Ireland’s Latest Counterterrorism Legislation

Ireland’s latest legislative effort in the realm of counterterrorism (Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025) was debated recently in Dáil Eireann. The debate itself was a fascinating, if oftentimes acrimonious affair, with those supporting and those opposing the Bill often speaking as if two very different legislative proposals were under consideration.

From the Government’s side, the Bill was Introduced by Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration Jim O’Callaghan. He outlined quite clearly that the stated aim of the Bill is to fortify Ireland’s counterterrorism framework by aligning it with EU directives and addressing modern threats such as cyberterrorism and foreign terrorist fighters.

However, as the debate unfolded on the floor of the Dáil, it became clear, that for many on the opposition benches the legislation blurred the lines between bolstering national security and eroding fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of speech.

Minister O’Callaghan described the Bill as “a significant step forward in ensuring that Ireland’s counterterrorism framework is robust and fit for purpose in the face of modern terrorist threats.” The legislation itself introduces new offences, including travelling for the purpose of terrorism, receiving training for terrorism, and facilitating such travel. It also redefines public provocation to commit terrorist offences, explicitly criminalising the glorification of terrorism, and categorises certain cyberattacks as terrorist acts when intended to cause widespread harm.

These changes are driven by Ireland’s transposition of the EU’s 2017 Directive on Combating Terrorism (2017/541). This Directive can be usefully situated within the EU’s broader counterterrorism strategy, that has itself evolved significantly since the early 2000s when there were heightened concerns about foreign fighters returning from conflict zones like Syria, as well as the increasing sophistication of terrorist propaganda online.

Although Ireland had an opt-out option under Protocol 21 of the EU treaties, it early on signalled its intent to opt in to the directive shortly after its adoption.

However, it is widely acknowledged that the EU’s approach to counterterrorism has not been without internal criticism. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) have flagged concerns about the directive’s potential to infringe on fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression.

On this, the FRA explicitly called on Member States to ensure that “practical safeguards should be put in place and guidance should be provided to investigating authorities so that activities of professionals such as journalists, researchers or humanitarian organisations do not lead to their implication in terrorism investigations.”

The European Commission itself has acknowledged difficulties in proving legislative intent and ensuring non-discriminatory application, especially regarding far-right extremism. Over 20 member states faced infringement proceedings for failing to fully implement the directive, underscoring its contentious nature. Deputy Catherine Connolly highlighted these issues, noting that the directive “was brought in without complying with essential procedures” and is “extremely problematic,” particularly for its vague definitions and potential to criminalise legitimate protest.

O’Callaghan emphasised the Bill’s role in enabling Ireland’s participation in enhanced EU counterterrorism networks, such as Eurojust’s modernised case management system, which facilitates cross-border investigations. “This will ultimately lead to more terrorist acts being prevented and more terrorists being brought to justice,” he asserted.

Government supporters, like Deputy Joe Neville, argued that the Bill is a pragmatic response to a changing world. He highlighted in particular its focus on “protecting young people, targeting early stages of radicalisation, enabling gardaí to act proactively, tackling cyberterrorism, and cracking down on extremist propaganda.”

He also dismissed opposition concerns, arguing that the legislation is not about “taking people who sing songs out of pubs” but about “making our country and streets safer.” For Neville, the Bill’s provisions, such as treating the recruitment of minors as an aggravating factor and criminalising online glorification of terrorism, are essential to counter 21st-century threats like cyberterrorism and online radicalisation.

The Bill’s most contentious provision is very likely section 3, which redefines public provocation to commit a terrorist offence to include “glorifying (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity” where there is a “reasonable apprehension” that such actions could lead to terrorism.

Critics during the debate, including opposition TD Matt Carthy, dubbed this the “Kneecap clause,” drawing parallels to the UK prosecution of Mo Chara from the Irish rap group Kneecap for displaying a Hezbollah flag during a performance.

Carthy warned that the provision’s broad language “could lead to charges against political activism and legitimate freedom of expression,” citing historical examples where commemorating figures like Bobby Sands or Nelson Mandela could have been construed as glorifying terrorism. “The question has to be asked as to why we would want to include such a provision in the law of this State, given that we know that such a provision could be misused and abused,” he argued.

Deputy Paul Murphy perhaps went furthest of all in his criticisms, calling the Bill “a very serious attack on freedom of speech and the right of people to protest.” Murphy warned that solidarity with groups like Palestine Action, which currently faces proscription in the UK, could be criminalised. “We live in an upside-down world where those who try to stop genocide are prosecuted for terrorism,” Murphy declared, highlighting the Bill’s potential to target activists opposing state actions, such as Israel’s operations in Gaza.

For his part, Minister O’Callaghan robustly defended the Bill, particularly section 3, arguing that it is narrowly tailored to target only those with clear intent to incite terrorism. “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,” he insisted.

He contrasted Ireland’s legislation with the UK’s broader Terrorism Act 2000, which allows prosecution for merely arousing suspicion of supporting a proscribed organisation. O’Callaghan explicitly addressed the Kneecap case, stating, “What Kneecap is being prosecuted for in the UK would not happen here,” as the band’s actions lacked the intent to incite terrorism.

Interestingly, the debate also touched on broader issues of trust in security operations, with Deputy Alan Kelly of the Labour Party raising the case of Evan Fitzgerald, a young man who took his own life following a Garda operation involving a controlled delivery of decommissioned weapons.

Kelly questioned the necessity of the operation and alleged misleading evidence was given in court, undermining judicial trust. “There are no legitimate circumstances when the Judiciary is deliberately kept in the dark by misleading evidence,” he stated, calling for a full investigation. This case heightened concerns about the potential misuse of expansive security powers under the new Bill.

Ultimately, I think it can be said that the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025 reflects Ireland’s attempt to navigate a complex global security landscape.

Its supporters see it as a vital tool to combat evolving threats, from cyberattacks to foreign fighters, thereby ensuring Ireland remains a responsible partner in EU counterterrorism efforts. Yet, the opposition’s fears are not without merit. The vague language of “glorification” and the subjective nature of “intent” raise legitimate concerns about overreach, particularly in a European context where protest rights are increasingly under strain. As Deputy Mairéad Farrell cautioned, “My concern always has to be what future Governments could do.”

For conservatives, the Bill poses a classic dilemma: the state’s duty to protect its citizens versus the individual’s right to free expression. While the Minister’s assurances about intent provide some comfort, the shadow of cases like Kneecap and the broader EU trend of criminalising dissent demand vigilance. Ireland must ensure its counterterrorism laws do not become a blunt instrument to silence legitimate voices, lest it mirror the very authoritarianism it seeks to combat.