Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)

I wanted to speak on this Bill specifically. One of reasons is that when we make new laws, change laws or look at legislation in this Chamber, it is not just about what I think this Minister, this Government or anybody in this Chamber would do. My concern always has to be what future Governments could do. That is an issue that needs to be thought about when we look at dismantling the triple lock. Even if someone at home believes this Government or this Minister would do one thing, we always need to look at what can happen in the future. As a result, I have serious concerns about this and the inclusion of what we have called "the Kneecap clause."

I take what the previous speaker mentioned. He talked about moving towards European norms. I also come from the perspective of being half German. At the moment in Germany, there is a huge clampdown on political protests and political activism for Palestine and against the genocide in Gaza. Only yesterday a person was again arrested at a pro-Palestine protest in Berlin. We talk about moving towards European norms but we need to look at what those norms could be, and what impact they could have here on political activism on the streets by people who protest peacefully and stand up for what they believe is right. We have a history on this island with regard to the impact of people who peacefully protested. We do not need to look too far back in history to see the impact of what happened on Bloody Sunday, for example. I am not suggesting this legislation is the same thing, but I am talking about the impact any kind of legislation can have on peaceful protest. That is something I am particularly concerned about. I am really concerned will look at clamping down on political activism and political protests. As I said, this is not necessarily about what I believe this Minister would do but rather what could happen in the future.

Some of my colleagues mentioned the ongoing court case with Mo Chara. I understand the Minister spoke about it at length when I was not in the Chamber, so I might skip that part. The other issue, something the previous speaker and my colleague, Deputy Ward, mentioned, is our own political history and Irish history and how people are remembered. The use of language is terribly important in that. When we look at going forward and at peace and reconciliation, it is really important that everybody can remember their dead. I am concerned as to what impact this could have. The Minister will be aware of my own family's history in that respect, and the impact I would be concerned about in that regard.

I have serious concerns about this legislation. As with all such legislation, my biggest concern is how they can be interpreted and used by future Governments. My hope is that the Minister would not use them in this type of way, and I assume he will say he would not, but we do not know what is coming down the line and its impact in the future.

I thank the Minister for the opportunity to debate the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025, which is important legislation. I want to be clear from the outset that we support the Bill's objectives broadly.

We live in a world where terrorist threats evolve quickly. We have a responsibility to ensure our laws evolve with them. I accept that measures to address cross-border terrorist activity - training and facilitating travel for terrorist ends - are both necessary and prudent. However, I will not accept the absolute silence from the Government at the growing threat closer to home. The rise of far-right extremism, the mobilisation of hate online and the violence that has spilled onto our streets are not abstract ideas. They are not hypotheticals. They have already happened. We have lived through it and witnessed it with our own eyes. We saw in the riots that shook the city shops looted, buses burned, gardaí and ordinary people injured and a neighbourhood terrorised. Why? It was because a tragedy became a rallying point for far-right agitation, for those spreading fear, hate and outright lies, who went on to inflict terror on the streets of Dublin. Those platforms became recruiting grounds for hate, racism, conspiracy and a mob that felt emboldened to take to the streets. They were emboldened by actors who were predominantly online telling people that there were threats and to go and burn down buildings. They faced no consequences for that.

What lessons have been learned? What concrete measures have been brought forward? There have been very few. The Government promised urgency and we received platitudes. We watched as the hate crime legislation was stripped of its core provisions on online incitement. We have watched as the Government has failed to stand up to big tech and hold platforms to account for the content that festers and spreads on its watch. We have watched as disinformation has been allowed to circulate unchallenged, unfettered, poisoning public discourse, endangering communities and putting gardaí and ordinary people in harm's way.

The Bill before us acknowledges the threats posed by cross-border terror and online training for terror. That is good and welcome. However, I would also like to see - we will table an amendment on this at a future point - the same urgency when it comes to terror that plays out on our streets that is mobilised by online agitators. That requires the same urgency. Of course, someone who downloads a training manual for an online terrorist group should be considered a threat in the deepest sense of the word and it needs to be acted on. However, so too should a person who purposely shares rumours online with the intent of sparking riots on the streets of Dublin or elsewhere in the country. That is also a threat we cannot ignore.

There is merit in supporting some aspects of the Bill. I understand it incorporates threats posed by terrorist actors across and outside our borders, but I ask the Government not to ignore the threats posed by the actors spreading terror and fear in communities the length and breadth of Ireland. That requires legislation, resources and urgency, but also a simple acknowledgement that it is happening. We have seen how quickly online platforms can mobilise hate. We have seen how big tech platforms have become weapons for those who want to sow terror and discord in our communities, yet this Government refused to stand up to them when it abandoned key elements of the hate crime legislation. We have watched as Ministers talk tough in soundbites and then walk away when it comes to standing up to Silicon Valley. If we are serious about making this country safer, we have to acknowledge that security is not just about borders and international threats, although they are no less important. It is about every area where fear is stoked by racism and lies. It is about every parent who worries about the online spaces their children inhabit. It is about all people who are terrorised in their communities because the Government has failed to prioritise tackling far-right and online ecosystems that have gone on to fester scenarios where library staff are being harassed because of books kept on the shelves.

We must also acknowledge that the threat we face is a threat to the very values on which the State is built. The idea that all people regardless of their background, beliefs and circumstances can live in safety and dignity is at the heart of our democracy and it is very much under threat. The rise of online hate and far-right ideology threatens to rip those values apart. What we saw on our streets last year and continue to witness on our streets every day is an attempt to undermine the fabric of our society, our norms, our compassion, our decency and our tolerance of people who choose to live in a way that is different from how I might choose to live my life. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to confront it with the same urgency that we apply to threats from outside our borders. We owe it to victims, to every person who has felt afraid to walk down the street because a mob felt entitled to claim it. We owe it to all people targeted online because of their race, gender, religion or identity. We owe it to young people scrolling through their phones tonight exposed to toxic algorithms that prioritise hate and disinformation over safety and belonging. If we can mobilise resources and attention, as we should, for terrorist threats outside our borders, we should not shy away from mobilising the same urgency for threats within.

