Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022: Second Stage

Minister for Justice (Deputy Helen McEntee)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to bring the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 before the House. This is a significant Bill that will update our existing legislation on incitement to hatred and provide for hate crimes for the first time in Irish law. The development of this legislation has been long awaited by many and is a key commitment in the programme for Government.

In introducing this Bill, the Government will deliver on its commitments: to introduce hate crime legislation based on an aggravated offences model and create specific offences to ensure those who target victims because of their association with a particular identity characteristic are identified as perpetrators of hate crime; and, in order to ensure that those who seek to encourage and incite others to hate minority groups can be prosecuted, to revise and update the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, taking account of the public consultation conducted in 2019.

Members of minority and vulnerable communities have spoken time and again about the horrendous and unacceptable prejudice, contempt and hostility they face daily. They have been targeted and subject to horrific abuse, and attacks, simply because of their identity. When we hear about these incidents, the victims are commended for their courage in speaking out and drawing attention to the discrimination and hatred that they face. However, it is no longer good enough to give people a pat on the back. These communities deserve to be protected, to have their identities and cultures celebrated and to live without fear of victimisation simply because of who they are.

Many individuals in our country live their lives hiding a part of themselves, modifying their daily routines and changing the way they dress, speak and present themselves to the world, all in order to avoid being targeted. This is not the vision I have for this country, nor is it that of many others. It does not reflect the tolerant society we want to live in. This new legislation will contribute fundamentally to allowing everybody in Ireland to live without fear as they live the most authentic version of themselves.

The Government's vision is of a safe, fair and inclusive Ireland. We want to build stronger, safer communities. An inclusive Ireland is one where crimes motivated by prejudice, hate or bigotry are not tolerated and where everybody feels safe and is safe. We want perpetrators of this vile behaviour to know they will be punished for spreading hate, prejudice and division.

In developing this legislation, my Department carried out an extensive public consultation process. It began in 2019 and comprised surveys, stakeholder consultations, a call for detailed submissions and focused group work. Seven independently facilitated discussion workshops took place around the country. A series of meetings were held with interested groups, organisations, academics, law enforcement personnel, professionals and other experts. Several representative groups against hate crime have worked on this. I thank everybody who was engaged in getting the legislation to this point. This engagement resulted in vital insights from the communities and, in particular, individuals most impacted by hate speech and hate crime. The often moving and distressing testimonies of individuals and groups recounting their lived experiences of hostility and abuse provided the imperative to ensure that the new legislation would be victim-centred and effective.

The findings of this public consultation process, along with analysis of qualitative data gathered in the stakeholder workshops and research by my Department into hate legislation in other jurisdictions all informed the report, Legislating for Hate Speech and Hate Crime in Ireland: Report on the Public Consultation 2020. The conclusions drawn in this report underpin the legislation before the House and are grounded in the reality of what minority and vulnerable communities experience and need under the law.

Let me turn to the Bill itself and outline what is proposed. Part 1 is standard. It gives the Title to the Bill and provides definitions for the many important terms used throughout.

This part also sets out the protected characteristics for the purpose of the Bill, which are race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origin, descent, sexual orientation, gender, including gender expression or gender identity, sex characteristics and disability. These protected grounds have been expanded from those set out in the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 and now include descent, gender, disability and sex characteristics. The protected characteristics represent those most frequently mentioned by individuals throughout the course of the public consultation and in the submissions made to the Joint Committee on Justice when conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of this legislation. The list of protected characteristics will be kept under review and if evidence emerges of hate offences or hate speech targeting an identity characteristic not listed in the Bill, it may be added at a later date. This section will also repeal, in its entirety, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which is being replaced by updated provisions that I will summarise shortly. This Part also contains a standard commencement provision and standard expenses provision.

Part 2 deals with incitement to violence or hatred, or hate speech. The principal purpose of this Part is to provide for a new offence of incitement to violence or hatred that will replace the provisions of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. While in some respects, the 1989 Act was ahead of its time 30 years ago, regrettably, it has not been effective in securing more than a few dozen convictions over the intervening period. As a consequence, I have directed that the incitement offences be updated to ensure that they are more effective, clearer and more reflective of the current context. The new legislation will lower the threshold for criminal incitement to violence or hatred to include "recklessness" and in so doing, will mean that prosecutions are more likely to be secured. This means that a person must either have deliberately set out to incite hatred or violence, or at the very least have considered whether what they were doing would incite hatred, concluded that it was significantly likely, and decided to go ahead anyway. This change from the 1989 Act to include "recklessness" was welcomed in submissions to the pre-legislative scrutiny process. It means that any intentional or reckless communication or behaviour that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or persons because they are associated with a protected characteristic can be criminalised.

The Bill also provides for criminalisation of the condoning, denial or gross trivialisation of genocide and other crimes against humanity by creating a new offence as required under the European Council Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia. A new, separate and lesser offence of preparation or possession of material likely to incite violence or hatred has also been included in the Bill. This will apply to individuals who create hateful content with the intention of communicating it in order to incite violence or hatred, but have not yet communicated it publicly.

