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

Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland

I have also proposed the deletion of this language, "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence", from the definition of "terrorist-linked activity".
My concerns are very similar. They relate to the very slippery slope that the provisions in this Bill set out. The Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, stated on Committee Stage that "The offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist act seeks to target those who glorify and justify terrorism, or who disseminate messages or images online and offline ... as a way to gather support for terrorist causes".
Let us look at that language, as the Minister of State used it, and imagine how that can play out. She said to "justify terrorism". Take those who do not believe what the Government is labelling as terrorism is terrorism and who believe it is actions necessary under international law and they are within their rights. If they simply say they agree with that interpretation, which in some cases is still being teased out before the courts, or they agree with an interpretation that is different from a government's interpretation, where does that leave us if we follow that through? Then anything can be labelled as terrorism and anybody who suggests they do not agree with that label are themselves creating a new offence.
If we follow it through further, the Minister of State said, "terrorist causes". What are going to be terrorist causes? Mandela's push against apartheid was regarded as a terrorist cause in the South African State. There are certain states that are trying to get climate action labelled as terrorism. We see pushes and intents for that in the United States and elsewhere. Will climate action then be a terrorist cause for those who are literally trying to save all of our lives in relation to climate action? Does it mean that once that label has gone on it, you cannot even challenge it? Regardless of the offence, if someone has broken something and we are dealing with criminal damage, by labelling it "terrorist" the Government cuts off the ability of anybody to actually speak in support of, contextualise or talk to the wider context of what somebody has done. That is a massive piece.
The figures are there in terms of what we have seen unfolding in the United Kingdom. There were 63 arrests under the terrorist legislation. When they proscribed Palestine Action, there was a 2,608% increase in the arrests, with almost 2,000 people arrested. Of those arrested, 80% were women. A majority of them were over 60 years of age. They were not a threat to a population and not instilling terror but simply saying the illegal message, "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action." To have that image or sign on a T-shirt gets you arrested right now in the UK. If we bring in laws that allow the same thing to happen, whether or not the Minister of State tells us we are lovely and do not do terrible things with terrible laws, and if the Government puts the toolbox in place that has allowed that to happen, it is creating a danger. We are going to come to this a little bit later on some of the other ways that comes in.
Let us get back to it again. The Minister of State said on Committee Stage:
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 had caused to be distributed or published a message. The message itself must have glorified, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity.
She also said, "The publication of the message must give rise to a reasonable apprehension that someone might, as a result of such a publication, commit a terrorist act". That sounds like a good safeguard but that is the same kind of safeguards the UK has. That is an entirely subjective test in terms of the reasonable apprehension.
There are judges in the United Kingdom who are looking at 80-year-olds in wheelchairs, holding a piece of paper with the words “I am against genocide”, and saying they believe that person is a threat. It is a ludicrous situation, but it is deeply consequential.
As we are going to discuss with some of the later amendments, there is a significant issue about what is included in the definition of terrorist activity. In other jurisdictions, there is a shift whereby convictions that would normally be treated as criminal property damage are now being considered and prosecuted as terrorist offences. It may be right that something normally treated as criminal property damage is prosecuted and so forth. However, by labelling it as a terrorist offence, it is moved to a much more serious and intimidatory legal consequence for those engaged in it, and it also cuts off the sources of support. If somebody is engaging in the activity and then they say, “I do not like your climate policies” or “I do not want arms used in this way”, they are not just getting done for criminal damage. They are now getting done for terrorism because there is a cause attached to it even if the cause, in some cases, such as climate and preventing genocide, is not a cause that is delivering terror. In fact, it is the opposite. It is a cause that is seeking to give hope and move us back towards a world in which people are not living in terror, either in terms of illegal military action or unliveable climate disaster.