Our laws must evolve but so too must our priorities. We can no longer treat the online spaces that host radicalisation and hate as neutral platforms. I am conscious that this weekend we are celebrating Pride. Pride this year will be different from how Pride has been for the past ten or 15 years. Genuine terror is being experienced by people in the LGBTQI community because of the extent to which they are now being targeted online, which results in them being targeted on the streets. We have seen instances of that on the streets of Dublin and all over the country in the past year.

This brings me to a provision in the Bill that gives me serious concern, the amendment dealing with public provocation to commit terrorist offences. I listened to many of the speakers today on this same matter and there will be some overlap with my contribution. People who have contacted me and their friends, colleagues and family members understand why a measure like this needs to be confronted and tackled. They understand that, as a nation born out of conflict against an oppressor, we should not seek to mirror the oppressor’s laws. I refer specifically to the new wording to be introduced in section 4A, which allows for a person to be found guilty if:

with the intention of inciting....terrorist activity...[he or she] publishes, or causes to be....published...a message

(ii) that "glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity

and

(b) such...publication gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result.

Of course, we must have strong laws to stop the glorification of and incitement to terrorist acts, but we should be absolutely clear that the right to protest, speak out and hold the Government to account is absolutely vital in our democracy. We must be vigilant that provisions such as this do not, intentionally or otherwise, give too much room for a government to characterise legitimate protest, commentary or debate as incitement. The right to speak, dissent and protest is a cornerstone of democracy. We should make sure that in tackling terrorist threats, we do not also create tools that could be used to silence those very democratic voices and norms. The reason we are saying this is that we are watching what is happening in the UK, where it is very clear what is happening to the band Kneecap. They took to the stage and called out genocide and because they did that, they have been brought to court and charged with terrorism offences. While I understand that is not the exact reason outlined in the court case, we also understand the motivation behind it. I understand there is a court case going on, but we are speaking in the Parliament about Irish nationals who are going to be tried for terrorist offences for calling out genocide. It is incumbent on all of us to speak about how wrong that is.

The language in this provision includes such words as "glorifies", "praise" and "celebration" which are too open to interpretation. They are too subjective and reliant on a person's or authority's reading of intent. Will a song sung at a concert or match be subject to scrutiny? Will an academic article or a piece of historical commentary be treated as glorification? Will satire or art be punished because someone somewhere finds it offensive or deems it reasonable to construe it as incitement? Those questions matter because when the line between legitimate expression and incitement is blurred, it is too easy for that line to be abused.

It is important to say at this point that when I was writing that paragraph, I did not have the Minister in mind. I do not believe for a second that a Minister for justice such as him would use those laws to go after the people we are concerned about in our pages, but there will be governments after this one and after that as well. When legislation is enacted, it is not just for the current Minister but for those in the decades to come. That is why we should be fearful when we enact provisions such as these. Incitement to terrorist activity is already outlawed. Those provisions exist and this Bill strengthens them appropriately, but extending this to ambiguous or contested notions of glorification threatens to cross a line that is vital for a free and democratic society. We cannot combat terror without preserving democratic freedoms. We must do both.

I ask the Minister and the Government to revisit this provision to make sure the language is clear, precise and objective, to ensure that in trying to protect society from terror, we do not endanger the right of all people to speak, protest, express themselves and be heard. There is much in this Bill that is forward thinking when it comes to counter-terrorism law and I welcome aspects of it. If we continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that combating online radicalisation and far-right mobilisation is not as urgent as combating the more traditional forms of terror, then we are failing ourselves, communities and the people who are being impacted by them as we speak. The Government has a duty to listen, act and protect, not only when it suits its agenda or involves transnational threats or when it is making statements about its role in Europe. It has a duty to act on the threat that is here at home.

I ask the Minister to match the purpose of this Bill with an equal ambition to stamp out the terror that is festering online and in communities. I ask him to put forward legislation that will finally regulate big tech platforms, revisit the hate crime provisions that were abandoned and give An Garda Síochána the tools and training to respond effectively to the threat from far-right extremists and online radicals.

The threats we face are evolving every day. The measures we adapt must evolve as well so let us have the courage to react, lead and protect every person in this State regardless of where the threat may come from.

It would be a loss if I did not also use this opportunity to say that as we speak, there are people in Gaza and Palestine who are also experiencing terror in its most horrific form. There are weapons being used in that terror, and people being mobilised to inflict that terror, who are landing in our airports, including Shannon Airport, and going off to inflict terror on children. Palestinian children also have the right to protection. Do we avert our gaze, as the Tánaiste did today, and say there is nobody involved in genocide passing through Shannon Airport? How do we know? We are certainly not doing any inspections or looking to see what is in the planes. We are not looking to see who is on them and we are certainly not taking any interest as a State in what they are doing when they leave Shannon Airport or our airspace, and go off to carry out devastation upon the population of Gaza and the West Bank.

Oftentimes in this Chamber, when we are operating under the shadows of a genocide, there is a hypocrisy in much of what we are bringing forward. If we do not apply the same standards to other people who are suffering, it is in contravention of our own history as an oppressed people. We should not mirror the laws of our oppressors. We also should not avert our gaze when other people are feeling the hard thumb of imperialism, and the bombs, violence and starvation that goes with it.

See this speech in context