I am aware that there has been much attention and interest in how the right to freedom of expression is reflected in this legislation. This right is enshrined in our Constitution and in the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the right to free speech is not absolute, and limits may be placed on it by law to protect other fundamental rights. I am confident that this Bill strikes the correct balance in protecting freedom of expression with the rights of minority and vulnerable communities to be protected from hate speech. The Bill expressly provides that a communication will not be taken to incite violence or hatred solely on the basis that it involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to protected characteristics. I want to stress that this legislation is not about enforced politeness, or political correctness - it is about providing protection to those who need it and those who currently experience extreme forms of criminal hate speech. While individuals can hold and express opinions that others might find offensive or shocking, I want to make it very clear that it is extreme forms of hate speech that deliberately and recklessly incite or stir up acts of hostility, discrimination or violence that will be criminalised. People may hold different views and opinions, and we do not intend to criminalise them. Such people will not be liable to conviction for hate speech. There are defences available for reasonable and genuine contributions to literary, artistic, political, religious, scientific, or academic discourse that are made in good faith. A "reasonable and genuine contribution" will have to be shown to be a contribution that is considered by a reasonable person, including a judge or jury, as being reasonably necessary in the context of a debate or discussion involving a protected characteristic.

We are all aware that online hate speech is an increasingly insidious problem that our current legislation is not equipped to address. This is not surprising given that the 1989 Act was not drafted with the online world we live in today in mind. The new provisions of this Bill have been crafted carefully in order that they operate effectively in both an online and offline context. I acknowledge the very important work of the Department of the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, in this regard. The Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022, which is currently making its way through the Houses, will play a pivotal role in regulating and managing hate content online and will dovetail with the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022. Through the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill, an online safety commissioner is being appointed to oversee the development of legally binding online safety codes. These codes will govern the operation of social media companies, many of which have headquarters in Ireland, and will ensure that they take appropriate action to remove any hateful, or otherwise illegal, content promptly from their platforms. My officials have been working closely with officials in the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to ensure that the operation of these two important pieces of legislation is in tandem.

Part 3 relates to hate crimes based on an aggravated offences model in line with the programme for Government commitment. This model involves creating new "hate crime" offences where specific offences are aggravated by hate of a protected characteristic. The Bill as published provides for 12 new specific hate offences. The reason they have been chosen is that they are the most commonly cited crimes against people on identity grounds. The aggravated offences will attract a higher penalty than the ordinary form of the offence, unless the ordinary form already attracts the maximum penalty possible. There is a safeguard included whereby if there is not sufficient evidence to convict a person of the "hate crime" version of the offence, they may still be convicted of the "ordinary" form. This is to encourage the prosecution of hate crimes and avoid any risk that the entire prosecution will fail if the hate element cannot be proven. If a person is assaulted, there can still be a conviction for assault. A person is guilty of a hate-aggravated offence under this Part if he or she commits one of the core offences and in doing so he or she is motivated by hatred of a protected characteristic, or demonstrates hatred based on a protected characteristic at the time of committing the offence. For all of the offences in this Part, hatred may be based on the victim's actual or presumed membership of a group associated with a protected characteristic. As I indicated, these offences include both a motivation test and demonstration test as the test of proof. As initially drafted, the general scheme provided only for a motivation test for hate crimes. However, in the course of drafting the Bill, it became evident that a motivation test alone in proving hate offences sets too high a threshold and would likely be unsuccessful in securing convictions. Relevant stakeholders, including academics and those representing minority groups, advocated for inclusion of a demonstration test in their submissions to the Joint Committee on Justice during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. The committee included this as a key recommendation in the subsequent report. A demonstration test hinges on the perpetrator demonstrating hatred towards a member of a protected group or characteristic at the time of an offence being committed. This would involve, for example, the use of hostile or prejudiced slurs, gestures, other symbols or graffiti at the time of offending. The primary difference between a demonstrative model and a motivational model is that, under a demonstration test, the prosecution must prove the demonstration of hostility, but no subjective intent or motivation is required; it is an objective test. Conversely, a motivation test requires proof of the defendant's subjective motivation for committing the offence, which can set a higher bar to secure a conviction.

Following the recommendation by the justice committee, my Department carried out extensive additional research and consultation, including meetings with representatives from neighbouring jurisdictions in the UK where the demonstration test has been in operation for many years, and with An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and the Attorney General. On the basis of further research and consideration, I made the decision to include the demonstration test in the legislation to ensure that it would be successful in securing convictions where they are needed. I am pleased to note that this decision was welcomed by representatives of many of the groups that have engaged with us.

In concluding these opening remarks, I am certain that all sides of the House appreciate the need for this legislation and the positive impact that its enactment will have on the communities and individuals most affected by hate speech and hate crime in our country. It will encourage victims to come forward and report hate-related incidents to An Garda Síochána. More than 350 Garda diversity officers are trained, developed and supported to engage with and attend to the concerns of our minority, diverse and hard-to-reach communities right across the country. They provide reassurance, build trust and extend the accessibility of the Garda service to these groups. In addition, the Garda national diversity and integration unit monitors all incidents recorded on PULSE that have a discriminatory motive.

