they distribute or publish "a message ... that could be reasonably construed as inciting" terrorism, or that "glorifies ... terrorist activity". The definition of glorification includes “praise” and “celebration”. To be quite clear, had such laws existed in the 1980s, it is very possible that putting up in public a poster of Bobby Sands or Nelson Mandela would have been construed as glorifying terrorism.

The debate on this Bill takes place against the background of an increase in the use of this type of legislation against legitimate political protests in Europe, Britain and America, particularly in respect of Palestine. In the past week, in addition to the charges brought against a member of Kneecap, moves have been made in Britain to ban Palestine Action under terrorism legislation, following lobbying by pro-Israel organisations, despite the fact that no one believes this activist group is involved in actual terrorism. Last year, a woman was convicted and fined in Germany for chanting the slogan, "From the river to the sea". We have to recognise the times we are in, when terrorist legislation is being used elsewhere to crack down on legitimate political activism and free speech. In Ireland, the Taoiseach has signed this State up to the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism, which conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It is a time when the European Union is moving further and further away from the Irish people on matters of foreign affairs and defence. While Europe is moving away from the Irish people, the Irish Government seems to be following Europe rather than the people they serve.

There have long been debates about the definition of terrorism. This comes to the crux of it. The label of "terrorist" has been used to demonise different groups and activities at different times, including those involved in national liberation and the resistance of oppression and occupation. It is worth reminding ourselves of the words of the late Mr. Justice Brian Walsh of the Supreme Court in the extradition case of Finucane v. McMahon. In its 1990 judgment, Mr. Justice Walsh dealt with the issue of the definition of terrorism, stating:

The expression "terrorism" is frequently used as a blanket term for many violent acts ranging from pure terrorism to nationalist uprisings to achieve independence. For purely propaganda purposes it is frequently used to characterise activities disapproved of by the propagandists. Only a looseness of thought can equate it with violence as opposed to peaceful persuasion. "Terrorism has no agreed definition and its use is often a way of conveying disapproval rather than being descriptive"

The problem is that overly broad and ill-defined definitions of terrorism can be used against legitimate freedom of expression and political protests.

This Bill transposes the provision of the 2017 EU directive on combating terrorism. I was a Member of the European Parliament when that directive was being passed, and I voted against it precisely because of the overly broad language and the potential threat to democracy and freedom of expression. I shared the concerns of many that the directive could lead to a criminalisation of public protests and other peaceful acts, the suppression of freedom of political expression and other unjustified limitations on human rights. I pointed out that this sort of anti-terrorism legislation undercuts civil liberties, free speech and the rule of law, with little or no effect on actual terrorist activity. Protocol 21, as the Minister knows, provides Ireland with the right to opt-out and the right to opt-in to legislation adopted to govern areas of freedom, security and justice. This protocol remains crucially important in protecting Irish sovereignty and our ability to decide for ourselves what we do on issues such as this. In its briefing note, the Government has indicated that when and if the Bill is enacted, it is its intention to notify the EU Commission and Council that it wishes to participate in the directive. It is clear that the Government accepts that we have the choice not to opt in to this directive.

I will briefly touch on the provisions regarding travelling for the purpose of terrorism, provisions which I think everyone supports in principle. However, these provisions ignore a central issue in terms of who is currently travelling to engage in violence. Let us be clear: there is no provision in law to deal with those who travel to partake in the genocidal activities of the IDF, for example. The principal Act, the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, explicitly excludes from the provisions of this legislation "the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict insofar as those activities are governed by international humanitarian law". While Israel has repeatedly been condemned for defying international law, those who travel to join the IDF face no threat from this legislation as it currently stands. Even if it is a very small number, Ireland cannot turn a blind eye to those who travel from this State and return having engaged in horrific war crimes in Palestine.

This brings us back to the definition of terrorism and who gets to define what terrorism is. Who decides who is a terrorist and who is fighting for national liberation? Who is a terrorist and who is resisting occupation and colonialism? When we stray into "provocation", it becomes even more unclear and more dangerous in terms of legislating for it. How is someone who fights in the army of the genocidal state not classified as a terrorist, but those who resist them are? That is a distinction that needs to be addressed.

As I have outlined, Sinn Féin is opposing this Bill as it currently stands because we cannot accept the expanded definition of the provocation of terrorism. I had hoped to hear in the Minister's opening remarks a willingness to engage on latter Stages of the Bill to find language that ensures we can be robust in ensuring the legislation tackles terrorism and extremist violence, but does not impede people's rights to hold views that perhaps the majority, if not all of us, find deplorable. That is the challenge for democratic states across the world. I would have hoped that Ireland would have been up for that task.

See this speech in context