Simply by labelling it in this way for these actions, which may well be correctly prosecuted as criminal damage, there is a levelling up where someone doing criminal damage is to be treated with much less severity than somebody who may have a belief attached to that, which happens to fall under the rubric of this Government or any other state. We will come back to this point because the Bill is setting us up to enforce what other states might consider to be an offence. Will it include people who graffiti a building? If somebody puts graffiti on a building and says they believe a state should or should not do something, will that not just be criminal damage but a terrorist offence? What is the threshold where property damage is going to become a terrorist offence? That is a very serious question in terms of how it will pan out.
The Bill, as drafted, also allows for the prosecution for terrorist-linked activity of people who praise the actions of protesters engaged in direct action in or outside the State, which may include damage to property or other offences. This includes those who are damaging weapons facilities to interrupt the supply of murderous technologies that are directly facilitating a genocide. We have heard about the Genocide Convention, which the Minister of State mentioned, and the obligation of states not to provide arms. We have heard calls at the United Nations for arms embargoes in respect of the provision of weapons for genocide. Where is the threshold where somebody says, “I am glad they were not able to drop those bombs” or “I am glad they stopped those weapons systems from delivering the bombs they were due to drop on Gaza”? Is that person celebrating? Does that person now come under the criminal offences Act as well?
Under paragraph (b), the definition of terrorist activity includes “an act committed ... outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2”. What happens if those actions - we are coming to my set of amendments now - committed outside the State happened in an occupied territory? If these actions were committed in the State they would be criminal offences, but what happens if they were committed in an occupied territory?
If someone in an occupied portion of Ukraine taking action against the Russian military were to take a similar action here in our State, it would be an offence, but as it is taking place in an occupied territory, is it still an offence? The contexts are slightly different.
Another piece I am concerned about is that provision in regard to an act committed outside the State which, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence. I will let the Minister have the advice on this one and then I am going to come to it. In this scenario, where an act is committed outside the State that, if committed in the State, would constitute an offence, the emphasis is on the action, taking into account the wide range of actions, but if you had an action, for example, criminal damage of a piece of property, in support of a terrorist cause, whose definition of "cause" is it? Ireland is putting in place the same toolbox, or a very similar toolbox, to what we are seeing being applied in a very authoritarian way in the UK or what we see being deployed in Germany. We are putting in place the same toolbox with the same sets of offences, if we are taking that common set of offences. Will it be the case that we will have a law in another country that is very similar to the law here but who we consider to be proscribed or terrorist organisations may differ from country to country? We do not have such a proscription list in the same way others may have. Will we take the United States definition of terrorist organisations, and when we consider whether people should be prosecuted in Ireland, because of the fact we have a similar offence in our law as they have in their law, are we just going to be comparing action with action or will we be comparing action with action in terms of who it is?
In the UK and the US, in the move to proscribe, an ever-larger number of organisations are being defined as terrorist organisations. A swathe of those who wish for action in areas like Palestine, human rights or climate are being labelled as terrorist organisations. When we are considering whether it is a terrorist activity, how are we going to say that we do not believe it would be an offence in the State here? Will we be saying it is because it says the act is the same? If the act is the same but the entity doing it is one we might not have identified as a terrorist organisation, where does that come in? It is not clear to me, but as I read the law, it looks to me that the test is the act, not the nature of the organisation.
I have further concerns on this that I will return to on Report Stage relating to how offences are added to the list of offences that may be considered a terrorist activity in Part 1 of Schedule 2. The Bill allows for the adding of an offence to the Schedule in section 12 of this Bill. An offence under section 3 or 4 of the Criminal Justice (Offences Relating to Information Systems) Act 2017 is going to be added as an offence that may be considered terrorist activity. This relates to persons who damage, interrupt or render inaccessible the functioning of an information system without lawful authority. The definition of an information system is extremely wide and, again, I am concerned about how that is going to be applied under the Bill. I am concerned about what that is actually going to mean in practice and how that may be applied.
Again, I am concerned about the procedures for how new offences are being added to the list in Part 1 of Schedule 2. I think there has to be special scrutiny and proper transparency in regard to those offences and clarity as to how they will be added.
That is my amendment No. 7. Have we come to amendments Nos. 9 to 14, inclusive, yet?

---

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