Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Second Stage Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-23 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland I, too, want to signal a number of concerns in respect of this legislation. I believe, especially now on Second Stage, that the burden or obligation of proof is on the State. It must show us how these are not going to happen. It is not just for us to say that there may be inadvertent consequences because if they are warned about and action is not taken, then they are not inadvertent. What measures will the State take to ensure that instances, such as those we have seen with regard to Palestine Action and other abuses, will not take place? I will highlight a few key concerning features of the legislation. The Bill expands the definition of terrorist activity to include threats to commit the offences listed in the Schedule, a Schedule which can be added to at any point. That is another concern. The offences outlined in the Schedule to the Bill include criminal damage, that is, damage to property. These are listed as offences that could end up under the terrorism definition when they are committed with the intention – it is not the effect they have but, rather, the intention of the offence – of seriously intimidating a population; unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act; seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or organisation. That sounds fine but this is combined with the fact that people do not have to do any of the actions any more under the offences. Rather, they must only potentially suggest they might do some of the actions listed under the Schedule of offences, and then these intentions will be interpreted by the courts. It is always a very vague piece when we are looking to interpret intentions. What does “compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act” mean? We all do that all the time. We take all kinds of actions. The word “unduly” is doing heavy lifting in this regard. It is not clear what will be meant by that. We all campaign and protest with the aim of persuading or compelling governments or other organisations to take action. We have all chanted “Pass the occupied territories Bill”. People have protested looking for SNAs in their schools. People have taken all kinds of actions. On occasion, that protest action has included something that could be determined as damage to property or criminal damage. That is not to say that criminal damage is not a concern or should not be prosecuted appropriately. When it is vandalism or criminal damage, let it be prosecuted as such. What I am worried about is that someone who sprays graffiti with a message saying, "No to the extra airport terminal” or whatever else could not only be charged with criminal damage but also a terrorist offence, as their goal was to try to affect the actions of the Government. Let us talk about those who rightly protest against the use of our airports to breach international law. We have breaches of international humanitarian law and known war crimes taking place. We have situations where aeroplanes carrying arms to contribute to international breaches of international law are moving through our airports. Will the person who writes a protest sign on the gates be charged with not just criminal offences, but terrorism charges potentially? Indeed, it will now no longer solely be about those who commit these actions but also those who say, "I feel like going down there and writing it on the walls". Will that be coming under it? These are not hypothetical questions because we have seen what has happened in the United Kingdom with the absurd and obscene weaponisation and use of terrorist legislation in relation to persons who are clearly not - when we go back to the core definition of terrorism - creating terror in any sense. They are merely inconveniencing government. I will make four or five other points. The Bill also expands section 4A, which deals with public provocation to commit terrorist offences. It includes the offence of publishing a statement that “glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity”. What is meant by that? In the UK, we saw the Palestine Action act involving the Filton 4 activists. They were sentenced as terrorists for criminal violence, but we know they were just holding a sign saying, "I support Palestine Action". Is that glorifying? They were arrested for literally holding a sign saying they support those who have taken direct action in protest. That is that muddy piece between protest and terrorism. It is why we should not be diluting or risking those dilutions because terrorism is incredibly serious and we need to be tackling it properly, rather than muddying the word to the point where it is abused as an instrument of control by the Government. The definition includes acts committed inside and outside of the State. Others have made this point in the context of the glorification or praise or celebration of terrorist activity. What is meant by that? Does 1916 come under it? Does the commemoration of our historic actions come under it? We heard recently that the Haitian team taking part in the World Cup was told to remove the picture it had showing the battle in which Haiti overturned slavery. It had to be removed from the football strip. Are we going to get to a point where we are removing the historical and, in some cases, contemporary battles against colonialism? These changes require the replacement of provisions that protect protest and strike action in the 2005 Act. The protections in the 2005 Act specifically on protest and strike action are diluted in this legislation. The 2005 Act made it explicit that they would not be considered relevant in terms of the Schedule of offences. This legislation, however, merely states they are not evidence of bad intent on their own. That is a massive dilution of the right to protest and strike, which was previously protected. I would go into further detail on section 6, which amends section 5 of the principal Act. These are specific and serious concerns. There is also the concern with regard to criticising or challenging states engaged in colonial action, be it historic or contemporary. Can the Minister of State assure us that there is no danger for persons who are rightly protesting in that regard? For example, people may say that they do not wish to destabilise the existence of states, but they may not wish to support the existence of illegal occupations by states or others. People will say such things in protest. Where is the line going to be? What protections are in place? In fact, all I see in the Bill are dilutions. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-06-23/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:05+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-23