Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 71 of 84.
“I move amendment No. 11: In page 8, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(2) The amendment effected by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall apply only to causes of action accruing on or after the date of the coming into operation of this section.”.”
“They should fight claims. Part of the reason claims are encouraged is when a tendency develops not to contest claims. If people contest claims that are not valid, then the message will go out to litigants that there is no point in taking those claims because defendants have the statutory power to stand up to them. People need to avail of the statutory power that, ultimately, we are going to give them. I am happy to discuss it with any retailers.”
“I will reply to the point Deputy Carthy made about section 8. It got some publicity as well around the fact that it was suggested I had deliberately changed the provisions of section 8 to suit myself, or for some purpose that was not in the public interest. As Deputy Carthy knows, that is not correct because he was here on 2 August last year when the Bill was introduced and there has been no change to section 8 since then. I am happy to sit down with retailers. This is a very powerful defence but like any defence, it has to be used. There is no point in the Oireachtas drafting defences, putting them into legislation and enacting them if people for whose benefit they have been enacted decide not to use them and take the easy option out by saying they have been advised that they should just pay over €5,000 to see off a claim.”
“The amendments made by these sections come into effect only in respect of proceedings brought on or after the date those sections come into force. For example, section 16 provides for certain requirements regarding the making of correction orders. Those requirements will apply to defamation actions brought after that section is commenced. Clearly, this group of amendments comprises transitional provisions. They all provide the same with regard to providing that the defences only come into operation after the commencement of the legislation.”
“10 provides that the serious harm test introduced for bodies corporate by section 6 will apply with respect to statements made about bodies corporate from the date of the commencement of section 6. Amendments Nos. 11 to 14, inclusive, 17 and 37 concern the new and updated defence provided for in the current sections 7 to 11, inclusive, and section 20. The amendments provide that the defences will apply to causes of action which accrue on or after the date those defences come into operation. For example, the defence of live broadcasting introduced by the current section 11 will come into operation for broadcasts made after that section commences. Amendments Nos. 17 to 22, inclusive, relate to procedural changes provided for in the current sections 12 to 16, inclusive.”
“The reason I make that point is there has been some ill-informed and very inaccurate commentary suggesting I have in some respect changed or amended section 8. That is completely incorrect. It remains exactly the same. This is a vigorous and very powerful defence I hope retailers will use. The reason the Oireachtas is unanimously giving them this power is to ensure they are not subjected to unnecessary defamation actions. However, if they do not avail of the statutory provision we are giving them, they cannot subsequently complain about the fact that it is insufficient. It is a very sufficient and powerful protection and they should avail of it. Any commentary to the contrary, suggesting I have in some way changed or amended it from the way it was introduced, is simply false. Amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 7, line 19, after “corporate” to insert “that is made on or after the date of the coming into operation of section 6 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2025 ”. This group consists of the transitional provisions included throughout the Bill. Before I address those amendments, since we are on section 8, I will refer to the section. It deals with the provision of a new defence for retailers in circumstances where they are accused of defamation by persons who allege they were defamed by the retailer because they were stopped to check whether they had paid for goods or services. This provision, which is contained in section 8, remains completely intact from the time it was introduced by my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, on 2 August last year.”
“Whereas if we have a decision of a judge, we get an explanation as to why the plaintiff was defamed, the defences that were put forward and why they have or have not succeeded, and a justification for the award of damages coming within the Higgins parameters.”
“The main reason advanced is in order to ensure that the process is expedited, resulting in a reduction in costs. Deputy Carthy referred to the fact that there would probably be more appeals. He is correct that a jury determination is generally more sacrosanct and hard to overturn than the finding of a judge. One of the deficiencies that exists in respect of the area of defamation that will be improved should it be determined by judges is that we do not have any reported first-instance decisions on defamation cases in the High Court. We seldom get that because what happens here, as happened in the case of the former leader of Deputy Carthy's party, is that we just get a result from a jury that the plaintiff succeeds and the damages are a sum of money.”
