Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to bring the Bill before the House. It marks a significant step forward in ensuring that Ireland’s counterterrorism framework is robust and fit for purpose in the face of modern terrorist threats. The Bill will amend the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, a cornerstone of lreland’s counterterrorism laws, to allow for a broader category of prosecutable offences in respect of terrorist activity. These include terrorist acts with a cross-border element and cyberattacks where the aim is to cause widespread harm.

The Bill is part of Ireland’s commitment to bring our terrorism laws into line with those of other EU member states, through our participation in the EU directive on combating terrorism, which this legislation provides for. Its passing will also pave the way for Ireland's participation in enhanced EU counterterrorism networks, enabling a co-ordinated and dynamic response to domestic and cross-border terrorist threats. Enactment of this Bill is a commitment in the programme for Government, and supports the broader programme commitment to strengthen national security.

Ireland has comprehensive counterterrorism laws, found in the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act and the Offences Against the States Acts, which we debated yesterday. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, in particular, represents a response by Ireland to the shared threat terrorism poses across the EU and beyond. Successive EU counterterrorism agreements have been given effect to in Ireland via this Act. This has resulted in harmonised definitions of terrorist offences with our EU counterparts, as well as minimum rules when it comes to sentencing terrorist offences. This provides a benchmark for co-operation and information exchange between national authorities and prevents the existence of legal loopholes that may be exploited by terrorists.

Notwithstanding this, the nature of terrorism continues to evolve. In 2017, in response to the growing threat posed by people travelling abroad for the purpose of terrorism, the heightened security threat they pose when returning home and the increasing threats from citizens inspired or instructed by terrorist groups abroad, the EU updated its counterterrorism framework with the directive on combating terrorism. This followed concern expressed by the UN Security Council over these threats, and instruction to UN member states to ensure domestic laws were sufficient to prosecute and penalise such activities.

The EU’s directive on combatting terrorism reaffirmed many of the Union’s established counterterrorism measures and terrorist offences. With Ireland having fully incorporated such measures into our national laws and practices, it meant Irish law was aligned with many of the requirements of the directive. However, new offences were also introduced to tackle the international and cross-border dimension to the terrorist threat previously discussed. It remains incumbent on Ireland to transpose these offences into our national law.

Travel for the purpose of terrorism is a new offence that the Bill incorporates. This recognises the need to stem the flow of terrorist fighters in and out of the country. Travelling to Ireland and travelling from Ireland for the purposes of committing, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of terrorism is criminalised. The act of organising or facilitating travel for the purposes of terrorism will also be an offence, with the same elements as the travel offence, save for the prohibited act being that of making arrangements to enable any person to travel to or from the State for the purposes of terrorism.

The Bill criminalises receiving training for the purpose of terrorism. This will complement the offence of providing training for terrorism, which is on our Statute Book. It addresses threats resulting from actively preparing for the commission of terrorist offences and can be committed by those ultimately acting alone and training through self-study. It can involve receiving training in the making of explosives, chemical or biological weapons and other relevant technical expertise.

Like with the offence of providing training for terrorism, there will be a ministerial regulation-making power in prohibiting other weapons and techniques that could be part of such training. This means that should new technologies, materials or practices be developed in the future that could be used to carry out terrorist acts, there is scope to preclude training in their use. Knowledge that the training is for the purposes of committing, aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of terrorism is required to be convicted of this crime. This means collecting materials for legitimate purposes, such as academic research, would not be considered to be receiving training for terrorism.

Under our counterterrorism laws, it is an offence to distribute public messages aimed at provoking the commission of terrorist offences. Publicly sharing messages with invitations to join terrorist groups, calls to action or denigrating the victims of terrorism is prohibited where such behaviour is intended to, and causes a danger that, terrorist acts may be committed.

In recent years, sophisticated digital messaging tools, including high-quality video, assisted by a network of social media accounts, has allowed for the rapid dissemination of terrorist messaging. This has included videos celebrating or praising horrendous terrorist acts like assassinations and terrorist bombings. This Bill re-articulates the offence of public provocation to commit terrorism to clarify that such provocation can be done by distributing messages that glorify terrorism.

Conviction for the offences I have just spoken about can lead to a maximum prison sentence of ten years. The Bill also provides that when existing offences of recruitment and training for terrorism are directed towards a child, the courts can treat this circumstance as an aggravating factor when sentencing offenders. This recognises the particularly egregious nature of luring minors into the word of terrorism.

It is acknowledged that the activities these offences prohibit involve commonplace acts such as travel and study, or indeed the sharing of content on public platforms which is now a widespread and daily occurrence in our lives. These are acts that in a free and modern society we should be at liberty to participate in, engage in and enjoy unconstrained when carried out without nefarious aims. That is why the notion of terrorist intention will always be an essential element required to convict someone of the offences in this Bill, with the intentional nature of an act inferred from objective and factual circumstances. For example, it will be necessary to show the intention was to provoke the commission of terrorist acts when publicly sharing messages glorifying terrorism. Furthermore, there must also be a reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could in fact result.

The Bill will also categorise cyber offences already on our Statute Book as terrorist offences and, therefore, allow for extra years to be added to terms of imprisonment for those convicted when the offence is intended to cause widespread harm. These are the offences of interfering with or damaging data or IT systems and where the result could be serious damage to State or international organisations, major economic loss or creating a collective danger to the lives of citizens. We have seen in recent years the destruction and devastation caused by cyber attacks on our national infrastructure. These are grave affronts to our society and it is appropriate that they be treated as terrorist offences. Potential offenders should know that they will meet the full force of the law should they proceed to carry out such attacks.

I have spoken previously about how this Bill will pave the way for lreland’s participation in enhanced counterterrorism networks. Once enacted and when Ireland is fully participating in the EU’s directive on combating terrorism, we will be a position to adopt subsequent EU counterterrorism measures. This includes partaking in a programme of modernisation occurring at Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, which co-ordinates investigations and information exchange on cross-border crime across Europe. Its modernisation programme includes strengthening its counterterrorism register and case management system. What this means is that cross-border links between terrorism investigations and prosecutions will be more easily and readily identified, and information more swiftly shared among member states via secure digital communication channels. This will ultimately lead to more terrorist acts being prevented and more terrorists being brought to justice.

The Bill contains nine sections and one Schedule. Section 1 simply clarifies that references to the principal Act relate to the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which is being amended here. Section 2 amends section 4 of the principal Act by replacing references to the 2002 EU Council framework decision on combating terrorism with that of the 2017 EU directive, which is the new EU governing instrument underlying our international counterterrorism laws. This section also signposts new definitions for offences found in latter sections of the Bill. This includes definitions for the three new offences of receiving training for terrorism, travelling for the purpose of terrorism and organising or otherwise facilitating travel for the purpose of terrorism. It also signposts the existing offence of providing training for terrorism which is redefined in this Bill.

