Paul Murphy: Warns bill would criminalise protest and solidarity
Paul Murphy criticised proposed legislation that he says would expand terrorism laws to criminalise protest and solidarity activism. He argued the bill would lower the legal bar for provocation, broaden terrorist offences and expose protesters and online activists to prosecution.
Paul Murphy said Section 3 expands the legal definition of provocation to include 'glorifying, including by praise or celebration' and warned this could allow prosecutions for solidarity with Palestine and other direct-action campaigns. He cited Makara from Niqap, who is being prosecuted in Britain, as an example of someone who could be prosecuted here under the widened definition.
The deputy outlined concrete scenarios that he said could become criminal offences: social media posts praising damage to water meters, tweets supporting paint attacks on a government building, or endorsement of damage to a US warplane at Shannon Airport. He noted Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences Act 2005 remains unchanged and states an offence need not actually have been committed, and warned people could face an apparently unlimited fine and up to 10 years in prison.
Murphy highlighted Section 8's amendment to include unlawful interference with information systems or data as a terrorist offence when committed to unduly compel a government or international organisation. He pointed to the broad 2017 definition of unlawful interference - transmitting, damaging, deleting or rendering data inaccessible - and warned that coordinated mass-email campaigns, server collapses or mass reporting of posts could be treated as terrorism.
He criticised Section 4 for widening training offences to include 'techniques, methods, skills or technical knowledge' that could enable terrorist activity, arguing this could criminalise practical protest skills from pouring cement into a water meter to cyber activism or advice about breaching airport fences. He concluded the bill is a shameful attempt to criminalise effective protest and said those who try to stop atrocities should not be treated as terrorists, urging opposition to the measures.
Central criticism of Section 3
Paul Murphy said Section 3 expands the legal definition of provocation to include 'glorifying, including by praise or celebration' and warned this could allow prosecutions for solidarity with Palestine and other direct-action campaigns. He cited Makara from Niqap, who is being prosecuted in Britain, as an example of someone who could be prosecuted here under the widened definition.
Examples of possible prosecutions and penalties
The deputy outlined concrete scenarios that he said could become criminal offences: social media posts praising damage to water meters, tweets supporting paint attacks on a government building, or endorsement of damage to a US warplane at Shannon Airport. He noted Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences Act 2005 remains unchanged and states an offence need not actually have been committed, and warned people could face an apparently unlimited fine and up to 10 years in prison.
Risks to online activism under Section 8
Murphy highlighted Section 8's amendment to include unlawful interference with information systems or data as a terrorist offence when committed to unduly compel a government or international organisation. He pointed to the broad 2017 definition of unlawful interference - transmitting, damaging, deleting or rendering data inaccessible - and warned that coordinated mass-email campaigns, server collapses or mass reporting of posts could be treated as terrorism.
Training, protest tactics and final condemnation
He criticised Section 4 for widening training offences to include 'techniques, methods, skills or technical knowledge' that could enable terrorist activity, arguing this could criminalise practical protest skills from pouring cement into a water meter to cyber activism or advice about breaching airport fences. He concluded the bill is a shameful attempt to criminalise effective protest and said those who try to stop atrocities should not be treated as terrorists, urging opposition to the measures.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley warns amendment could erode military neutrality
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley presses on NATO role and triple lock referendum
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh Demands Inquiry Start Over Epilim Delay
Richard O'Donoghue
Richard O'Donoghue urges health review of wind farm guidelines
Transcript
This bill is a very serious attack on freedom of speech and on the right of people to protest. Makara from Niqap is being prosecuted in Britain for opposing the genocide, for expressing solidarity with Palestine. And now the government here is trying to pass legislation that would allow him to be prosecuted here too. Section 3 of the bill expands the legal definition of provocation of terrorist activity to include, quote, glorifying, including by praise or celebration a terrorist activity. Terrorist activity can include activities both in and outside of the state. So Niqap could be prosecuted here, just as they are being in Britain. Palestine solidarity activists in this country could also be prosecuted presumably for expressing support for Palestine Action, a civil society campaigning organisation which is in the process of being prescribed as a terrorist organisation in Britain. I, for one, support Palestine Action. People will remember the mass outbreak of pearl clutching that followed the Irish soccer team chanting, and young people singing along to the Wolf Tones Celtic Symphony at an electric picnic. It seems that Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael want potentially to lock these people up too. Is that not glorification of a terrorist activity? Minister, this is outrageous. The lowering to the floor of the legal bar for provocation of terrorist-linked activity must be resolutely opposed. The government was forced to drop its draconian hate speech legislation. It must now be forced to drop this renewed attack on freedom of speech. Section 3 of this bill opens the door to people being prosecuted for expressing solidarity with direct action carried out by protesters. Criminal damage can already be classed as terrorist activity if it is, quote, committed with the intention of unduly compelling a government to perform or abstain from performing an act. Someone, for example, posting support on social media for anti-water charges protesters pouring cement on water meters and saying, more of this please, could be arrested, could be charged with terrorist-linked activity of, quote, public provocation to commit terrorist offence and fined an apparently unlimited amount and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. The same would apply to someone tweeting in support of Palestine solidarity protesters, throwing red paint at the Department of Foreign Affairs, or damaging a US warplane en route to assist in genocide at Shannon Airport and saying something like, we need more direct action like this. Under this legislation, that would constitute glorifying, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity, even if nothing happens and no more red paint is thrown or no more warplanes are actually damaged. Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences Act 2005, which remains unchanged by this bill, states that, quote, in determining whether an act is terrorist-linked activity, it shall not be necessary for an offence to have actually been committed. So just saying online or at a public meeting that US warplanes should be sabotaged to stop them from arming the genocide in Gaza, even if that never happens, is now enough to get you locked up for terrorist-linked activity. Section 8 of the bill is also extremely worrying. It adds unlawful interference with information systems or data to the list of terrorist offences where, quote, it is committed with the intention of unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act. Under the Criminal Justice Offences Relating to Information Systems Act 2017, unlawful interference with information systems or data is defined extremely broadly to include transmitting, damaging, deleting, altering or suppressing or causing the deterioration of data on an information system as well as rendering data on an information system inaccessible. Redefining this not just as a crime but as a terrorist activity means that various forms of online activism, potentially including coordinated mass email campaigns which collapse servers or a mass reporting of social media posts, could now be defined as terrorist activity. And if you express support for that or encourage people to take part in it, you can be charged with provoking terrorism. Section 4 of this bill also strengthens the criminalisation of training for terrorist activity or terrorist linked activity. Alongside a long list of relevant instruction or training that includes training in firearms, explosives and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, we find training, quote, in techniques, methods, skills or technical knowledge, end quote, that enables someone else to, quote, commit or aid, abet, cancel or procure the commission of a terrorist activity. So, showing people in your local anti-water charges campaign how to pour cement into a water meter, training people in cyber activism, suggesting to people how they might get through the fences at Shannon airport, all of that could now be classed as training for terrorism. We live in an upside down world minister where those who try to stop genocide are prosecuted for terrorism. Where people who bravely went into Shannon airport and tried to stop US war planes are facing prosecution. Those who are guilty of the terrorism, the ones who are raining the bombs down on the people of Gaza, the ones who are shooting down people of Gaza queuing for food, those who fund them, those who arm them, those who politically support them, oh no, we're told they're not the terrorists. You're a terrorist if you try to stop it. I know which side I'm on, I know which side will be vindicated by history, but this bill is a shameful attempt to criminalise effective protest.