It advises, supports and assists gardaí who are investigating incidents that may have a discriminatory motive attached. Once enacted, the Bill will ensure hate-motivated offences in our communities can be investigated and prosecuted as such. This will help to deliver a safe, fair and inclusive Ireland.

I look forward to Deputies' contributions and will be happy to address any concerns or questions they may have regarding certain aspects of the Bill. In summary, it seeks to ensure that people in this country who do not feel safe and who do not go about their daily lives in the way they should will feel comfortable in coming forward where these types of incidents, whether acts of violence or incitement to hatred, happen, and to support the Garda in ensuring there will be criminal convictions. While we need to protect individuals' right to free speech and must not stifle debate, there is a line and where it is crossed, we must be clear as a society that we will not tolerate that.

Deputy Pa Daly

We welcome the intent behind the Bill and the effort and work that has clearly gone into addressing the needs of people who experience hatred on account of who they are. As the Minister said, people need to feel safe and we accept that the current Act is not effective. We have received, as I am sure all Deputies have, many submissions on the Bill, even after the pre-legislative scrutiny concluded, and there seems to be an attempt to get it through as quickly as possible. We agreed that the amendments deadline, which was yesterday, should not usually fall before Second Stage but, in fairness, the Joint Committee on Justice has examined and dealt with more legislation than any other committee.

While it is not exactly on all fours with the Bill, there were recently some disturbing events in my constituency where certain elements have claimed that there are examples of no-go areas in the county and suggested gardaí have said this. Senior members of An Garda Síochána have stated this is rubbish and totally untrue, yet a number of people have contacted me about it, some of whom are perhaps naive while others are not so. The agenda of these content creators who trade in hate is to divide communities and stir up tensions.

As for the Bill, we support its intent and our primary concern is for it to strike the right balance. Submissions from the likes of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, and academics from the University of Limerick have sought clarity on a number of areas within it. There seems to be a difficulty, according to some of the submissions we received, with the definition of "hatred", perhaps suggesting the definition as outlined will act as a sort of a stalking horse inviting amendments on a later Stage, and I think it will probably be amended at some stage. It seems to be circular as defining “hatred” as hatred towards a group or individual based on protected characteristics, and perhaps this needs to be fleshed out at a later stage. While I understand the need for a simple definition, there are alternatives, and the ICCL recommended that this definition be replaced by one provided by the Council of Europe’s European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance and endorsed by the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. That definition states:

Hatred shall mean a state of mind characterised as intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group.

Of course, we believe in the fundamental right to free speech, but this core right should not be allowed to be abused to incite hate, prejudice or violence against others. Freedom of speech is not a one-way street, and the vulnerable must be protected and feel that they are safe and protected. No one has the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

The Bill, as outlined by the Minister, contains three major provisions, namely, creating the new offence of incitement to hatred, making the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide a crime and creating aggravated versions of the existing offences where hatred was a motivating factor. It represents a major reform of existing laws and amounts to a single statute for crimes relating to hatred. I commend all the work that has taken place on this. A single statute on hate crime is something we support in principle. It can go some way towards offering a proper means of recourse for those who have suffered as a result of hate crime.

Nevertheless, we need to be careful about using the criminal law without addressing the root causes of prejudice in society. A concurrent action plan on reducing hate crime is required and should be prioritised by the Departments of Justice and Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. At a general level, inequality also fuels prejudice and there must be a wider effort to address poor housing, unemployment and inadequate healthcare. These failures affect working people no matter whether they are born here or are fleeing Russian aggression in Ukraine or discrimination and war in other parts of the world. We have a long and proud record of opposing divisions in this Republic. We want to build an island free of divisions of any type and we stand for all workers and families no matter what else is said. The rationale and grounds for the inclusion or exclusion of aggravated offences should be clarified as the Bill moves through the House. A defence of free expression, as outlined, is in principle a good idea but, again, there must a clear definition. The notion of a contribution towards discourse can be subjective - one person's hate speech can be another person's debate - and the subjectivity of what constitutes a fair remark may be difficult to ascertain in practice. What consequences the criminalisation of the distribution of materials may have on free speech should also be clarified. Indeed, we need clarity on whether there is a fallback within the legislation where a non-aggravated version of the crime has taken place if a jury finds the hate element has not been proven. The general provision on hatred as an aggravating factor should, perhaps, also be amended, as has been recommended, to include presumed membership of the protected group.

In terms of policy provisions backing the implementation of the Bill, the use of restorative justice in these offences should be examined. Judging by some work carried out in the North of Ireland, many victims simply want to avoid a repeat of the bad behaviour, and restorative justice may be appropriate in those circumstances. This will avoid some of the inevitable issues that will arise from the use of criminal law to combat prejudice; it cannot be done on its own. The consequences of conviction for an offence are, of course, serious. It is arguable that although many of the Bill’s provisions envisage that cases will be prosecuted in the District Court, a conviction in respect of hate crime should be taken only in the clearest circumstances and should not be clarified as a minor offence fit to be tried summarily.