Section 3 provides a revised definition of the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. The revised definition sets out that glorification of a terrorist activity, including by praise or celebration, may be considered publicly provoking the commission of a terrorist offence, provided that other critical elements of the offence have been satisfied.

Thus, it must be shown that he or she possessed the requisite intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity when he or she distributed, published, or caused to be distributed or published, a message that glorified, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity. It is also a requirement of the offence that such distribution or publication must have given rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result. These additional elements serve to act as safeguards in ensuring that it is only those who set about to deliberately incite terrorist activity who are captured by this offence.

I am aware some concern was expressed that the enactment of this provision could result in a prosecution similar to that taking place in England at present in respect of the band Kneecap. This is something that will not happen here and I will explain why this is so. If we look at the new provision to be introduced in section 3, the offence is committed when a person, with the intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity, distributes or publishes, or causes to be distributed or published, by any means, to the public, a message inciting terrorist activity or that glorifies terrorist activity, and such distribution gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of the activity could thereby result. In order for somebody to be convicted of an offence under this section, they have to be engaged in the activity for the purpose and intention of inciting people to commit a terrorist offence. This is not something that could happen in respect of the circumstances regarding Kneecap. The difference between what happens in Ireland and what happens in England and Wales is that Kneecap are being prosecuted under section 13 of the Terrorism 2000 Act of England and Wales. I will quote what this provides. It is an extraordinarily broad offence and it is not something that would be enacted in Ireland. The offence in England and Wales is as follows:

A person in a public place commits an offence if he— [...]

(b) wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Under the legislation in England and Wales there is absolutely no requirement for someone's behaviour to come with the intention of seeking to cause the committal of a terrorist offence. All it simply requires is that in a public place someone wears or displays an article that would arouse suspicion that the person is a supporter of a prescribed organisation.

As Members will be aware, and I do not want to comment too much about an ongoing prosecution in England, the band Kneecap is being prosecuted on the basis they displayed a flag attached to Hezbollah. If that concert had happened in Ireland with the flag of Hezbollah, the band could not be prosecuted under section 4A of the new terrorist offences Act, unless they accompanied it with a clear intention to get people to commit a terrorist offence, which is something completely different.

The legislation in England and Wales is completely broad and simply requires someone to wear or display something that arouses a suspicion that they are a supporter of a prescribed organisation. When we are discussing it, people need to take into account the marked difference between the two statutory provisions, namely, what we are proposing in Ireland and what exists at present under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in England and Wales.

Section 4 of this Bill sets out a new definition for the existing offence of providing training for terrorism and inserts a definition for the new offence of receiving training for terrorism. It also includes a standard provision allowing for the making of ministerial regulations. The power to make regulations is required in order that the Minister may, if deemed necessary, add to the list of prohibited weapons, techniques or methods covered by the offences of providing training and receiving training for terrorism.

Section 5 sets out the new offence of travel for the purpose of terrorism. This criminalises travel to and from the State for the purposes of committing a terrorist offence, aiding and abetting another person to commit a terrorist offence, or providing training or receiving training for terrorism. The same section also makes it an offence to knowingly organise or facilitate travel for the purpose of terrorism.

Section 6 provides that the penalty on conviction for any of the new offences introduced by the Bill is a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or both. This section also provides that, when sentencing on conviction for the offences of recruitment to terrorism or providing training for terrorism, a court may consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the offence was committed against a child.

Section 7 replaces the text of the 2002 EU Council framework decision on combating terrorism in Schedule 1 of the principal Act with that of the 2017 EU directive. It also deletes Schedule 1A, containing the text of EU Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA, which is no longer in force.

Section 8 amends Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act. This lists certain offences already on our Statute Book that can be considered terrorist offences in certain contexts and so form part of the definition of "terrorist activity" in the principal Act. The section provides for the insertion of a new paragraph 6A to this Part, inserting into this list offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Act 2017. The effect of this is that the offences of interference with an information system, or data without lawful authority, would constitute terrorist activity if intended to seriously intimidate a population, unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation.

Section 9 is a standard provision providing for the Short Title of the Bill once enacted, the collective citation for the Bill and related Acts, and the commencement date.

I am pleased the Bill is appropriate and necessary. When we look at our terrorist legislation at present, there are certain areas where there are gaps, and the purpose of the Bill is to ensure these gaps are filled. As I emphasised earlier, it is also important to recall that in order for a person to be found guilty of committing an offence under this new legislation, it is essential that the person must have the intention to incite others to commit terrorist activity or to be involved themselves in terrorist activity. This is not legislation that can or could be used for the purpose of trying to stymie artistic displays or individuals who may, shortsightedly, wish to glorify terrorist activity in the past. Bizarrely, people who want to do this can do so but they will only find themselves criminalised in circumstances where they are doing this glorification for the purposes of inciting others to commit a serious criminal offence.

It is important to point out that the Bill includes the same definition of "terrorist activity" as is included in the 2005 Act. The definition recognises that terrorist activity is a reference to what we know as serious scheduled offences. We know that in the definition under the 2005 Act "terrorist activity" means an act that is committed in or outside the State and that if committed in the State would constitute an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2. We are speaking about activity that is already criminal activity. People need not be fearful that, in some respect, this legislation will engage with people who, as I have said, do not have the intention of seeking to promote or incite the commission of a terrorist act.

New terrorist acts are being created in the Bill, such as training of terrorism or teaching of terrorism, but they are appropriate when we look at the climate that exists at present in terms of where the threat from terrorism lies. People may wish to cast a sceptical eye on terrorist offences legislation enacted in the House but we cannot get away from the fact that terrorist activity continues to exist. Certain people believe it is acceptable for them to use violence against citizens and against the State for the purpose of trying to achieve their political purposes. We in this country know that the only way to really achieve political purposes in a democratic society is through debate, discussion and, ultimately, democracy. I commend the Bill to the House and I will listen attentively to what colleagues have to say.

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

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.

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

There is a need for robust legislation to tackle terrorism and terrorist activity. I know everybody can agree on this. This is needed, particularly given the current global climate. However, the vagueness in this Bill is more likely to lead to abuse by the Government to stamp out political protest, political activism and free speech.

I listened to the Minister’s speech. Intention and the glorification of terrorism are open to interpretation. We cannot have a vague Bill. I will outline why. The Minister is a Dub like myself. Like most Dubs, I was raised on songs and stories of heroes of renown, the passing tales of glories, that once was Dublin town. I could sing that song to the Minister, but that would be an offence. There is a clause in this Bill that could criminalise those of us who wish to commemorate these past heroes of renown. Will the Minister be commemorating the members of the good old IRA, like de Valera, Lemass and Collins? Were they not considered terrorists of their time by the British establishment and Government?