“First, I will deal with Deputy Carthy's point about time or costs. The point I make is that if a case takes longer, it will cost more. Individuals will have to pay more for a case if it goes for six days rather than four days. The two extra days will add extra cost to it. Both colleagues referred to the Higgins decision. It was an important Supreme Court decision that set out the bands that should be awarded for defamation awards. The Higgins decision will still apply whether there is a jury or not. When it comes to the award of damages, a High Court judge sitting on his or her own, hearing a defamation action today, must apply the parameters of the Higgins judgment. The benefit of the Higgins case is not going to be lost, but it is not the sole reason for the abolition of juries.”
“It is noteworthy that the term is not defined in the proposed amendment. In those cases, juries would have a role in the determination of questions of fact, but would have no role in respect of the assessment of damages. As I noted on Committee Stage, it would be inappropriate to divide functions between a jury and a judge. Deputy Carthy made the point on the previous occasion - I listened carefully to it - that it happened in criminal proceedings, where a jury determined guilt or innocence and the court then imposed a sentence. In a criminal prosecution, it is not feasible to suggest that, at the end of a determination of guilt, the jury would then proceed to set the sentence. The reason we do not do that is because of the necessity of ensuring consistency in the types of sentence imposed on individuals convicted of similar offences.”
“However, anyone who has ever attended a defamation action will be aware that there are many occasions when the jury has to rise and leave the room so that the questions of law can be dealt by the judge, sitting alone. It is fairly clear that a defamation case heard by a judge sitting alone will be faster than a defamation case heard by a judge and a jury sitting together. This is a matter of common sense. I am also not fearful that it will result in miscarriages of justice or individuals being deprived of the opportunity to vindicate their good name. I will now deal with amendment No. 6 in more detail. This is being put forward by Deputies Carthy and Gannon. If amendment No. 6 was accepted, it would divide roles between a judge and jury in cases that may involve substantial damages.”
“The latter claim cannot be determined by a jury and, consequently, many plaintiffs opt to have a High Court judge, sitting on his or her own, determine the action. Any experiences I have had of judges on their own hearing defamation cases have indicated to me that there is not some lesser form of justice. There is no lesser vindication of the rights of the individual when a case is being heard by a judge sitting alone. I note the points made by Deputy Gannon that sometimes judges come from a certain perspective in society and that juries bring a broader assessment. The purpose of juries is to ensure that they will deal with questions of pure fact in respect of issues that are before the court. This has happened in respect of defamation actions.”
“These were abolished because it prolonged the hearing of the action and it was too inefficient for the purpose of determining the increasing number of personal injuries actions. The latter argument does not apply here, but the former does in terms of trying to speed up the process. Very many defamation cases are heard on a daily basis without a jury. In the Circuit Court, damages of up to €75,000 can be awarded, which is a considerable sum of money for damage to reputation. Anyone who takes an action in the Circuit Court does not have a right to a jury. A defamation case in this court is heard by a judge, sitting alone, and individuals get justice there. Similarly in the High Court, many defamation cases are heard without a jury. This can happen if somebody brings forward a claim for defamation and, say, a claim for breach of privacy.”
“4 proposes to remove the section that deals with the abolition of juries. Amendment No. 6 proposes to substitute a different wording so that there would be a sort of a hybrid process in which a jury could be used to determine certain aspects of a case but a judge would determine other aspects. I will make two general points in response to the issues raised by Deputies Carthy and Gannon in particular. The majority of civil cases before the courts are not determined by a jury. They are determined by a judge sitting alone. That has been a fairly constant progression. From the time of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 onwards, we have seen circumstances where all the personal injuries actions up to 1988 used to be heard by juries in the High Court.”
“I will get the amendments that are not contentious out of the way. Amendment No. 5, which I will move, amends section 4 to remove the word "the" because it appears twice. This is simply a technical issue and a typographical error. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9, which I will also move, substitute the word "instituted" with "brought" to provide consistency with the terminology used in the 2009 Act. Amendment No. 8 deletes section 5(1)(c), which removed the definition of "court" from section 26 of the 2009 Act. That is the section that deals with fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. As colleagues will know, amendment No. 15 proposes a change to that. That is why amendment No. 8 is necessary. I will now turn to the two amendments proposed by Deputies Carthy and Gannon. Amendment No.”