Another criticism of the Bill relates to the equating of offences, and the Minister spoke at length about the demonstrable side of things. Some criticism has come from academics in regard to equating the offences without motive with those that were planned in advance. For example, under section 18, if a person, at the time of the offence or immediately before or after doing so, demonstrates hatred and if that hatred is on account of presumed membership of a group, there is a demonstration test. This has come under some criticism from academics, which is all the more reason the allegation in cases should consider education and de-escalation along with addressing the general inequalities in having a role to play in delivering justice. That is not to excuse what is said in the heat of the moment, but equating the types of offences has been criticised given the serious consequences. The justice system must ensure it will not create any further divisions.

I look forward to moving amendments on Committee and Report Stages and hope we will be allowed further time for a full debate.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Deputy Daly has engaged extensively on the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider his amendments. We are acting in good faith to work with the Government on this because we believe that providing for a single statute for hate crime is appropriate. We have some concerns with the Bill and these need to be heard, but what we want to see is an action plan for implementation. For too long, vulnerable cohorts in our society have felt as though they have no protection. We need to send a clear message that targeting people because of their race, sexuality or gender is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

I pay homage to the Traveller Visibility Group and the Traveller Women’s Network in Cork, which have done wonderful work in promoting the rights of members of the Travelling community and combating those who target them. These groups, alongside Cork City Council, have held some very positive events in recent years highlighting the history, culture and way of life of the Travelling community. Events like this are so important in reducing stigma and learning about those around us. We still see a lot of racism directed towards Travellers.

For many, it is the last acceptable form of racism. I want to be very clear. It is wrong, it is unfair and it must be stopped.

Alongside this, we acknowledge the stigma that is faced by those in the LGBTQ+ community. We passed the marriage equality Bill four years ago but there is still huge work to be done for that community. This legislation will also give them the protections they so desperately need and want. We should also recognise those who are working to combat racism. In my constituency, St. Vincent’s Secondary School, which my daughter attends, has been awarded the yellow flag. I say well done to all the students, teachers and parents for their work on combating racism and promoting inclusion.

In her eye-opening report, Afrophobia in Ireland: Racism Against People of African Descent, which I encourage everyone to read, Dr. Lucy Michael discussed the everyday racism faced by people of African descent in Ireland. This was in 2015 and we would like to think we have moved on. However, I am not sure we have moved on to the degree we would like to have seen. That is really disappointing.

As the crises in housing and health get worse and successive governments refuse to take the blame, people look to put the blame somewhere. Pitting vulnerable people against each other is exactly what failing governments want. It is wrong. We need to fight this every step of the way. When children sleep in hotel rooms tonight, we must not look at our neighbours and friends or try to blame other communities or groups. That is not where the blame lays. We certainly should not be blaming those who are fleeing war. We should be putting the blame where it belongs, which is in this Chamber. These policies should have been addressed. The crises of housing and health should have been addressed. We are now seeing those policies allowing the rich to get richer while the vulnerable become more vulnerable. As the housing crisis worsens and despair deepens, people begin to lose hope and anger builds. My worry and that of many people is where that anger is put. I believe the wrong people are being blamed. We must be clear; this is not right.

In 2020, people came out and voted for change. They voted for a positive vision of this island where every child has a safe roof over his or her head; a caring society in which people have full bellies and open arms. That change is going to happen but unfortunately, it will take a while. We must not let those with hidden agendas tear us apart while we strive for change. Today’s legislation is a positive step. It recognises that there is no space in our society or communities for hate. I again ask the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by Deputy Daly, and work with us and with those of other parties and none to make the strongest possible Bill we can bring forward to combat hate in our society.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate today. I am very privileged to represent an incredibly diverse constituency. I genuinely believe the diversity we have in Fingal is a massive strength for my area and for our communities.

I encourage the Minister to engage with her Government colleagues and remind them of the leadership role they have and must embrace within our constituency. There was a house fire in my area recently. I will not identify where it was. A woman and her young family were traumatised by the destruction of their home. The site was still warm with smoke still rising from it when some of the Minister's Government colleagues went on the airwaves to speculate about the fire and whether there was a racial element to it. There was not. They would have found that out if instead of picking up the telephone to one of those shock-jock types, they had actually bothered to go and talk to the family. They would have known that was just a horrible accident that left a family traumatised. Then, piled on top of that was this speculation and rhetoric. It really did not help. That fire was an accident. The message people got from the Minister's colleagues was no accident, however, and they heard it loud and clear. They should have gone to that site and talked to the people in the community. I am really hopeful that as we go through the debate on this legislation we will have a mature discussion, just as we did with the eighth amendment when everybody stood in this Chamber and said we must have a respectful debate. Many people changed their minds and learned because we were able to have a respectful debate and a good discussion. There were people who tried to interrupt it. The same people will probably try to interrupt this but we need to be absolutely steadfast. We must deal with facts. We must be mature and responsible but must also acknowledge the leadership role we as politicians must have.

