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

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

In amendment No. 13, I suggest the insertion of, “For the avoidance of doubt, non-violent expressions of solidarity or support for actions taken in relation to matters of international law shall not be construed as glorification for the purposes of this section.” Amendment No. 14 would insert, “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.” The concern is with what may be construed. I use the example of people in an occupied territory who are taking action in respect of that, or people who find themselves in situations where their rights are being violated under international law and are taking direct action in respect of such violations. Those who might express support or solidarity with them, or give language that is seen to be encouraging, could indirectly be considered as inciting further such action.
I will provide a couple of examples in this regard. If someone has described themselves as anti-Zionist or if persons within an occupied Palestinian territory are taking direct action in relation to the taking of a home, land and so forth, does that mean that their actions may, according to the Israeli state, be considered as ones that “destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional or social structures of a [state]”? What about a context where someone is expressing support with persons who are taking actions in that regard? This is the question. If a person expresses support for people who are in an illegally occupied territory - it may be the occupied Palestinian territories or other illegally occupied territories, such as occupied Crimea, for example - and taking direct action, will those expressions of support, which may include criminal damage, constitute glorification?
The historic example of Nelson Mandela has been used a number of times in today’s debate. The South African state regarded him as a terrorist and his actions as terroristic. As he was construed as such, would persons expressing support for his actions and encouraging the resistance to apartheid in that context be supporting terroristic activity and encouraging its further incidence?
We do not need to use historic examples; we can look to contemporary Afghanistan. The European Union recently met the Taliban. It is looking to normalise relations in that context. In Afghanistan, a huge section of the population is under gender apartheid and forbidden from basic participation. If women take direct action in respect of their rights under international law, and if the state of Afghanistan construes such action to be a terrorist activity, would those expressing support for it be glorifying, celebrating or praising terrorism?
Again, the legislation only requires that the language could give rise to further actions. There does not have to be any evidence that it has done so. These are the vulnerabilities we seek to address. That is what I am trying to come at with a couple of these amendments. If the Minister will not accept these amendments, I seek assurances as to how those kinds of circumstances will not arise because, on the face of it, they could. The caveats currently within the Bill are not enough to secure against them.

---

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