The language of glorifying terrorism contained in this Bill is open to interpretation. As was previously said, this is the language of the DUP, which has sought to criminalise anyone who attends commemorations of loved ones killed in the conflict in the North. I make no apology whatsoever when I attend – and I will continue to attend – commemorations of our patriot dead.

In recent weeks, we have seen Mo Chara from the rap group Kneecap being charged with terrorism offences for waiving a flag while performing on stage. There is no greater oxymoron than British justice. Kneecap has been a thorn in the side of the British Government because it represents everything the British establishment hates. They are proud Irishmen who speak and promote our native language, Irishmen who never bow to British imperialism. The clause the Minister is putting into this legislation is basically a version of British legislation. In the words of Kneecap, get your Brits out of our legislation. If Mo Chara is convicted of a terrorism offence in Britain, could I be seen in this State to be glorifying terrorists by wearing a Kneecap t-shirt like I am at this moment?

We are also on a slippery slope, given other international experiences regarding legislation of this type. Israel, for example, labels nearly every human rights organisation that works on the ground in Palestine as a terrorist organisation. Al-Haq is one such group. It is an independent Palestinian non-governmental human rights organisation based in Ramallah. It protects and promotes human rights and the rule of law in occupied Palestinian territory. I met Al-Haq in Ramallah in 2022. I visited its headquarters in Ramallah as it presented a human rights account of the murder of American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh. Israel has deemed it a terrorist organisation. If I met Al-Haq after this legislation passed, would that make me a terrorist or someone glorifying terrorism? We should not be putting anything into this legislation that will lead to abuse or misuse. Another recent example is the lambasting of the Irish women’s soccer team for singing Celtic Symphony. Under this legislation, not only could they be seen as glorifying terrorism, but so too could the person who put the graffiti on the wall in the first place.

In this legislation, public provocation charges can be brought where no actual terrorist offence has been committed, with those charged facing up to ten years imprisonment. These provisions are clearly being used to target freedom of speech, freedom of expression and political activism as opposed to actual terrorism. We cannot stand over that.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have stood in this Chamber many times before and dealt with a huge amount of legislation, many of which was from Europe. We all want to see a framework of fit-for-purpose legislation, whether that is dealing with cyber issues, legal loopholes or issues regarding international finances. We have always supported those pieces of legislation that make sure we deal with the issues that exist, particularly when it comes to organised crime or issues that fall solidly into the bracket of terrorism or international terrorism. However, I add my voice to the same arguments my colleagues made earlier in the sense that it is hard to talk about terrorist legislation and those travelling for the purposes of training or carrying out terrorist offences when we do not put those travelling members of the Israel Defence Forces into that bracket. We all accept a genocide is ongoing. There is no greater terrorist on God’s green Earth than Israel at this point in time. The Palestinians are suffering the brunt of this. We need to do whatever we can. We know the legislative pieces in front of us, such as the occupied territories Bill or the issue of Israeli war bonds that should not be facilitated by the Central Bank. We need to ensure we maintain pressure on the European Union for its failure around the EU-Israel association agreement and the human rights conditions which have not been followed through on.

The fact is that we are dealing with a piece of legislation. I accept what the Minister said. While I wish we were always dealing with people as fair minded as the Minister with his intention with this Bill, as Deputy Ward said, it is open to interpretation. There is this other piece, which states:

... inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity, distributes or publishes, or causes to be distributed or published, by any means (including via the internet) to the public or a section of the public a message—

... (i) inciting, or that could reasonably be construed as inciting, persons to commit a terrorist activity, or

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

That is incredibly frightening. This section, which Deputy Carthy described as the “Kneecap clause”, is far too open to interpretation, abuse and misuse.

Many Members will mention Liam Óg hAnnaidh, or Mo Chara, of Kneecap and the disgraceful way the British terrorism Act is being used to attack him. What is he being attacked for? He is being attacked because he is calling out a genocide. British law has been created in such a way that allows that attack to happen. We need to ensure there is no chance that the legislation the Minister is looking to enact could be used in that sort of way. It would be utterly unacceptable to the Irish people. I add my words to what Deputy Carthy said. I hope there is a willingness to engage to find wording that removes this worry. I agree the words “glorification of terrorism” are straight out of what has been the DUP playbook over many years.

When we talk about terrorism, we need to accept that the biggest terrorist currently in operation is the Israeli state. Once upon a time, Tom Barry and Dan Breen were seen as terrorists. We do not want a circumstance where people remembering them, Patrick Pearse, Seán Lemass or Éamon de Valera are considered to be glorifying terrorism. We may have different views into others who engaged in national liberation struggle in this State, country and beyond. Many of us have difficulty with this idea of glorification of terrorism and its impact on us remembering those of 1916, 1921 and the Civil War. Many things happened in Irish history that we would all have hoped did not occur. This also goes for the period of 1981 when Kieran Doherty was elected to this House alongside Paddy Agnew in my constituency. It is absolutely fine for families to remember those sacrifices and the sacrifices of the likes of Francis Hughes, Bobby Sands and many others. We need to look at the language and the particular wording in some of this legislation in order to ensure we are not lining up legislation that could be used by others to create a terrible situation, similar to what the British state is doing to Mo Chara. All Kneecap has done is support the Irish language and support the sound, righteous idea of a united Ireland and removing the British Government from Ireland.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need to be very careful with this Bill. The Minister needs to get this right because there are legitimate concerns about it. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the EU directive 2017/541 on combating terrorism, which is to a large extent directed at the foreign terrorist fighter phenomenon. The Bill includes offences of travelling to commit a terrorist offence, facilitating travel to commit a terrorist offence and receiving training for terrorism. Essentially, the 2017 directive is an updated version of already existing EU counter-terrorism measures. Its main purpose was to establish new offences to address the issue of foreign terrorist fighters.

I would like to concentrate a little on the timeline of how we got here. In September 2014, UN Security Council Resolution 2178 was adopted. It called on all members to address the issue of foreign terrorist fighters. The general scheme was then published on 8 September 2020. Over a year later, in December 2021, the Oireachtas committee joint agreed with the then Minister for Justice that it was not necessary to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the Bill. Considering the conversation we are having today, this is very strange. As the Bill has been promised since 2020, no one can argue that this has been treated as a priority. If we go back even further, Ireland signed the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism in October 2008. We have yet to ratify the convention. The phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters had already been identified as an issue in the 2008 Council of Europe convention. The convention requires member states to create offences relating to public provocation to commit terrorist offences and recruitment and training for terrorism. We had done that much in the Act of 2005. The related protocol 215 to the convention supplements it and seeks to criminalise certain additional acts. The Bill finally published this year and being debated now will give effect to the requirements of the protocol Ireland signed ten years ago, as well as some outstanding earlier legislative commitments that will enable us to ratify a convention we signed 17 years ago.

