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

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

The Minister of State suggested that the Government had looked to introduce a few safeguards into the Bill. What she is seeing in these amendments are good-faith suggestions for further safeguards we believe are needed in terms of the risks associated with the language in the Bill. In responding to this group of amendments, she might also provide clarity on the issues I raised regarding offences committed inside versus outside the State and the question of a comparator Act. If there is a similar law in Germany to the law here, for instance, but a different construction of what constitutes terrorists and terrorist organisations, it is not clear to me where the law would stand on that. I ask the Minister of State to include a response on that point.
The previous speaker made the point very well that we are legislating for the future. If we create a toolbox that can be used in an authoritarian manner, we have a responsibility in terms of how it may be used. The question of who we think will use it and our presumption of best intent are not really our business as legislators. Our business is to consider what tools and safeguards we can put into play. With respect to the Minister of State, there is still a huge amount in the definitions that is open to dangerous and loose interpretation.
I note explicitly the safeguard the Minister of State mentioned, namely, "the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result". It is not that it will result or is likely to result; it is that it could result. The reasonable apprehension is whether one can imagine a scenario whereby somebody could do a terrorist activity arising from the distribution or publication of materials. That is the big safeguard being put in place and it is pretty woolly - "could thereby result".
The other things the Minister of State mentioned are not "and" but are "or", which means it could be any one of these. It is not that it has to be inciting and glorifying and it has to be the intent. It could be inciting or it could be just glorifying. That is the piece I am concerned about. My amendment No. 10 acknowledges that even though we already have incitement to hatred legislation and so forth, we could look to mirror the incitement to hatred legislation, which is sometimes underused to a degree. On the incitement piece, if the incitement threshold is left in, that is, the phrase "inciting, or that could reasonably be construed as inciting," and then if the reasonable test is added, there are concerns but they are not as strong because it is about inciting a particular kind of action, plus the reasonable test that it is likely to have an effect. The amendment proposes to remove the much woollier and far more worrying phrase, "that glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity". I emphasise for the public and everybody to understand that right now it is "glorifies" in itself alongside that clause that "reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result". That is what public provocation counts as right now. The incitement in the proposed new section 4A(a)(i) is not a requirement at the moment for something to be prosecuted as public provocation. It can be just solely on the basis of the glorification. I have suggested removing the language in relation to glorification and if that is not possible, due to the EU directives and others, to at least remove the incredibly vague language of "including by praise or celebration".
I still have that question. What if you say, "I am glad they stopped those bombs" or "I am glad they destroyed those bombs and that they are not going to fall on children in Gaza"? If people say that who had nothing to do with the activity - they had not done it, they are just people expressing their feeling and response to something that has been designated as a terrorist activity by praising it, are they made vulnerable now? Are they vulnerable as long a judge decides to state that you saying you are glad they did that could conceivably encourage others to do the same kind of thing? That is the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result. You do not have to prove it is going to result; there is no direct or explicit piece that is in the other amendments. It is simply the fact that you have praised something and somebody says he or she believes an activity could conceivably happen out of it. That is the really muddy bit. We have seen the silencing of difference of opinion with governments internationally in relation not just to Gaza but to others who have taken stands on issues on human rights and other issues.
We have seen lots of governments that have taken actions in relation to that. Is it going to end up being an effective silencing of opposition? In a future government in Ireland, if Ireland gets rid of the triple lock, as has been proposed by some in government, and we find ourselves in wars and the population says that it does not love being part of an illegal war, for example, will those who comment in relation to that find themselves in a situation where they are suddenly being pulled up under this piece as well? Again, that is what has been the experience of others, such as those in the UK.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to delete the glorification line. Amendment No. 11 seeks to specifically remove that language around "praise or celebration" because it is so amorphous. It is the kind of thing that we can see being used against the most vulnerable or those who see themselves at the margins of society or young people who give an expression that can be construed as praise. I worry about who that will get used against. Will Elon Musk be getting prosecuted under this? I would put money on it that he will not. Will some 20-year-old who says, "I am glad that they took that climate action because I am terrified of climate change", get prosecuted? Maybe. That is what is happening in the UK and US. It is not a "it would never happen here" matter. We do not get to put in up-to-date modern authoritarian laws and then say "But we are so nice". We have to make sure our laws are full of safeguards if we want that "we are so nice" label still attached to us.