“I thank Deputies Carthy, McGrath and Gannon for their contributions. I will start on where there is agreement in what they have said. It is correct to say that the contentious part of the legislation before the House is Part 3, which concerns the abolition of juries. I acknowledge that the colleagues who have spoken are generally supportive of the legislation, notwithstanding their opposition to Part 3. As the Deputies mentioned, we had a very thorough discussion on this issue on Committee Stage. I stand over everything I said at that time. I will respond to a couple of points that were made by the Deputies. We are discussing amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9, which are Government amendments, and amendments Nos. 4 and 6, which are in the names of Deputies Carthy and Gannon. I propose to deal with all of those issues in my response.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 5, line 22, to delete the comma after “Act” and substitute the following: “— “cause of action”, “defamation” and “defamation action” have the same meanings as they have in the Principal Act;”. This amendment seeks to include different references to "cause of action", "defamation" and "defamation action", which were not in the original Bill. The amendment ensures that certain terms used in the transitional provisions introduced by amendments Nos. 11 to 17, inclusive, amendments Nos. 19 to 22, inclusive, and amendment No. 37, which we will be looking at presently, are understood in line with the definitions in the Defamation Act 2009. It is a technical amendment.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 5, lines 19 and 20, to delete “of section 34C into the Principal Act” and substitute “into the Principal Act of different provisions of Part 4A of that Act effected by section 17 ”. This is an amendment to section 1(2) of the Bill, which provides for the commencement of the Act. Amendment No. 2 simply clarifies that different provisions of Part 4A, which deals with transposition of the EU anti-SLAPP directive, can be commenced at different times.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 17, after “Justice” to insert “, Home Affairs and Migration”. I welcome the fact that we are doing Report Stage of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill now. This is a straightforward amendment because all it will do is reflect the change in the title of the Department and my ministerial office from the Minister for justice, to the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. That came into operation on 5 June 2025. This amendment proposes to reflect that change.”
“That is a very significant role, one that is now more apparent because of the success of the Irish economy, and we really need to defend it. The cybersecurity Bill was approved for priority drafting and I hope it will be introduced in the not-too-distant future, but I will get back to the Deputy specifically on that.”
“I know it will be impossible for all cyberattacks to be withstood, but if we have preparedness and measures in place in State agencies, that at least will increase and strengthen our resilience. The Deputy also indicated issues in respect of private sector companies. They all have an obligation to ensure, particularly if they are providing services to the public at large, that they have measures and protections in place so that, be they banks, communications providers or other agencies, their customers are protected in this respect. One of the reasons Ireland is an attractive location for malign State actors or persons who are involved in trying to extract data from private and public enterprises via ransomware is the important link between Europe and the United States.”
“I have had frequent meetings with the Garda Commissioner and the head of the NCSC in respect of the threats to which this country is exposed as a result of malign actors seeking to attack our cyber technology. It is important that I am updated on a continuing basis. I regret to say that the Deputy is correct, in that the threat does exist. It is a threat not just to our national State-owned infrastructure, as he has indicated, but also to private enterprise within the country. The NCSC is to the forefront in this matter, as am I. There is an obligation on State agencies to ensure that each State agency has measures in place to ensure that it can withstand whatever form of cyberattack is forthcoming.”
“Ireland also participates in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in particular as regards cybersecurity, conflict prevention and crisis management. It is important to emphasise that we are prepared, but this is a constant risk and it is inevitable that we will be subject to further attacks in the future.”
“As Deputy Byrne mentioned, it is regrettably the case that some of the attacks taking place on national cybersecurity networks are emanating from malign state actors. It is important that we be prepared in order to respond to and deter that. Deputy Byrne referred to a number of international agreements. I am pleased to say that Ireland is an active participant in a number of UN and other international processes where issues of cybersecurity arise. Among these is the UN open-ended working group on security of and in the use of information and communication technologies, which was established to develop norms, rules, and principles for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.”
“It will also enhance the role of the NCSC, which will include national cybersecurity monitoring, resilience building, information sharing and the national incident response. It will give the NCSC specific powers to engage in a range of scanning-type activities to identify systems vulnerable to specific exploits. The national cyber emergency plan was published in May 2024, and it sets out the national approach for responding to serious cybersecurity incidents that affect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of nationally important information technology and operational technology systems and networks. The NCSC is currently working on the national cyber risk assessment for 2025, which will take into account the changing international threat landscape.”