More than six years ago, on 5 March 2019, the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, reported to the House that he and other heads of government at the EU-League of Arab States summit had committed to working together more closely to address the root causes of terrorism and to continue joint efforts to combat foreign terrorist fighters. This was more than six years ago. In the same month six years ago, the then Minister for justice, Charlie Flanagan, said that the shared challenges facing all member states arising from the phenomenon of suspected foreign terrorist fighters had been a consistent focus of discussion with EU colleagues at meetings of justice and interior ministers.

Meanwhile, in the real world, while all of this theorising, debating, stalling and discussing was going on, a former Irish soldier travelled to Syria, during the civil war there, to join ISIS. We all now know that Lisa Smith was prosecuted and convicted of the offence of membership of an unlawful terrorist group and sentenced to 15 months in prison. If the gaps in the criminal law that the Bill is trying to fill might be of some practical assistance in cases like that of Lisa Smith, why the extraordinary delay in getting around to passing it? It is a simple question. If the Bill's provisions are not that important and we can have successful trials and prosecutions without it, we should not oversell it. The Minister should give an honest assessment of it, one way or the other.

The Bill proposes to transpose into domestic law the 2017 EU directive by amending aspects of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 and to introduce the following offences: receiving training for terrorism, travelling for the purposes of terrorism and facilitating travel for the purposes of terrorism. Ireland has an opt-out in EU justice matters. We signalled an intention to opt in to this measure soon after it was adopted. According to the regulatory impact assessment for this Bill, transposition will allow Ireland to also opt in to EU regulation 2023/2131, which aims to modernise the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, Eurojust, and to update this system for digital information exchange in terrorism cases. It is reasonable to ask, now that we have all had time to reflect after Brexit, whether we intend opting in to become the default option in justice and home affairs into the future.

The implementation of this Bill will be monitored by the new Office of the Independent Examiner of Security Legislation, which was set up under the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. In this case, as the Minister is aware, the independent examiner is Mr. Justice George Birmingham, a retired president of the Court of Appeal. Once the Bill has been passed, he will be required to produce a review of its operational effectiveness at least once every three years.

There is serious concern about some of the wording in this Bill. I think this concern is genuine. The definitions are critical. Freedom of expression and how far this Bill could potentially go is worrying for some people. These are genuine worries. We all know what is going on with Mo Chara and Kneecap; it has been referenced before. The phrase "glorification of terrorism" and how it is understood and defined, reaches into other areas of the Bill, can impact on the execution of the Bill and, in practice, can be used in everyday life is a concern for me. I genuinely want to support the theme of this legislation. That is the Labour Party's position but we have to get this right. The Minister really needs to get this right. I believe we will have to bring in a certain number of amendments. I hope the Minister will discuss them with us and take our views on board.

Considering the Bill we are discussing, I want to raise some issues relating to the case of Evan Fitzgerald, the manner in which he was arrested and charged and his suicide. I want to say this to the Minister in a very honest way. I have probably never said this before, but it is one of the most disturbing things I have ever had to deal with in my life, not just in my career. From everything I know now, it is harrowing. It is so disturbing and I am deeply upset about it. I have had sleepless nights over this issue.

Grace Boland (Dublin Fingal West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is this relevant, Deputy?

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it is.

Grace Boland (Dublin Fingal West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please make sure you keep it relevant to the legislation.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please be assured that I have been here a long time and I have seen what is brought up in relation to Bills. I was made aware of this Garda operation some time ago. It was months ago, long before this young man took his own life. Members will be aware that journalist John Lee wrote about it in the Mail on Sunday. So much has happened in this case that does not add up. This creates a nervousness for me regarding this new legislation. It is clear and obvious that what he was doing was totally wrong. None of us can argue that. I hope the Minister will reflect in a deeply honest way on what I am saying. He was wrong; he was a vulnerable young man. He was also something else, though. He was a young man who loved his family. He was incredibly close to his childhood friends, and I know this to be true. Considering the legislation we are looking at, it is true to say that he had a fascination with guns. An Garda Síochána has admitted as much. However, given what we are talking about, Evan Fitzgerald was not a terrorist. He was not involved in organised crime, or any crime, for that matter. He took his own life. He could not see any way out and he felt so bad about everything that happened, particularly in relation to his two friends and their families. What these Houses need to ask is whether he needed to end up in that situation, in that dark hole.

It is ironic, given the legislation we are discussing, that the Garda today detailed in the Irish Examiner how it uses controlled deliveries. Why it feels the need to put this out there, I have no idea. I have no issue with controlled deliveries when used appropriately for reasons related to terrorism or organised crime. It is, by and large, good policing. However, they have to be used appropriately. I have serious concern when they are used on a vulnerable young man who, as a consequence of An Garda Síochána's actions, took his own life very publicly and had, I have no doubt, an impact on many other people in that shopping centre.

I understand the HK G3 military assault rifle delivered to him was stolen by the Provisional IRA from Norwegian reserves in 1984 and recovered by An Garda Síochána well over 20 years ago. I cannot understand, and never will, why the Garda did not take a different strategy, especially after meeting him, observing him, talking to him, following him and profiling him. The critical question is why there was not a knock on the door. Was it necessary to expend weeks in costly operations involving some of the most important Garda units to entrap this young man? Was it necessary to arrest him in the manner in which they did, smashing the windows of the car he was in, when they knew there was no threat? The other critical question is why An Garda Síochána needed such a big win. Why did the Garda agree to bail if he was such a big threat and warranted such a costly and high-profile Garda operation?

I want to raise some critical issues. One relates to the evidence given in court by the garda in March 2024. I have a direct request for the Minister. It is one I hope he reflects on because I believe him to be a decent man. I ask him as Minister for justice to read over the DAR, which is the report of the court sitting where Evan and his two friends were charged. There needs to be full accountability on this from the Garda Commissioner down. Maybe the Minister should sit down with the Garda Commissioner on it. Please, please, please read the DAR.

We cannot tolerate untruths being told to a District Court judge. In the Seanad on Tuesday, Senator McDowell said the same. Not alone was it a case of entrapment, but what was said in the court was not accurate. It was not true. Amazingly enough, An Garda Síochána said in the media that it was unaware of a judge having been misled. It was again answering a question it had not been asked. It said it was unaware of any court case where a judge categorically stated that a member of An Garda Síochána had misled him or her. How could the judge say that when the judge was not aware? The judge was told, and this was read into the record in the Seanad by Senator McDowell, that the arms were bought on the dark web. The judge later asked:

"When you say the dark web, do you have any idea who was selling them on the dark web?" A member of An Garda Síochána, in sworn evidence, told him, "That is an ongoing investigation. At this stage I wouldn't want to", and the judge said, "Compromise the trial", and [then the garda] said, "[This] is an ongoing investigation on the dark web."

