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

I move amendment No. 20:
In page 10, line 15, to delete “of itself”.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 24, inclusive, all relate to my concerns about how the Bill can impact the ability of people to freely protest. Amendment No. 20 seeks to strengthen the provisions that protect people involved in protest against prosecution for terrorist offences under section 6(5) of the 2005 Act by removing the words "of itself" so that the section would read that engagement in protest, advocacy or dissent, or in any strike, lockout or other industrial action, shall not constitute grounds for inferring that the person is doing an act with the intention of seriously intimidating a population and so on, that is, the three grounds for intent set out in the Bill, namely, intimidation of the population, unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a state or an international organisation. Engagement in protest, advocacy, dissent, strikes, lockouts or industrial actions should not constitute grounds. The term "of itself" implies that such actions may be considered as part of constituting grounds for inferring that a person is doing an act with a terrorist intent. The removal of those legitimate activities should be explicit and not partial or coming with a caveat.
Amendment No. 21 refers to the criticism of a state for breaching international law. I indicate that I may come back to this on Report Stage. International organisations can also breach international law. The amendment seeks to ensure that criticism of a state for breaching international law does not constitute grounds for inferring that a person is trying to seriously intimidate a population, unduly compel a government or international organisation or seriously destabilise the fundamental structures of a state. It is important that we are crystal clear that criticisms in respect of breaches of international law should never constitute grounds for inferring a terrorist intent.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to ensure that the opposition to illegal occupation does not constitute grounds for inferring that a person is trying to seriously intimidate a population. I am considering, for example, the actions of persons who are subject to illegal occupation. I am concerned that, for example, the opposition of Palestinians to the occupation of the West Bank may include a message that Israeli settlers should not be in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, and that could be construed as intimidating the population of settlers within an occupied territory. I have asked the Minister on a previous occasion about actions that take place in an occupied territory. I seek clarity on how that would relate to an occupied territory.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to ensure that it shall not be considered as unduly compelling a government or international body to perform, abstain or abstain from performing an action if that action is necessary to comply with international law. This refers to instances where actions are taken to ensure compliance with international law such as, for example, the blocking of the delivery of arms which have the known intent of being exercised in war crimes. In such circumstances, when compliance with international law is the intent then that should not be construed as part of a definition of terrorist intent.
Amendment No. 24 seeks to ensure that it should not be construed that a person is seeking to destabilise the fundamental structures of the state where that state is in breach of international law and thus destabilised through those violations already. For example, when actions are taken which have an economic impact in seeking to block or end economic activities that are in breach of international law, then that should not be construed as destabilising the economic or other structures of a state. If those economic structures are built on a breach of international law and an action, protest or intention is intended to stop them, that should not be regarded as destabilisation. The fact they have an economic structure which is premised on breaches of international law should be regarded as the destabilising factor.
I spoke on Second Stage about my concern around the language of unduly compelling a government to act a certain way. I am concerned that that is a very wide framing. What constitutes "unduly"? When does advocating that a Government to take action on breaches of international law or illegal occupation cross the line into unduly compelling?
Do we stray into a space, as I have said before, where direct action or protest, which may involve an offence in terms of, for example, criminal damage, rather than being prosecuted as criminal damage, is now going to be prosecuted as a terrorist offence because it has a policy intent? In fact, somebody who is committing criminal damage in an act, for example, of direct action protest, rather than simply being prosecuted under direct action, may see the far more severe sentencing that is available under the terrorist legislation of, for example, up to ten years in prison for events or for an action, which would not normally attach to those things, because the person does so while expressing a view in relation to Government policy or action. Again, what does this mean in terms of people who are, for example, protesting the use of our airports for violation of international law? Will that sort of protest now come under a new rubric or be under a new threat of this far more severe set of penalties?
The Bill deletes the protection of the individual's right to protest and potentially conflates their actions with definitions of terrorism. That is a concern, and I highlighted in one of my earlier comments the comments from Amnesty International where it highlighted that a person who performs an action for reasons of conscience or for reasons of compliance with international law can face much higher penalties than a person who does so with a purely malicious intent. That seems to be an anomaly and a danger within the Bill.

---

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