“Considering the threat posed to the country, it is appropriate that the Department of justice should have departmental and ministerial responsibility for issues concerning cyber threat attacks. Deputy Byrne will also be aware that the European NIS2 directive also provides a major step forward for overall European cybersecurity and resilience. It will enhance cyber risk management in Ireland, including generating significant improvements in our capacity to protect against and respond to major incidents. Last July, the Government gave its approval to the priority drafting of the national cybersecurity Bill, which is currently being undertaken by my Department. That Bill will transpose the NIS2 directive into Irish law.”
“That was a very significant event from the point of view of the country and our preparedness for such cyberattacks. Since then, the National Cyber Security Centre has had a significant increase in its resources. It is essential that those resources have increased very significantly. Back in 2011, the NCSC only had four staff. At the end of 2024, it had 75 staff and an annual budget of €12 million. There is also a commitment in budget 2025 that the number of staff will increase by a further 30, bring it to more than 100 people working in the NCSC. The continued growth of the NCSC reflects the constantly evolving threat landscape and the importance of a resilient national network. It is appropriate, and I welcome the fact, that the NCSC has come within the jurisdictional control of the Department of justice.”
“I thank Deputy Byrne for raising this important issue. The reason I am here is because of the importance of it. Deputy Byrne is well aware that cybersecurity threats pose a major risk to essential services and critical sectors in Ireland and throughout the world. One of the consequences of being a modern, successful economy is that this is the type of threat to which the country is exposed, I regret to say. I therefore welcome that Deputy Byrne has raised this issue. It is important for me to outline, not just to Deputy Byrne, but to the House, the measures taken by my Department to ensure the State’s cybersecurity resilience and preparedness are where they should be. Deputy Byrne referred to the 2021 ransomware attack on the HSE.”
“I am trying to recruit, and we have the funding to recruit 1,000 gardaí each year. I will not give up on that. It really is a requirement. If we have more gardaí available, we will have more gardaí on the streets of Dublin and in other cities. I am conscious that when people hear about increased policing in Dublin, they ask about Wexford, Galway or Cork.”
“It is trying to make it safe for everyone, including people who come to visit, people who work there and, very importantly, people who live there. On the point the Deputy made about relationships with the gardaí, a good community garda is like a good politician, in that people in the area know them. This is something I want to see continue. It does happen in areas, although perhaps it is more difficult in cities the size of Dublin, but it is very important that we have community gardaí in the city centre. I hear what Deputy Gannon said about the small area policing initiative. It sounds like a very good thing. I assure him that in certain parts of the city, gardaí are known to the local communities. Much of this issue comes back to the fact that we need more gardaí. If we have more gardaí, there is much more we will be able to achieve.”
“The gardaí in the inner city are not just there for the commercial sector. In my constituency , and I am sure Deputy Gannon's is the same, there are many residential areas in the inner city. In my constituency there is Glovers Court, which is right beside Aungier Street, as well as York Street and Mercer House. People want to see gardaí in the area. One of the good things about Dublin, unlike capital cities like London, is that we still have communities living in the city centre. It is good that Dublin City Council still has large units for accommodation in the city centre. The fact there are more gardaí in the city centre is not directed at trying to make the city centre a place for the commercial sector.”
“Every time I get involved with people who have drug addiction, I see the sadness of drug addiction and the terrible impact it has on people's lives. Merchants Quay is doing very good projects. For the past six months, there has been the injection facility downstairs and it is working well. I know it can give rise to contentious views. Looking at it from the point of view of the city, however, it is having an impact in reducing the number of people who have to take drugs in a public setting. They can now do it in a private setting.”
“Certainly any increase in burglary is an issue of concern because it can spiral. Sometimes when the gardaí apprehend people, the number of burglaries reduces because one or two individuals can have a significant impact on burglaries in an area. Deputy Gannon mentioned Frederick Court in North Frederick Street and drug dealing going on in the laneways there. That certainly used to happen in my constituency, beside Deputy Gannon's constituency, in the laneways off Aston Quay. I hope that the Garda will get up to the laneways off North Frederick Street and I will bring it to its attention. Earlier today I was down at the Merchants Quay centre. I know Deputy Gannon will be interested to hear this. The project there does excellent work.”