We now know the guns and ammunition were supplied by An Garda Síochána, not on the dark web or by anyone else. Senator McDowell said:

It is a shocking thing... that untrue and misleading evidence would be given to a judge of the Irish District Court in these circumstances, leaving him in the dark that these were decommissioned weapons supplied in a controlled delivery by members of An Garda Síochána [to set up] one naive [young] man[.]

The central issue is that any deception - I use that word in the sense of a deception for the right reasons - in executing a worthy Garda operation needs to end when the independent, impartial judicial process begins. Does the Minister get that? It did not happen in this case. If John Lee in theIrish Mail on Sundayhad not raised this issue, I am not sure we would have ever known. The book of evidence was served after his articles were published and we do not know what Evan Fitzgerald knew about the entrapment before he took his own life.

There are no legitimate circumstances when the Judiciary is deliberately kept in the dark by misleading evidence concerning the substance of what precedes the exercise of the judicial function. If controlled delivery involving deception is legitimate and justified to produce evidence of guilt, once the evidence is brought into existence, the right to deceive falls away when the judicial function is invoked. The judge is entitled to expect the whole truth to be tendered in evidence, as required by the oath. In this case, informing the judge that the source of the firearms was under investigation was not true. The source was known to the Garda. The untrue evidence tendered was intended to conceal the truth from the court and the persons charged. The true source of the firearms and the fact they had been rendered useless were relevant to the bail decision, the judicial process and judicial discretion.

The Minister needs to deal with this. This is not going away. The follow-up by An Garda Síochána since Evan Fitzgerald took his own life is also worrying. The briefings from security sources that people like me and Senator McDowell - and I hope others will take an interest in this now - should not be speaking up on this issue and that such commentary was manna from heaven for organised crime groups is insulting to both Chambers. We are entitled to ask legitimate questions. I think I have said enough to show these are legitimate questions. Why did I have to tell the Minister about this? He has admitted I rang him in relation to this case. I appreciate the fact he has acknowledged that and that he took those calls, but surely under section 36(1) of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 the Garda Commissioner should have done so because the Minister did not have a clue. Maybe his Department knew; I do not know that. In fairness, the Minister, I gathered from the tone of the call, did not know. I am not saying he did not have a clue in a derogatory way. I am saying he genuinely did not have a clue, in fairness to him.

There were reports of a manifesto on a USB key left by Evan. I understand there is no manifesto. Why was that put out there? The Garda keeps saying this issue was investigated by Fiosrú, the new GSOC. Miraculously, considering the length of time numerous investigations by this organisation have taken over many years, it turned this around in three weeks. That is not what happened. There was no investigation. If there had been, surely all the gardaí involved would have been interviewed, and so would many others. Indeed, I might have been interviewed myself. The journalists might have been contacted but they were not.

The Garda Commissioner has been asked to send details to the justice committee of what was sent to Fiosrú. I look forward to seeing that. I presume it was the file on the case and possibly the newspaper articles by John Lee about the case. The Minister's Department said on 10 May that it was aware of the case but could not comment because it had been sent to Fiosrú. The Garda Commissioner has confirmed it was sent to Fiosrú on 21 May, so I do not get how that was said on 10 May. More importantly, I believe there is a real issue here for Fiosrú, a new organisation commencing its work. I said in this House that GSOC had lost all credibility because of the way it was dealing with cases. Fiosrú has an opportunity to start afresh but this is a case that needs to be looked at.

There has to be an investigation in this case. I commend the Minister because he rang me about it. He did the right thing when it came to the Shane O'Farrell case. He now needs to show courage in the Evan Fitzgerald case. I will commend and thank him if he does so.

Joe Neville (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will focus on the issue at hand and what we are here to discuss. I came here to welcome the Bill in a changing world from the Government benches. As a country, we are familiar historically with terrorist activity; we have seen it on our own shores. We have seen waves of it throughout Europe and America over the recent years and especially in the 21st century. That terrorism has taken many different forms, such as cyberterrorism, online radicalisation and online glorification of terrorism. In my lifetime alone, we have seen huge growth in this and the impact it can have. It has led to many deaths and many bombs in places where ordinary people were going about their business. In Ireland we have not seen that yet, but there is always a risk. Therefore, we have to update our laws to reflect this and keep them in line with modern norms.

There has been some opposition to this Bill, which we heard from the past few contributors. However, I do not see what is wrong with a Bill that protects young people, targets early stages of radicalisation, enables gardaí to act proactively, tackles cyberterrorism, tracks down extreme radicalisation online and strengthens national security. Those are just some of the key highlights. I will try to address those key highlights individually.

To protect young people, this Bill recognises the particular harm caused when minors are recruited. To say that does not happen is wrong. We need to try to ensure that does not happen and is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing. We need to target early stages of radicalisation. New offences such as receiving terrorist training and travelling for terrorist purposes allow authorities to intervene earlier. That is key because we need to get in before attacks occur. This Bill enables gardaí to act proactively and gives An Garda Síochána more robust tools to disrupt and prosecute terrorist activity at the planning and preparation stage. What could possibly be wrong with that? As someone who grew up in a Garda family and saw the benefits of gardaí - indeed we had the Garda Commissioner and his team at the PAC today - we know the contribution they make throughout all of our streets. To strengthen their hand is the most important thing we can do in this Chamber to protect the public.

This Bill tackles cyberterrorism. By including cyber-related offences this Bill future-proofs our legislation against digital threats such as hacking and data breaches. These are the kinds of things we have seen. We have seen data breaches throughout our country, including the HSE and elsewhere in the past number of years. We need to put in place legislation to protect the country in myriad ways. It is key that we bring that in here.

This Bill criminalises elements of publicly stating how amazing terrorism is. We have seen the impacts of that online and across social media platforms. It rightly includes the glorification of terrorist acts as a criminal offence, cracking down on extremist propaganda and online radicalisation. Who could not say that has been an issue especially in the 21st century with social media? This Bill strengthens national security and modernises counter-terrorism law, ensuring Ireland is better protected from evolving and international terrorist threats. As I asked, who could object to that?

Earlier, Deputy Carthy asked what the definition of terrorism was. He seemed unsure. He mentioned different things but, ultimately, it is very clear. If the Deputy had looked it up in the dictionary, he would have seen it is “the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population, thereby to bring about a political objective.” Terrorism has been practised by political organisations in different ways, by nationalistic and religious groups, revolutionaries and even state institutions such as armies, intelligence services and police. It is not hard to understand what terrorism is. We have lived it, to a degree, over many centuries and in different places, but we especially see it in the 21st century in many different ways.