I want to use the remainder of my time to pay tribute to those in my community who work really hard to combat racism, hatred, homophobia and misinformation, because that is a huge part of it. It is fuelling much of what we see. The hatred that we see online is fuelled by misinformation and people deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Sometimes, the message is picked up and repeated by politicians. That has to stop. We need to be sure of our sources but we also need to know that when we speak, we have a responsibility to all of the people in our communities.

I want to recognise in particular the work of Fingal Communities Against Racism. I cannot name everyone but they are doing fantastic work. I want to say a special word of thanks to Dr. Lucy Michael for her work, not just with Fingal Communities Against Racism but also in challenging racism and championing equality, diversity and inclusion. We need to have that balance as we go through the debate on this legislation. It is not just about challenging the racism, homophobia, hate speech and disgusting vile language; it is also about presenting that positive message.

Fingal Communities Against Racism is a group of people doing what we can to help in our area. Sometimes, that means gathering up clothes and supplies to bring to people who are living in direct provision centres that are inhumane, which I think is the kindest way I can put it. Sometimes, it is about helping out with a language resource or some supports for new members of our community. There is always something to be done. I will be honest; it is usually not me doing it. It is other people. However, I try to do a bit if I can. I encourage the four other Deputies in my constituency to get involved. I am sure they are aware of the work Fingal Communities Against Racism does. It would be great to see them there. I remind them again of the leadership role they have. They need to take that seriously. It needs to inform their work and also their activism. If they had been in touch with the people in Fingal Communities Against Racism, they would not have been as quick to contact the shock-jock. They would not have been as quick to judgment and would not have caused all of the hurt that could have been avoided within my community.

I also want to touch briefly on the racism experienced by Travellers in this State. It truly is the last acceptable form of racism in our discourse, so much so that in this Chamber in the Dáil and in the Seanad, several of the Minister's Government colleagues and others have had to apologise publicly for their use of racist language with regard to Travellers. Indeed, they have celebrated publicly their opposition to Traveller housing. It is absolutely disgusting. It is good that they have apologised for it, but it would be better if we could say with certainty that it will not happen again.

Travellers in this State have the lowest levels of life expectancy and the highest rates of death by suicide compared with the general population. If that does not scream at us that we have a problem, I do not know what will. I hope that this legislation will go some way towards combating the racism experienced by Irish Travellers. There is so much for our Traveller friends to be proud of. My colleague, an Teachta Gould, mentioned the yellow flag scheme. Some of the schools in my area have the flag, including St. Oliver Plunkett's National School in Balrothery. It is a great example of positive work being done. We have said loads of times that people are not born racist; they are taught racism. They hear racism.

When they hear it from people who are here, who are elected, that has an even stronger message. That is why we need to be really careful. There is so much good work being done yet a recent survey tells us that 55% of people would not want Travellers living in their community while 85% would not have a Traveller as a friend. When we talk about populism and populist language, those on the Government benches need to check themselves. That is the language they use. They are very quick to say this is populist and that is populist. They should look at those statistics and see what they are doing. Leadership is what they should be providing. It takes a bit of bravery to do it, absolutely, but it is the right thing to do and it should be done.

Rose Marie Maughan, a very well known human rights activist, says in a tweet about this legislation: "Lets hope it will be a law that will help everyone from hate crimes including Irish Travellers." I very much echo that sentiment.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

We welcome the legislation. We have been campaigning for it for many years. Previous Ministers for Justice said there was no need for it because of the 1989 Act which, as the Minister has just admitted, was ineffective. We welcome this debate and opportunity and we welcome the legislation, which we have to get right. I want to start on a positive note. I have just come from the Irish Traveller Movement Yellow Flag Awards in the Ark in Temple Bar. I saw all the children. If any of us wants to have any hope for the future, we should go to a school engaged in the yellow flag process and see what those children are achieving together and what we can learn from them. It was so inspirational and emotional to see children from all parts of the country coming together talking about their learnings and living in an Ireland which is so much more rich and exciting than the Ireland I grew up in. The Ireland I grew up in was stale, old and failed and everybody wanted to leave it. Now we have a country which is full of families who have come here to become Irish, to be Irish and to share this international experience. It is facilitated by the Irish Traveller Movement. I see Bernard Joyce is in the Gallery and he is so very welcome to witness this debate.

It is striking, however, that the teachers of these children do not look like the children in their schools as much as they should. The first interface of a child with the State is probably in their primary school, maybe in junior infants. Far too many of our teachers are not as diverse as the children they teach. We need to challenge that and rectify it. There are reasons behind it. We do not need to flesh them out here. It has been said that hate comes from somewhere. Hate comes from ignorance and fear. It can come from poverty but not always. Some of the most closed-minded people I have ever come across are those who have most. Those who have most sometimes are most worried about losing what they have. They have this perception that equality is about taking from them the privilege they have and have always had. We need to challenge that as well.

On the legislation, I have great misgivings as to how this is being done and how the Bill is being managed. We were asked as Members of the Oireachtas to submit our amendments yesterday, before the Second Stage debate which was due to happen yesterday and is happening today. That is not the way to do business. I raised it on the Order of Business yesterday. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform admitted that it was not best practice as did the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I have written to the Ceann Comhairle to express my disappointment and to make clear that if we are trying to amend legislation that we have to get right, because we have waited so long to get it right, we have to do it in the proper way. To demand of Deputies to submit amendments to a Bill before the Second Stage debate is not the best way to go about it.