“I do not believe it is the case, although I will check with the Commissioner, that what has happened is that gardaí have been moved from outer parts of the city to inner parts. I do not think this has happened. In fairness, what Deputy Gannon appears to be saying is that some of the problems and criminality that were ongoing in the inner city have moved out a bit because of the increased policing in the inner city. Deputy Gannon mentioned a number of areas. I am concerned to hear about the burglary of the bakery in Russell Street. I am aware of Russell Street, an historic street where Brendan Behan was born. The fact there is a Garda station beside a business does not mean it is immune to burglary or criminal attack. In many respects, I want to see gardaí out of Garda stations and on the streets.”
“As we have said previously, it is a good reflection on the police force in the country that people want to see them around as much as possible. To give Deputy Gannon some of the statistics, as of April 2025 there were 3,824 gardaí working in Dublin. Of these, 1,413 were assigned to Dublin metropolitan north central and south central. Effectively, the inner city has 1,413 gardaí. The reason for the increased visibility of gardaí in the city at present is not so much that gardaí are being moved out of other residential areas into the city centre. To a large extent, it is a policy decision made by the Commissioner. Great credit goes to the assistant commissioner Paul Cleary because recently 101 gardaí from Templemore were assigned to the city centre north-central and south-central regions. This has had an impact on policing.”
“I thank Deputy Gannon for raising this issue. When there is a Topical Issue that is relevant to my Department, I will hope to be here. If I am available and not off elsewhere out of Dublin, I will be here for them. I thank Deputy Gannon for raising these issues, which are also of concern to me, not only as Minister for justice but as a TD for Dublin Bay South, which is just over the Liffey from the area he represents. Deputy Gannon is correct; there is increased Garda visibility in the city centre. As he did, I commend the Garda on it. It has been a good development. I encouraged it and I am glad it appears to be getting public recognition. Much of the time people really want to see gardaí on the streets. It gives them a sense of safety and security.”
“It comes back to the fact that we really need to look at what is in the Bill as opposed to what we think is in it. I thank the Ceann Comhairle.”
“Since it is fresh in my mind, Deputy Coppinger mentioned the issue of the Special Criminal Court and how we can have non-jury courts. It is provided for in the Constitution. It says we can have special courts that can be put in place when the ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to deal with the administration of justice. That option does exist. I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I will take on board what they said. I conclude by stating that section 3 of this Bill is not seeking to restrict protest or undermine freedom of expression. It would not apply to Kneecap and its members could not be prosecuted in this country under this particular provision if this legislation were in place. This is because they clearly did not have the intention of seeking to incite other people to commit a terrorist act.”
“I am conscious I am under the guidance of the Ceann Comhairle, and I am not going to be talking about any cases. In respect of the other two individuals prosecuted with the late Evan Fitzgerald, their cases are still live. One of them has pleaded guilty, while the other case will be back before the courts in July. It would be completely inappropriate of me to make any comments at this stage in respect of those cases because there will certainly have to be some form of a hearing in respect of sentencing for the former and there could be a full trial in respect of the latter. As the Minister for justice, I have certain powers that can be evoked if necessary. I am not going to do anything at this stage until those trials have come to a conclusion.”
“A couple of my colleagues have asked if I will consider amendments; of course I will. I presume Deputies will table amendments. I note what Deputy Paul Murphy said about section 8. He was the only Deputy who referred to a section other than section 3 with which he had concerns. That section seeks to deal with the reality that many of the attacks being perpetrated at present by persons who are trying to exert political pressure on governments and states are cyberattacks. That is something we need to recognise and we should be entitled to respond to it. Deputy Kelly made a significant contribution about Evan Fitzgerald and I am concerned that if I do not say anything it will be perceived as if I do not have a response to give in this respect. All I want to say is that at present there are still two cases that are live and ongoing.”
“Sometimes, I regret, it is perpetrated by people who have also had mental health issues. To respond to that, we need to recognise that there are people seeking to incite vulnerable, impressionable people to get involved in violent behaviour for their own political means. Colleagues also mentioned broader issues about what it happening in the world at present. What is happening in Gaza is reprehensible. This legislation is not going to include an attempt to identify which pieces of terrorist activity we regard as good and which we regard as bad. "Terrorist activity" is defined under the 2005 Act. There is a Schedule that sets out the offences covered by "terrorist activity". It does not specify that the activity is carried out by certain political groups and not by others. It is objective in its operation.”
