The September 11th attacks focused the minds of governments worldwide on the need to combat groups who might organise similar attacks in future. One of the results was the rapid attempt of the EU to draw up agreed measures to combat terrorism within its borders.
The Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism, adopted unanimously just a year ago, was the result.
This spelt out a definition of terrorist acts which included acts aimed at seriously intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organisation to alter its course, or seriously destabilising fundamental political, economic or social structures. Many of its provisions are far-reaching, with considerable implications for the criminal law of member states.
Irish Government representatives voted for this Framework Decision when it was put forward, without any debate in the Dail about its contents. A mechanism for such debate now exists, with the setting up of the Committee on European Affairs. The decision is about to be put into Irish law through the proposed Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Bill, published last Wednesday.
The Bill offers definitions of terrorism which, at first glance, seem very broad indeed. It also places the burden of proof in relation to intent on the person or group accused of the terrorist act. It is open to the interpretation that many groups seeking to overthrow despotic regimes would fall foul of its prohibitions.
For example, supporting acts which have the aim of "destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, economic or social structures of a country" could surely have been laid at the door of the ANC during the apartheid era. Could Nelson Mandela, had he sought sanctuary here, have found himself the victim of the Offences Against the State Act, to be extended to foreign terrorist organisations under this law? Could organisations like the anti-globalisation movement find themselves meeting its definition?
It may well be that there is no intention to use this legislation against such organisations and movements. But this needs to be clearly stated. Above all, there needs to the fullest possible debate on all the measures contained in the Bill, without the participants fearing that raising these issues will have them labelled as soft on terrorism.
The value of open debate is particularly appropriate in this State at a time when our own terrorists, the IRA, have come under such scrutiny in a Government assessment of the strength of Sinn Fein and its paramilitary wing in the current political stalemate in the peace process.
This Bill is deserving of open debate in the Dail in the New Year. It may be deemed to be a foreign piece of legislation but its value-system has many echoes in Ireland.