Sharon Keogan: Supports Terrorism Bill but Warns on 'Kneecap' Clause
Sharon Keogan addresses the Seanad to broadly support the Criminal Justice, Terrorist Offences Amendment Bill, arguing it is necessary to respond to decentralised, digital and cross-border terrorism. She endorses strengthened offences for travel, training and facilitation while warning that a new speech-related provision, the so-called kneecap clause, risks criminalising historical expression and requires clearer safeguards.
Key points and endorsement
Sharon Keogan outlines why she believes the Bill is a necessary and timely update to Ireland's criminal justice framework. She highlights offences that criminalise travel for terrorism, the provision and receipt of training, and facilitation activities as essential steps toward prevention rather than purely reactive policing.
Domestic risks and international alignment
Keogan warns that modern terrorism is decentralised and often transnational, and she cites worrying incidents and analyst warnings that suggest extremist networks may view Ireland as comparatively softer. She argues the Bill brings Ireland into line with European standards and improves cooperation and intelligence sharing.
Concerns about ideological networks and transparency
The Senator raises the need for better visibility of ideological networks operating within the state, including concerns mentioned about movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and their affiliated organisations. She stresses that this is a matter of governance and transparency, not religion.
Speech, history and the kneecap clause
While supporting the Bill overall, Keogan is critical of the addition that would treat content that 'glorifies' terrorism as provoking an offence. She warns that Ireland's unique historical memory means such provisions must be narrowly drafted and proposes targeted amendments and clearer safeguards.
Next steps and conclusion
Keogan calls on Government to engage constructively with opposition proposals to refine the Bill. She finishes by reiterating support for the legislation while insisting it should be improved to protect free expression and historical debate alongside public safety.
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.
Fáilteas seoch, Minister, i Seanad Éireann a tra thóna chó bráintain. I felt I had to say something after that beautiful Irish by Senator Gallagher. So, turning to the matter before this House, I rise broadly in support of the Criminal Justice, Terrorist Offences Amendment Bill. This is a necessary and timely piece of legislation. The nature of terrorism has changed dramatically in recent years. It's no longer confined to organised groups operating in defined territories. It is decentralised, digital, international and often embedded within networks that operate across borders, across jurisdictions and in some cases behind layers of plausible deniability. Ireland cannot afford to be behind the curve on this issue. There are growing concerns that we've seen as unprepared. There is evidence, both anecdotal and factual, suggesting that extremist networks view Ireland as a softer environment that extremist networks can operate compared to our European neighbours. The ability to move between jurisdictions, particularly across the island, combined with the limited visibility into certain networks presents a real vulnerability. We have seen worrying incidents in recent years. Attacks on members of Angadha Síochána, assaults motivated by extremist ideologies and threats against places of worship. These are not isolated events. These point to a broader pattern that deserves serious attention. In parallel, there have been warnings from analysts and international observers about the activity of extremist link networks in Ireland, including those operating indirectly through affiliated or front organisations. This brings me to a related point, the need for better visibility and understanding of ideological networks operating within the state. Concerns have been raised about the presence and influence of movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood through a range of associated organisations. This is not a question of religion. It is a question of transparency, governance and whether the state has the tools and information necessary to understand what is operating within its jurisdiction. In that context, this Bill is a step in the right direction. It strengthens our legal framework in several important ways. It criminalises travel for the purpose of terrorism, the provision and receipts of training and the facilitations of these activities. These are exactly the kind of indirect and preparatory actions that characterise modern terrorism structures. By targeting them, we move from a purely reactive model to a preventative one. This Bill also brings Ireland into alignment with wider European standards. This is critical. Terrorism is not a domestic problem alone. It is an international one. Cooperation, intelligence sharing and legal compatibility with our partners are essential if we are to respond effectively. However, supporting this Bill does not mean ignoring its flaws. Before I finish, I do feel obliged to address one part of the Bill, which is the so-called kneecap clause. Specifically, I am speaking of the addition to the Principle Act that says that if a person shares content that, quote, glorifies, including by praise or celebration, a terrorist activity, that they will be found to have provoked the commission of terrorism offence and a terrorist offence. I regret that I have to bring this up, but to say again, I am overall very supportive of this Bill, but it seems negligent to me that the Government has proceeded to push through this clause, regardless of the heavy debate and scrutiny it came under in the Dáil. I also have to say that it seems downright reckless to bring this into the Irish political context. It may sound a little facetious, but could singing Seán Southam Garion qualify under this clause? I think it is an important question that the Government should have asked itself. For better or for worse, the War of Independence, the Civil War and the Troubles are not pieces of dead history. They are, for better or worse, living parts of our society and culture. That makes the Irish context unique, and it requires careful drafting when it comes to provisions dealing with speech, expression and historical memory. I will not belabor the point, but I do believe that specific provision should be revisited. I would be open to amendments that narrow its scope and provide clearer safeguards, and I would encourage the Government to engage constructively with the opposition on this matter. In conclusion, the Bill is necessary. It brings our ability to respond to modern terrorism, it aligns us with international partners and it addresses real and invoking threats. But like all legislation in this area, it must strike the right balance. With targeted refinement, particularly in relation to speech provisions, it can do more effectively. So I support the Bill, but I support improving it also. Go raibh maith agat.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