Leadership has been spoken of. I accept what other Deputies have said about political leadership, yet within these Houses we have had voices who have not helped. We cannot pretend that all of this hatred comes from anonymous online groups. We have to call it out for what it is wherever it happens. It happens in this Chamber. We have a Deputy of this House who has said that asylum seekers are freeloaders, hoodlums and blackguards. We have another Deputy who speaks in this Chamber and who has said that asylum seekers and immigrants need to be deprogrammed. We have members of the Minister's own party who have said that they will not deal with black Africans. We have had the most disgusting, violent, appalling things said about the Traveller community for as long as I have been involved in politics and people generally get away with such statements. They may have a small period of suspension from a political party but there is always a readmittance. That has to be called out and it has to stop. All of us in our own political entities, groupings and organisations have an absolute responsibility to call out hate and racism wherever it comes from. It is not good enough for us in the political system to stand up and make speeches about how much we agree with ourselves on how hate is terrible, but at the same time sit in committees and chambers with people who are well versed in using language to punch down on vulnerable communities when they know they can get away with it. One of the Minister's own colleagues, who just happens to be the Chair of the education committee, only two weeks ago described people in addiction as "druggies". He was speaking from about two rows behind the Minister. We all have a responsibility in how we manage the way we speak.

We have an issue with hate. We have to understand hate, define it and work to eradicate it. We have to understand where it comes from. Criminalising it is one way of doing it but education is another aspect of what we have to speak about. If somebody is guilty of an offence under this Act, we have to meet what everybody wants to happen and what the victims of such a hate crime want to happen, namely that this individual will not reoffend and it will not happen again. We have to ensure that there will be a process by which this person can understand how their hatred has led to a situation of such destruction, unhappiness, anger and pain. We need to reflect on that. What we do not want is for somebody who is convicted of an offence under this legislation to double down on their hatred. There absolutely will be bad actors out there who will convince an individual who may be guilty of an offence that this is political correctness gone mad and that they have been criminalised for something that was in their head and that this is what happens when progressive politics goes too far. They will double down and potentially commit themselves to a lifelong venture of hatred. We need to be mindful of that.

We have received submissions from academics, and particularly from the University of Limerick. I give great credit to Dr. Jennifer Schweppe and Dr. Amanda Haynes for the work they have done over more than ten years advocating in this space. When someone who has advocated for hate crime legislation for so long points out deficiencies in the Bill, we really have to take notice of what they are saying. We are anxious to get this legislation passed but we cannot rush it. If we get this wrong, if we make a mistake or if there is a false line in what we produce or pass, there are well-organised and well-financed groups that will pick holes in what we have passed and use that to politicise and radicalise young men in particular.

The Ireland that I grew up in was made for people just like me. It was made for white, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual men. It was made for us. We have always run this place. We see ourselves everywhere. When I was growing up I saw people just like me in positions of power. The teacher, the garda and the person on television all spoke like me, all looked like me and all sounded like me. Such figures tended to be white, middle-class, able-bodied, settled, heterosexual males. If we walk around the halls of this esteemed building we generally see people who look just like me. If someone does not come from the background I come from and does not have that experience of seeing people just like themselves in positions of authority, they need the political system to work for them. It was interesting listening to the children this morning and to the presenter, Emer O'Neill. She is from an African background; her father is from Nigeria. She said she came to the conclusion when she was six that she just wanted to be different. She was dying to be different from what she was; she was dying to be the same as everybody else, because she was half African. That is such a heartbreaking thing to hear any child think.

I am coming back to the point about the legislation and how we have to be so sure that if somebody falls foul of it, it is not something that is going to hang over them forever but offers potential for them to redeem themselves and think differently about themselves and their conduct. There is a difference. We have to concede that there is a difference in respect of a premeditated action of somebody who is hate-filled and decides to organise a hateful action of violence against a group or individual that they hate because of their identity.

There is a difference between that and somebody in the course of a criminal action who is heard to utter something that is discriminatory. Those are two different things and if we treat them similarly we are making a grave mistake. We are possibly losing that second person for good by making them a hate criminal in so much as they are now equated with the individual who did something that was premeditated and organised. We need to reflect on that. That is why we feel so strongly about the amendments we have put down and why we are determined to work with the Minister and to ensure that this Bill, which has long been sought, is successful.

Let us learn from the children. We had our chance. This is the country we have effectively shaped at this point in our lives but they come from a different Ireland to the one I came from. Their Ireland is so much more exciting, fresher, richer and has so much more talent. I am envious of the Ireland they and our children are growing up in versus the failed country and state I grew up in. I want them to grow up in a country that reflects them so that when they see people in power, people of influence and role models in their communities, they look just like them. We have to reflect on how many people of different backgrounds are in An Garda Síochána, politics, the teaching profession and other professions. How can we empower people to do that? We have to reflect on the comments that are made in chambers like this. It is quite rightly said that anti-Traveller sentiment is given free rein in too many political chambers. It is the last bastion of hatred which is almost given social acceptance. That has to be challenged and we have to do it in chambers such as this. Those who will punch down need to be challenged in political chambers.