I thank the Minister for outlining at the very start why this legislation is so different from the UK and why the Kneecap case would not be applicable under this Bill. I profoundly disagree with the case the English Government has taken against the members of Kneecap and welcome what the Minister has outlined today. That case would not be possible under this legislation, which the Minister stated very strongly. That message needs to go out today. We have enough problems with misinformation on social media and that misinformation should not come from this Chamber.

I also heard references to rebel songs. Deputy Ward referenced the words of different rebel songs from Dublin. I have sung rebel songs and have been in the company of others as they sang rebel songs. My granduncles were involved in the War of Independence. My family had difficulties dealing with the Black and Tans. That history is a republican history we all have. This will not impact that. It is not about taking people who sing songs out of pubs. To use that kind of misinformation - if that is the level of discussion we are having in the Dáil - then we have all got it wrong.

This is about making our country and streets safer. It is about keeping our children safe and ensuring we do not have situations where bombs are going off left and right in towns and that we do not have terrorists here. We cannot come in here following week, asking why we did not know. We would have the Garda Commissioner asking the Minister why he was not more proactive in taking out this sect or that group. That is what this is about. It is about being proactive, being early and getting in with European norms. I welcome any Bill that gives support to the gardaí to do their work and indeed make our country safer.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill is a very serious attack on freedom of speech and the right of people to protest. Mo Chara from Kneecap is being prosecuted in Britain for opposing the genocide and expressing solidarity with Palestine, and now the Government here is trying to pass legislation that would allow him to be prosecuted here too.

Section 3 of the Bill expands the legal definition of provocation of terrorist activity to include glorifying "(including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity". The phrase "terrorist activity" can include activities both inside and outside of the State, so Kneecap could be prosecuted here, just as they are being prosecuted in Britain. Palestine solidarity activists in this country could also be prosecuted, presumably, for expressing support for Palestine Action, a civil society campaigning organisation that is in the process of being proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Britain. I, for one, support Palestine Action.

People will remember the mass outbreak of pearl-clutching that followed the Irish soccer team chanting, "ooh ah, up the 'RA", and young people singing along to The Wolfe Tones's "Celtic Symphony" at Electric Picnic. It seems that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael potentially want to lock these people up too. Is that not glorification of terrorist activity? This is outrageous. The lowering to the floor of the legal bar for provocation of terrorist-linked activity must be resolutely opposed. The Government was forced to drop its draconian hate speech legislation; it must now be forced to drop this renewed attack on freedom of speech.

Section 3 of this Bill opens the door to people being prosecuted for expressing solidarity with direct action carried out by protestors. Criminal damage can already be classed as terrorist activity if it is committed with the intention to "unduly compel a government ... to perform or abstain from performing any act". Someone, for example, posting support on social media for anti-water charges protestors pouring cement on water meters and saying "More of this, please" could be arrested and charged with terrorist-linked activity of "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence", fined an apparently unlimited amount and sentenced to up to ten years in prison. The same would apply to someone tweeting in support of Palestine solidarity protestors throwing red paint at the Department of foreign affairs or damaging a US war plane at Shannon Airport en route to assist in genocide, and saying something like, "We need more direct action like this". Under this legislation, that would constitute glorifying "(including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity", even if nothing happens, no more red paint is thrown, or no more warplanes are actually damaged.

Section 4(3) of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which remains unchanged by this Bill, states: "In determining whether an act is a terrorist-linked activity, it shall not be necessary for an offence... to have actually been committed." Just saying online or at a public meeting that US warplanes should be sabotaged to stop them from arming the genocide in Gaza, even if that never happens, is now enough to get you locked up for terrorist-linked activity.

Section 8 of the Bill is also extremely worrying. It adds "Unlawful interference with information systems or data" to the list of terrorist offences, where it is committed with the intention to "unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act". Under the Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Act 2017, "Unlawful interference with information systems or data" is defined extremely broadly, to include "transmitting, damaging, deleting, altering or suppressing, or causing the deterioration of, data" on an information system, as well as "rendering data" on an information system "inaccessible". Redefining this not just as a crime but as a terrorist activity means that various forms of online activism, potentially including co-ordinated mass email campaigns that collapse servers or a mass reporting of social media posts, could now be defined as terrorist activity. If you express support for that or encourage people to take part in it, you can be charged with provoking terrorism.

Section 4 of this Bill also strengthens the criminalisation of training for terrorist activity or terrorist-linked activity. Alongside a long list of relevant instruction or training that includes training in firearms, explosives and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, we find training "in techniques, methods, skills or technical knowledge" that enables someone else to "commit, or aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of, a terrorist activity". Showing people in your local anti-water charges campaign how to pour cement into a water meter, training people in cyber activism, suggesting to people how they might get through the fences at Shannon Airport - all of that could now be classed as training for terrorism.

We live in an upside down world where those who try to stop genocide are prosecuted for terrorism, where people who bravely went into Shannon Airport and tried to stop US warplanes are facing prosecution. With regard to those who are guilty of the terrorism, the ones who are raining the bombs down on the people of Gaza and shooting down people of Gaza queuing for food, those who fund, arm and politically support them, we are told, "No, they are not the terrorists. You are a terrorist if you try to stop it". I know which side I am on and I know which side will be vindicated by history but this Bill is a shameful attempt to criminalise effective protest.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, too, have serious concerns about this. On first reading of the Bill, you would think it is fairly innocuous, in that we are going to punish the receipt of training for terrorism, and travelling and organising it. Then you look at it more clearly and you will see we are amending legislation from 20 years ago to make it stronger. We are doing it on the basis of a directive that we were not obliged to buy into but nevertheless we gave our word to it. We are adding in three new things, including what has already been referred to - the public provocation to commit a terrorist offence.

We are doing this on the basis of a directive that itself is extremely problematic and has been highlighted by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and by a whole European network of national human rights institutions, which made a number of recommendations. We seem to have ignored all of that, and the European Commission itself noted difficulties with proving legislative intent, and that some member states find it challenging to qualify violent extreme right-wing acts as acts of terrorism, which the Commission noted to be crucial to ensuring the directive is applied in a non-discriminatory manner. We have a directive that was brought in without complying with essential procedures at the time, a directive that is proving difficult itself, and yet we have the Commission going on and prosecuting or taking infringement proceedings against over 20 countries that have not implemented the directive that is extremely faulty.

We are going on another level altogether, a bizarre level where we do not need to implement this directive but we are bringing in legislation that is seriously problematic. I again thank the library staff for all their work on this. I do not have the time to go into the concerns raised but they are laid out in black and white, and we are absolutely ignoring them.

