Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-30
============================================================

Conor Murphy (SF), Industrial and Commercial Panel

I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, to delete line 17.
This section raises very significant concerns. We only have to look to our near neighbours in Britain to see where issues have arisen with protests. Some time ago, the Minister of State spoke about her own views regarding some of what has been going on in the Middle East, Palestine and Lebanon and her opposition to all of that. We can see how the definition of "glorification of terrorism" has been open to abuse. In Britain, 3,500 people who have declared themselves in support of Palestine Action have been arrested in recent times. Some 80% of these are pensioners. Despite this, something like 35 people have been arrested as the result of race riots and racist violence. That shows how such laws are applied where a government wants to shut down protests it considers to be embarrassing in light of its international relationships. This has moved clearly and evidently towards something that is completely ludicrous. Elderly people who are genuinely, legitimately, deservedly and with some merit protesting against genocide are treated in such a way under laws that are not directly related to this one but that have a similar theme. There can be unintended consequences in how these things are interpreted and in how particular governments might propose to approach them.
A significant problem with this Bill is the widening of the definition of "provocation of terrorism" contained in section 3. We will be opposing this section. It is our view that this expansion of the definition is deeply problematic. We are yet to hear a credible rationale for this broadening. As I have said, it is a cause of serious concern, particularly in relation to the glorification of terrorism, but also as a result of its general vagueness and the broadness of the language, which will be wide open to misuse and to suppress freedom of speech.
The provisions are too broad and are open to abuse. Public provocation charges can be brought where no terrorist offence has been committed, with those charged facing up to ten years in prison. Again, the provisions are so broad that people could be found guilty of a terrorism offence in relation to provocation where they distribute or publish a message that could reasonably be construed as inciting terrorism or glorifying terrorist activity. That includes praise and celebration. As was said when this Bill was discussed previously in the Dáil, it is very probable that putting up a poster of Bobby Sands or Nelson Mandela in the 1980s could have been construed as glorifying terrorism. This legislation parrots some of the language of the far right, especially the language of the DUP in the North, in relation to the glorification of terrorism. We are led into territory where commemoration or celebration of the 1916 Rising, wearing a lily or the legitimate commemoration of loved ones killed during the conflict in the North could fall under the provisions of this Bill.
This takes place against the backdrop of debate across Britain, Europe and America regarding legislation against legitimate protest, including protest in relation to Palestine. We cannot ignore that context. We have seen the figures in relation to some of the people who have been protesting. The assurances that the provisions will not be misused in any way do not really give me any confidence. While the Minister and her current partners in Government may be well intentioned, we have no sense of how these provisions will be used in future. We can see very clearly how such powers are being used in other countries. The section smacks of an attempt to crack down on freedom of speech rather than terrorist activities. That can be seen across Europe, particularly with regard to the Middle East, in the approach of states like Germany and France to legitimate protest as opposed to their approach to pursuing people on the far right who are creating difficulties. The section should be opposed. The provisions smack of authoritarianism. They are not called for and they are open to abuse.

---

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/2026-06-30/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:07+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-06-30