Paul Murphy: Terror laws could criminalise protests

Thanks a lot. I support the Sinn Féin amendment and I have concerns about the government amendment. I mean I have concerns about this whole piece of legislation to be honest. Maybe to start on the Sinn Féin stuff and the Minister of Response saying, oh no, this is about real terrorism, this is about brown people or Republicans, that's the kind of terrorism we're dealing with here, not any of that bad, any of that fine state terrorism like we see carried out by the US and carried out by Israel. I mean we have today video of an Irish citizen being terrorised by Ben Gavir, security minister in Israel, an Irish citizen, peaceful activist, trying to bring humanitarian aid, break the illegal blockade of Gaza and being physically mistreated while Ben Gavir gloats about it. But we're expected to accept, oh no, we're not dealing with any of that kind of terrorism here, we'll deal with that somewhere else. Why the double standards? Why do we expect to say that the genocide of the Palestinian people and then the complete mistreatment of anyone who attempts to stand up for the Palestinian people doesn't count as terrorism and we don't want to cover it here. The second point is in relation to the Government Amendment 7. I think the redrafting of the definition of terrorist activity which includes an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 committed with the intention of, amongst other things, unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act. So the offences specified includes a lot of serious stuff that people would recognise as terrorism but they also include criminal damage and endangering traffic. Could the fuel protests have been defined as terrorist activity? They were potentially endangering traffic under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act. Endangering traffic includes intentionally places or throws any dangerous obstruction upon a railway, road, street, waterway or public place. Would placing your tractor on O'Connell Street or in front of a refinery be counted as endangering traffic? I suspect it would. Well if you combine endangering traffic as so defined in the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act with an attempt to quote unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act, and obviously these protests were designed to call for a cap on fuel prices amongst other things, can these people be defined as terrorist? Or criminal damage? Attempting to get into Shannon Airport and break the US war machine which is being used to encourage, collaborate with the genocide. Criminal damage, yes, but absolutely morally correct to do so. Does that become a terrorist act? I think, and that's the problem with this whole bill in reality is, and I know the government has an amendment adding in Government Amendment 16, which is saying well, kind of, the engagement of a person by a protest, advocacy or dissent or strike or lockout or industrial action shall not in and of itself constitute grounds for saying that it's terrorism. But it also leaves open the possibility that a protest can be defined as terrorism. Non-violent civil disobedience which includes quote endangering traffic or criminal damage, which has the purpose of compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act. I mean that's, I've been on plenty of protests in my life and all of them have the purpose of compelling a government or an international organisation to do or not do something. That's the whole purpose of a protest. Whether it's unduly compelling, I don't know, but you're certainly trying to compel them to do something. I think this is very, very dangerous that people could be defined as terrorists in this way. So I'm interested in the Minister's response as to, I presume you'll say that no, the fuel protesters wouldn't be defined as terrorists under this legislation, but I'm interested in how you say that they're not, because on my reading it seems that they can be and I think that's what's so worrying about this proposal. Thank you Deputy Ward and Deputy Murphy for their contributions. Just in the first instance to what Deputy Ward said, Deputy Ward wondered whether I had any concern that the definition of terrorist activity or terrorist linked activity could in some respect interfere with and criminalise legitimate protests as we know it and my answer to that question is no. We're not in a situation where we have similar type of laws here, nor would I or government ever propose similar type of laws here as operate under the Terrorist Act of the UK, I think it's section 13 of it, which makes it a criminal offence to wear an emblem or to display an object which would lead to a reasonable apprehension that you're a member of or supporter of a prescribed organisation. So nothing near that level is contained within this legislation. So I am satisfied, Deputy Ward, that the definitions that are set out here are appropriate and that they will not cover what we would regard as ordinary legitimate protest. Deputy Murphy then started his contribution by indicating, of course, terrorist activity refers to Republicans and the type of terrorism we have in Ireland doesn't refer to what's happening in Gaza. Obviously Deputy Murphy wasn't here earlier on when I emphasised that the crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide are already criminal acts under the Irish legal system. They're criminal acts under the International Criminal Court Act 2006, but more importantly anyone aiding or abetting those criminal acts is criminalised by the Criminal Justice Act 1997. So I am entitled to say that there is a distinction between the hierarchy of criminal activity. My own view is that the top of criminal activity is genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. That's where I would have at the top of the pyramid of criminal activity. But terrorism, you know, is separate to it and you may want to define, and you're perfectly entitled to define for the purpose of political narrative, what's happening in Gaza as terrorism. But for the purpose of our legal system I think it is important that we distinguish between terrorist activity and separately genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. Deputy Murphy also raised the question as to whether or not under the definition that is put forward here in Amendment 7, whether the few protesters would come within terrorist activity or terrorist linked activity. The answer to your question is no. If you look at the definition you obviously have to recognise the serious offences contained within Part 1 of Schedule 2 and there is an understanding as to what it in fact means.