I look at how terrorism is defined. Of course we all need legislation that deals with and prevents terrorism, but that terrorism must be analysed within a broader remit. If we in this Dáil cannot recognise that Israel is a terrorist state, then we are in serious trouble. We have not condemned Israel for attacking Iran without provocation. Israel went in and bombed nuclear sites with all the problems that entails on the basis that the Iranians had weapons or was almost ready to have weapons so Israel took pre-emptive strikes. The Government, and the Minister for Justice, do not seem to have any problem with a terrorist state taking action against all international law. Everything has to be done on the basis of trust. While at one level I am agreeing with the Minister that this is necessary, when we actually look at it, we see how problematic it is. Then we have the tunnel vision that will only look one way at terrorism but will not look at the real terrorist acts that have taken place. We are losing count of the number of dead people on the ground from bombs, destruction, starvation and from depriving them of water. We see Palestinian children and fathers and mothers being shot. I hate the picture but it is like going to a fair where there are moving targets. The army is shooting moving targets and killing. We are standing idly by. We do not define terrorism here; we look at terrorism in very general and expansive notions that should have no place in legislation, including "Public provocation to commit terrorist offence" and "that glorifies [..] a terrorist activity". I do not think I have ever seen the word "glorifies" in legislation. Perhaps it was taken straight from the 2005 Act. If so, we should not reuse it. If not, it has no place. Glorification is something I have seen in church prayers and in religion. To glorify is way too broad.

I am taking Israel and Palestine and looking at what has happened there. We stood idly by when Amnesty International said that Israel was operating an apartheid state. I mentioned this many times. It is important to keep saying it because this and the previous Government, and the current Taoiseach, told us they were uncomfortable with the word "apartheid". We never discussed the report because the Government was uncomfortable with the word "apartheid" being used in relation to Israel. Then Israel designated six human rights organisations, two of which we fund directly, as terrorist organisations. I ask the Minister to stay with me for a minute. If we are allowing Israel to designate six human rights organisations as terrorists, does that not make a mockery of an open analysis as to what terrorism is? We allowed that to happen on our watch. The EU came back and said there was no evidence that they were operating as terrorist organisations and still that happened.

Today, the Minister is bringing to us a Bill that has not been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. That in itself is appalling because all the issues around this should have been teased out through pre-legislative scrutiny. There is no urgency to this Bill in the sense that we never had to comply with the directive. Pre-legislative scrutiny is there to tease out these issues. I am grateful and delighted to have six or seven minutes to speak on this, but this should be teased out at pre-legislative scrutiny. The committee waived this scrutiny but it should not haven. It is very important that we tease out this. We would get an opportunity to look at how terrorism arises, who the biggest culprits are and what money is going into it but we will do none of that while we go down a tunnel of looking at very vague terms like "glorifying" and "incentivising".

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The problem with this legislation is defining who are the terrorists in the world right now. The biggest terrorists in the world right now are Israel, the US and Russia. There are many other terrorist states also but they are the big three. To the best of my knowledge, the Government has only condemned one, which is Russia. We are trading and dealing with Israel. We are the second biggest trader, as has been reported. Of course, this Government completely kowtows to the US.

I ask again: does the Government condemn the bombing of Iran by the US last weekend? I would like the Minister to answer that because I did not hear any condemnation from the Taoiseach or from the Tánaiste. To bomb a nuclear site is extremely dangerous, and apparently up to 500 people were killed in Iran.

In regard to Israel, we now know that the Government does call it a genocide but it took quite a while. The reality is that Israeli terrorism is not being addressed. This directive has come from the EU. Most member states support Israel. The EU Commission president said Israel has the right to defend itself, just after it bombed Iran. The people of Gaza are playing their hunger games every day, risking their lives choosing between a hail of bullets or starvation, yet the EU Commission put that statement out.

This is the context from which this Bill is coming. This Bill is a massive attack on the right to free speech and expression and on the right to protest, and it would definitely see innocent people who are protesting against terrorism becoming victims of this Bill. It has already been called "the Kneecap clause" by other Deputies, which is the expansion of the definition of the offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. This is the type of law being used against Kneecap right now.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the members of the band, Kneecap, are not actually terrorists, whether we like or dislike their music or what they say. The real terrorist is actually Keir Starmer, who is funding a genocide and arming Israel, not Kneecap. What defines terrorism and who defines it? I would love to hear whether the Minister agrees that Israel is a terrorist state and the US and the EU are standing over that.

The Amnesty International report, Under Protected and Over Restricted, published last year examined repression in European countries. It made the point that across Europe "the right of peaceful assembly is coming under severe attack, as states increasingly stigmatise, criminalise and crack down on peaceful protesters, imposing unjustified and punitive restrictions, and resorting to ever more oppressive means to stifle dissent". We have seen that in Germany, in France and in every single country. Italy is talking about introducing a seven-year jail sentence for blocking a road on a protest. In all of the countries that Amnesty surveyed, police impunity was a key feature after having carried out repressive acts along with horrendous injuries to protesters and so on. It is a Continent-wide pattern of repressive laws. I see this Bill in that context. It is a systemic rollback on the right to protest. We have already seen that.

I will give a couple of examples. Right now, Britain is designating Palestine Action, a group that protests against the state terrorism of Israel and the genocide, as a terrorist organisation. I heard the mother of one young woman who is in jail and not even allowed out on bail, after taking part in a protest, because she is a member of that group. That is the kind of thing that is happening right now. There is an Irish branch of that group as well, called Palestine Action, that has carried out protests here. Will it also be designated under this legislation? Obviously, Mo Chara of Kneecap, and the charges he is facing, has been well-documented. It was a very worrying turn to see peaceful women, Mothers Against Genocide, outside the gates of Leinster House on a Sunday night-Monday morning, being carted off by An Garda Síochána. The Minister has one interpretation of what happened, which he took at face value from the Garda Commissioner, despite the fact that there was no footage to back up what he said.

Either way, it was a completely unnecessary attack on those protestors. It is clear that this legislation is being brought in because the countries that are funding and whose arms companies are profiting from genocide want to ensure they are not protested against.