As we move forward it is not good enough for us to produce legislation in which, while doing the right thing, we make a mistake in labelling somebody for saying something stupid in the course of a criminal action, versus a person who has, over a period of time, demonstrated their hatred and organisation around that hatred. We have to be mindful of that and restorative justice has been mentioned. With all those things in mind, this is what a republic does. This is not about limiting free speech or thought policing. This is about ensuring that every child who grows up in this country can feel at ease and be themselves. Being themselves should be enough and no child at the age of six should ever have the heartbreaking thought cross their mind when they look in the mirror and wish that they were not what they were. We have to ensure that every child we have can grow in a country in which they are respected and that if there comes a point where an organised hate group or an individual decides to undermine them, the law is there to protect them and root that out. We have our responsibilities as well and Members of this Oireachtas need to know and be put on notice that we will be calling them out.

Deputy Neale Richmond

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution on this Stage of the Bill. I welcome the Bill and I am grateful to the Minister for Justice for bringing it forward. Since her time in this office she has relentlessly pursued this much-needed and long overdue Bill and that is a phrase that will be used by most contributors at this stage; it is long overdue. It is a difficult Bill in some regards but it is the most basic and easiest Bill in other regards. This is about stopping the spread of hate in whichever form it comes, particularly when it is premeditated hate that is directly and centrally organised and when it is used, as we have so often and sadly seen, as part of a wider process that sadly leads to the worst possible consequences.

I have been extremely concerned about some people outside of this Chamber who have raised opposition to this Bill. They have tried to bring it into a wider debate and fit it into some sort of culture war they want to talk about when they say free speech is constantly under attack, that the Bill is preventing the right to offend, or that it is preventing the right to poke fun and everything else like that. However, it is quite clear that this Bill does not seek to do that. This Bill comes from a far better place. Sadly we often see that the people talking about the defence of free speech and saying they will not let themselves be cancelled are the first people to try to shut down an argument and baulk at the fact that they are being challenged.

I welcome this good legislation but I raise my concerns about how we can ensure it works best to prevent hate speech and protect the victims. As Deputy Ó Ríordáin said, when it comes to those who may be found guilty of a hate crime the intention must be to ensure it does not happen again, not just by cancelling or punishing them but by rehabilitating them and ensuring that it is policed properly. One area that will be raised by pretty much every contributor is the ongoing concern, that is topical this week due to a different issue, with the platform that is being used most widely and perhaps freely to spread hate speech in social media. This is nothing new; hate speech has always existed over time and people have always found the most contemporary and accessible platform to spread hate. Those people are in a severe minority but they exist, they deserve to be called out and they are not always acting ignorantly or with less ulterior motives.

There are a couple of areas that need to follow on in tandem with this legislation or that are directly strengthened by the legislation but I would like to raise the following matter first. This is something I have raised with the Minister during the last two budgetary cycles, namely resources for An Garda Síochána to tackle and monitor things online. That does not just come down to hate speech. We have subversive organisations and criminal entities organising online and using online platforms to communicate and exchange information and arrangements. That is an area that is constantly evolving and providing a constant threat when we look at the area of cybercrime and cyber-attacks. On a smaller scale we must ensure the ICT resources of An Garda Síochána and other agencies of the State are constantly funded, improved upon and evolving because one can never stand still when it comes to something like this.

Equally and in tandem with that there has to be an approach of working hand-in-hand or in a directed motive towards the social media companies that are acting as platforms and publishing agencies for so much of the hate speech we seek to tackle in this Bill. Every Member of this House has been attacked online at one point or another and has been a victim of hate speech. There are different degrees of this. The majority of Deputies in the Chamber at the moment are women and they get it far worse than men. If we fail to acknowledge that as men we fail to identify what is a clear societal problem that needs to be tackled through education and that also needs strict legislation on hate speech to ensure such carry on cannot continue. We see it regularly when it comes to race, religion and personal appearance where it is not just poking fun but directing hate and these online motives sadly lead to more difficult situations in the real world. It is often hate speech that makes the vocation we have all chosen to enter so unappealing to so many people, and that has such worrying consequences.

That is why I fundamentally agree that the continuing practice of anonymity online is one that is truly worrying. The fact is that multiple accounts can be continually set up by the same entity or individual in order to allow them to continue to pursue a clear campaign of hate. You can use any sort of anecdotal evidence to this that you want or you can use the direct evidence that shows the serious amount of hate crimes that are happening in this jurisdiction. The fact is that the vast majority are consistently going online on social media platforms that do not care. How many times have we had to report to various social media companies about comments and threats to ourselves, other people, our family members, organisations we work with and people we advocate on behalf of as public representatives, only to see the constant spewing bilge of uneducated nastiness that is pure premeditated hate?

The social media companies say the actions do not violate their terms and conditions. It is a phrase that turns me blue in the face every time I hear it about ten times a day when returning to my office, to the extent that I think they want us to stop reporting things.