“I am not suggesting anyone present would do so, but if somebody wanted to stand up and praise terrorist activities that took place in this country in the 1970s or 1980s, for example, the Dublin-Monaghan bombings or the Kingsmill massacre, if somebody wanted to say that he or she supports those acts of terrorism, he or she would be entitled to do so. The only time they will be caught by the criminal law, if this legislation is enacted, is if he or she is doing it with the intention of trying to incite others. Regrettably, it is the case that terrorist activity takes place around Europe. We in Ireland have been pretty fortunate not to have examples of it in recent times. In other parts of the world, however, which we cannot ignore, terrorist activity takes place.”
“We have seen this previously. Deputy Coppinger referred to the fact that this has only been done in recent times because of what is happening in the Middle East. In fairness to the Government, we are belatedly, not unusually, transposing into Irish law a directive from nearly ten years ago. We are transposing into Irish law the directive from 2017. The concern of colleagues that this will have a restrictive impact on protest or freedom of expression is not accurate. People will still be entitled to express support and praise for terrorist activities in the past.”
“Notwithstanding his ability as a singer, he is still going to be able to do it. People can sing songs about "The Boys of Barr na Sráide" and "The Men Behind the Wire". In loyalist parts of Belfast, they can sing whatever they want. They can do whatever activity they wish. The only time this legislation will be triggered is if it is being done with the intention to incite people to commit terrorist activity. What Kneecap is being prosecuted for in the UK would not happen here. Under this legislation, people would be entitled to say they support Hamas, although it has been involved in reprehensible behaviour. You can say what you want. The only time your message is going to come within the criminal law and face criminal sanction is if it is being done with the intention of inciting someone else to commit criminal terrorist activity.”
“The rights to protest and to freedom of expression are fully contained within our Constitution and the European convention. Those rights are not going to be impinged by this. Deputy Ward gave a couple of examples. He said he likes to be able to sing rebel songs. He will still be able to do it.”
“I want to read out again the content of that provision because it is alarmingly wide. It is a provision that would not be enacted by this House. It states: "A person in a public place commits an offence if he ... wears, carries or displays an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation". Somebody who is a supporter of Hamas and who displays that support could be prosecuted in the UK. That would not happen here. The only circumstance in which someone can be prosecuted here is if the activity he or she has been involved in is with the intention of seeking to incite somebody to engage in terrorist activity. There is a full difference between the two Bills.”
“The type of activity we are talking about is in circumstances where people are trying to encourage impressionable younger people to incite them to commit a terrorist act. The argument that has been used repeatedly is that these measures are going to block protest and stop people expressing their legitimately held political opinions. Even if they are political opinions that are supportive of terrorist activity, that is not going to be the case. You have to be inciting somebody to commit or with the intention of committing terrorist activity. Deputies Paul Murphy and Coppinger may not have been here when I referred to the specific provisions of the legislation in the UK under which Kneecap is being prosecuted. Kneecap is being prosecuted under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000.”
“I will contrast the language in the British terrorism Act with what is contained here. The wording is completely different. The first and most important point I want to make in respect of section 3, which deals with public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, is that someone does not even get within the parameters of that offence unless what he or she is doing is being done with the intention of inciting a person to commit terrorist activity. When we talk about "glorification" and actions "that could reasonably be construed as inciting", they only arise if the activity of the person who is being investigated or prosecuted is with the intention of inciting another person to commit terrorist activity.”
“I thank all Members for their contributions, which I have listened to carefully. I many not be able to respond to each of the issues that was raised. I hope they are not offended if I do not specifically refer to the issues to which they referred. I am conscious that a couple of the issue raised, for instance by Deputies Kelly and Coppinger, do not relate to the Bill so I may not be able to deal with them. If I have time, I will. The general opposition to the Bill I have introduced centres on the content of section 3, which concerns public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. A number of Deputies have referred to the fact that this is going to be grossly unfair and will interfere with freedom of expression and the right to protest. I dispute that. It is not the case.”