I also want to mention the Special Criminal Court because I know we will be asked to vote to maintain it next week.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think the Deputy will. It passed yesterday without a vote.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps I could comment on the general maintenance of the Special Criminal Court and the idea of maintaining trials without juries. It is ironic that we talked last month about the counselling notes issue and the Minister said it would be unconstitutional because of the pressing right to a fair trial in our Constitution, yet we can have non-jury trials. How does he match that up? Rape victims can have their therapy notes, including their private thoughts, taken by the defence because of the right to a fair trial allegedly, yet we can maintain the Special Criminal Court. It does not stack up. I wanted to make that point. There is no need to maintain the Special Criminal Court. We now have technology and many other means of protecting juries should there be a need to do so. We do not have terrorism. The justification that there was for the Special Criminal Court in previous decades is long gone. It is completely undemocratic to maintain the court.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Members for their contributions, which I have listened to carefully. I many not be able to respond to each of the issues that was raised. I hope they are not offended if I do not specifically refer to the issues to which they referred. I am conscious that a couple of the issue raised, for instance by Deputies Kelly and Coppinger, do not relate to the Bill so I may not be able to deal with them. If I have time, I will.

The general opposition to the Bill I have introduced centres on the content of section 3, which concerns public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. A number of Deputies have referred to the fact that this is going to be grossly unfair and will interfere with freedom of expression and the right to protest. I dispute that. It is not the case. I will contrast the language in the British terrorism Act with what is contained here. The wording is completely different.

The first and most important point I want to make in respect of section 3, which deals with public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, is that someone does not even get within the parameters of that offence unless what he or she is doing is being done with the intention of inciting a person to commit terrorist activity. When we talk about "glorification" and actions "that could reasonably be construed as inciting", they only arise if the activity of the person who is being investigated or prosecuted is with the intention of inciting another person to commit terrorist activity. The type of activity we are talking about is in circumstances where people are trying to encourage impressionable younger people to incite them to commit a terrorist act. The argument that has been used repeatedly is that these measures are going to block protest and stop people expressing their legitimately held political opinions. Even if they are political opinions that are supportive of terrorist activity, that is not going to be the case. You have to be inciting somebody to commit or with the intention of committing terrorist activity.

Deputies Paul Murphy and Coppinger may not have been here when I referred to the specific provisions of the legislation in the UK under which Kneecap is being prosecuted. Kneecap is being prosecuted under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I want to read out again the content of that provision because it is alarmingly wide. It is a provision that would not be enacted by this House. It states: "A person in a public place commits an offence if he ... wears, carries or displays an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation".

Somebody who is a supporter of Hamas and who displays that support could be prosecuted in the UK. That would not happen here. The only circumstance in which someone can be prosecuted here is if the activity he or she has been involved in is with the intention of seeking to incite somebody to engage in terrorist activity. There is a full difference between the two Bills. The rights to protest and to freedom of expression are fully contained within our Constitution and the European convention. Those rights are not going to be impinged by this.

Deputy Ward gave a couple of examples. He said he likes to be able to sing rebel songs. He will still be able to do it.

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

Badly.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Notwithstanding his ability as a singer, he is still going to be able to do it. People can sing songs about "The Boys of Barr na Sráide" and "The Men Behind the Wire". In loyalist parts of Belfast, they can sing whatever they want. They can do whatever activity they wish. The only time this legislation will be triggered is if it is being done with the intention to incite people to commit terrorist activity. What Kneecap is being prosecuted for in the UK would not happen here. Under this legislation, people would be entitled to say they support Hamas, although it has been involved in reprehensible behaviour. You can say what you want. The only time your message is going to come within the criminal law and face criminal sanction is if it is being done with the intention of inciting someone else to commit criminal terrorist activity.

We have seen this previously. Deputy Coppinger referred to the fact that this has only been done in recent times because of what is happening in the Middle East. In fairness to the Government, we are belatedly, not unusually, transposing into Irish law a directive from nearly ten years ago. We are transposing into Irish law the directive from 2017. The concern of colleagues that this will have a restrictive impact on protest or freedom of expression is not accurate. People will still be entitled to express support and praise for terrorist activities in the past. I am not suggesting anyone present would do so, but if somebody wanted to stand up and praise terrorist activities that took place in this country in the 1970s or 1980s, for example, the Dublin-Monaghan bombings or the Kingsmill massacre, if somebody wanted to say that he or she supports those acts of terrorism, he or she would be entitled to do so. The only time they will be caught by the criminal law, if this legislation is enacted, is if he or she is doing it with the intention of trying to incite others.

Regrettably, it is the case that terrorist activity takes place around Europe. We in Ireland have been pretty fortunate not to have examples of it in recent times. In other parts of the world, however, which we cannot ignore, terrorist activity takes place. Sometimes, I regret, it is perpetrated by people who have also had mental health issues. To respond to that, we need to recognise that there are people seeking to incite vulnerable, impressionable people to get involved in violent behaviour for their own political means.

Colleagues also mentioned broader issues about what it happening in the world at present. What is happening in Gaza is reprehensible. This legislation is not going to include an attempt to identify which pieces of terrorist activity we regard as good and which we regard as bad. "Terrorist activity" is defined under the 2005 Act. There is a Schedule that sets out the offences covered by "terrorist activity". It does not specify that the activity is carried out by certain political groups and not by others. It is objective in its operation.

A couple of my colleagues have asked if I will consider amendments; of course I will. I presume Deputies will table amendments. I note what Deputy Paul Murphy said about section 8. He was the only Deputy who referred to a section other than section 3 with which he had concerns. That section seeks to deal with the reality that many of the attacks being perpetrated at present by persons who are trying to exert political pressure on governments and states are cyberattacks. That is something we need to recognise and we should be entitled to respond to it.

Deputy Kelly made a significant contribution about Evan Fitzgerald and I am concerned that if I do not say anything it will be perceived as if I do not have a response to give in this respect. All I want to say is that at present there are still two cases that are live and ongoing. I am conscious I am under the guidance of the Ceann Comhairle, and I am not going to be talking about any cases. In respect of the other two individuals prosecuted with the late Evan Fitzgerald, their cases are still live. One of them has pleaded guilty, while the other case will be back before the courts in July. It would be completely inappropriate of me to make any comments at this stage in respect of those cases because there will certainly have to be some form of a hearing in respect of sentencing for the former and there could be a full trial in respect of the latter. As the Minister for justice, I have certain powers that can be evoked if necessary. I am not going to do anything at this stage until those trials have come to a conclusion.

Since it is fresh in my mind, Deputy Coppinger mentioned the issue of the Special Criminal Court and how we can have non-jury courts. It is provided for in the Constitution. It says we can have special courts that can be put in place when the ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to deal with the administration of justice. That option does exist.

I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I will take on board what they said. I conclude by stating that section 3 of this Bill is not seeking to restrict protest or undermine freedom of expression. It would not apply to Kneecap and its members could not be prosecuted in this country under this particular provision if this legislation were in place. This is because they clearly did not have the intention of seeking to incite other people to commit a terrorist act. It comes back to the fact that we really need to look at what is in the Bill as opposed to what we think is in it. I thank the Ceann Comhairle.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is deferred until the weekly division time next week.