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

Sarah O'Reilly (AON), Agricultural Panel

I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, to delete lines 32 and 33 and substitute the following:
“(i) inciting by its express terms, or that could reasonably be construed as inciting by its express terms, persons to commit a terrorist activity, or”.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendments Nos. 9 and 12. I begin by making one thing absolutely clear. These amendments are not about weakening our response to terrorism or making it harder to prosecute people who genuinely encourage or incite terrorist acts. Everyone in this House will agree that if someone sets out to incite terrorist activity, that person should be prosecuted. These amendments are focused on ensuring the legislation is precise and clear.
The Minister has previously said the Bill is intended to deal with genuine public provocation to commit terrorist offences, and I accept that.
The Minister has also said the Bill is not a response to the Mo Chara issue and is not intended to lead to prosecutions like those we have seen in Britain. While I accept the Minister's intentions, we do not legislate for one Minister or one Government but, rather, for the future. We make laws that may be interpreted years from now in very different political circumstances and by people who were never even aware of this debate.
My amendments do not fundamentally change what the Government is trying to achieve. They simply tighten the wording to require an expression of direct incitement to commit a terrorist activity. This raises the bar slightly but with good reason. Criminal law should punish people for what they intentionally encourage others to do, not for meanings that might later be read into words, that is, for an interpretation down the line. History shows us that opinions about conflicts and liberation movements and organisations can change over time. For example, Senator Higgins spoke about Nelson Mandela and our own 1916 leaders. We should be slow to create criminal offences that depend on what a publication could reasonably be construed to mean. It should be clear that the communication itself has expressly and directly incited terrorist activity.
We are back again to interpretation and that is why I want to tighten up what is set out in the legislation. I think it is reasonable to do so. There must be a clear line between expressing an opinion, however controversial, and actively encouraging others to commit an act of terrorism. The Bill is vague in this regard. As Senator Higgins said in the previous debate, it could have an unintended chilling effect, which we do not want to see. People should be free to express themselves. The Bill could lead to self-censoring, not because there is an intent to cause violence but because people cannot be sure how their words might later be interpreted. That is not healthy in a democratic society.
The more serious an offence, the more important it is that the boundaries of that offence are clear. These amendments do not prevent prosecution. They simply ensure that a communication must expressly encourage terrorist activity before an individual can be charged. I ask the Minister of State to give consideration to the amendments.

---

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