I have a lot of specifics on amendment Nos. 13, 14 and 15. One is, again, another safeguard, which if we put these in, it will be better because we will feel more reassured, which reads "for the avoidance of doubt, non-violent expressions of solidarity or support for actions that are taken in relation to matters of international law [I mentioned climate, which does quite come under that, and perhaps, it is something I can come back to, but regarding international law, for example, the Genocide Convention] shall not be construed as glorification for the purposes of this section". If the Minister of State is telling us that it is not needed, let us put it in for the avoidance of doubt. If somebody says they are glad that an action was taken to ensure a breach of international law did not take place, they should not be construed as glorifying if the expression of solidarity and support they are making is in relation to support for international law.
Amendment No. 14, which again is something that was raised by Senator Murphy, reads “for avoidance of doubt, the distribution or publication of materials in relation to historic or contemporary resistance to colonial occupation or exploitation, shall not be construed as glorification for the purposes of this section”. Colonialism is not solely historic. We still have situations, for example, the colonial exploitation of Western Sahara by Morocco. We have the issue of colonial occupation in relation to West Papua by Indonesia. We have a large number of our European colleagues who still have colonies around the world, many of whom are taking a very active interest in the extraction of resources and minerals from those colonies in a new period of time. Of course, we have the colonial occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Crimea. Colonial occupation is still a very current piece. Historically, there are also a lot of people invoking in some cases, for example, in the Caribbean, where many countries have become republics, historic points of resistance as a catalyst to new political resistance. I am thinking of the example of Haiti whereby they were not allowed to have their football strip because it contained a picture of the battle to overthrow slavery.
That has obviously been construed as glorifying violence, even though it refers to events of the 1700s. Where is the bar in terms of colonialism and occupation and when the actions are being taken in relation to illegally occupied territory? I would like that to be not construed as "glorification", for the purposes of the section and clarity, where it is "in relation to historic or contemporary resistance to colonial occupation or exploitation".
Amendment No. 19 seeks to insert after "terrorist-linked activity" the following, "other than activity described in section 4A(a)(ii)".
I think I have everything covered here. We need to bear in mind that the sentences we are talking about here range from 12 months to up to ten years in prison. This is not a fine or a slap on the wrist. It can be up to ten years in prison for these offences. We can look at the recent prosecutions in the UK but also in Germany, which is transposing the same directive. Are they going to transpose it similarly, in terms of how the judicial systems in those countries are treating protest actions? We have the case of the Filton 4 in England and the Ulm 5 in Germany. In both instances, the cases against the activists link accusations of damage to property with terrorist activity. These alleged actions include damage to weapons factories that are providing weapons which are being used to commit genocide in flagrant and open violation of international law.
I will come back on some of these. Regarding conscientious motivation for actions, this is what Amnesty has said about the UK context:
... cases of criminal damage committed through direct action ... misconstrue activists' conscientious motivation for activism and instead consider them an aggravating factor to justify the use of terrorism sentencing powers.
For example, if somebody goes and smashes something or throws paint on a military system, they will get a conviction for criminal damage, which is only small. Somebody who does it, motivated by international law, will get a far harsher sentence and can spend up to ten years in prison. The person who just does the criminal damage is getting one sentence but the person who does the criminal damage for the purpose of ensuring a state's compliance with international law will get a higher sentence. Acting with conscience gets construed as acting for a cause and that cause gets translated as acting for the purposes of terrorism and with the motivation of bringing change of some kind.
Amendment No. 19 is more technical but it suggests that this should not be a ground for a person in terms of the offences.

---

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