We must ensure that we have legislation, which I believe we have, that is flexible and watertight. It must ensure that a responsibility is placed on these social media companies to actually live up to their end of the bargain and their obligations under law. The ramifications for companies that do not abide by the law of this jurisdiction must be real and must be demonstrated to a population that is becoming increasingly concerned and worried about entering into the public fray or debate due to the fact that the response of co-ordinated hatred is so willfully allowed by too many platforms.

Deputy Patricia Ryan

We in Sinn Féin support the objective of the Bill and want to be in a position to support it. My colleague, an Teachta Daly, has met with several relevant stakeholders, such as the Irish Council of Civil Liberties, ICCL, and has tabled a number of amendments to the Bill. Sinn Féin will work constructively with the Government, other Opposition parties and Independents to strengthen the legislation and improve it to ensure it strikes the right balance between protecting vulnerable groups and persons while also protecting the right to free speech. We believe that while well-intentioned, it is poorly drafted in some areas. For example, we need to be clearer on the definition of "hatred". To say that hate means hate is not clear enough. We support a single statute on hate, but it must strike the right balance. We have tabled an amendment to ensure that offences are proven beyond reasonable doubt. There should also be an element of restorative justice, an effort to address prejudice and to educate to prevent reoffending. The prioritisation of a carceral-only approach may not have the intended results, and the Minister should endeavour to bring forward measures that educate the wider public and reduce the incidence of hate crimes in the first instance.

I commend the work of the Far-Right Observatory who are doing great work to tackle the growth of far-right ideologies. We must tackle those who take advantage of vulnerable people to further their hateful agenda. Likewise, we must support, assist, and educate persons susceptible to this hateful messaging. Unfortunately, social media amplify their message, and there must be stronger protections in place to address this. I acknowledge that inequality can fuel prejudice. The failure of successive Governments to fix the housing crisis or deliver a fit-for-purpose health system has left many people angry and let down. Others are using these crises to blame minority groups, such as Travellers and people seeking asylum. Yet, we, on this side of the House, know exactly where the blame for these crises lies. Most people know it is the treatment of a roof over our heads as a commodity to be bought and sold for profit that created this crisis. Members of our Traveller community make up 1% of the population but 12% of our homeless people. This is caused by the failure of successive Governments to ensure that enough Traveller accommodation was built. We are all human, we all want the best for our families and we all want a roof over our heads.

Finally, I would like to remember Declan Flynn today, a 31-year-old man from Dublin who was chased and killed by a gang of teenagers in Fairview Park in 1982 on the assumption that he was gay. Thankfully, Ireland has come a long way since then, but some people are still living in the past inside their heads. A short film has been produced and I urge anyone who can, to contribute to the project on greenlit.com. The story must be told so that we can all learn from the past and help build a better future for all.

Deputy Holly Cairns

This legislation is long overdue. We know the negative impact of hate speech and incitement to violence. We also know these are often targeted at vulnerable or minority groups. While I welcome the Bill, it would be wrong to think that it can eradicate the disgusting beliefs and attitudes that lead to hate speech. It is important that as we bring in much-needed criminal law for this serious matter, the Government must also commit to a programme of outreach and education on a national scale to tackle the root causes of hate offences. Without a commitment to raising awareness about the beliefs and attitudes that lead to hate crimes, the legislation only fights half the battle. We must treat the disease, not just the symptoms. There is a glaring need for a suite of measures to understand the complexity of hate speech if we are to undermine it. The ICCL has called for greater levels of monitoring, reporting and recording data of hate incidents to help make the legislation effective. While we sit and discuss how best to fight the scourge of hate speech and hate crimes, people around the country are being targeted by it. For that reason, Government must also commit to improving victim support throughout this process and after its conclusion. The last thing victims should feel is that they are suffering while we debate over several months.

Hatred is defined in the legislation as "hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics". Here, hatred itself is left undefined, which is a cause of concern. Hatred is ever-evolving and newer, more covert methods of conveying hatred are emerging every day. We see this prolifically online, where certain communities founded on vile intent codify hostility and develop so-called dog whistles that are not easily identifiable as hatred. They are unscrupulous in their methods, wrapping contempt and venom up as seemingly legitimate positions. These actions are intentionally difficult to identify, meaning they can often slip through the laws that should protect individual and groups against the harm they cause. The vagueness in the legislation leaves too much debate about what qualifies as hatred and, therefore, needs further research and specification. The ICCL recommends aligning the definition of "hatred" with the Council of Europe Commission Against Racism and Intolerance's definition, which denotes "hatred" as "a state of mind characterised as intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group". This definition would be more useful in terms of purpose, clarity and precision. Similarly, the protection of freedom of expression must be clarified. A lack of detail in the legislation leaves the section ripe for manipulation.

Without clear frameworks and a precise definition of "hatred", there could be a chilling effect on the critical discourse nationally. There are organisations in Ireland with publically-stated positions that can objectively be deemed to be homophobic, for example. However, without greater clarity, this law could be used to suppress criticisms of those organisations. The law must distinguish between objective civil discourse and media freedom and actions with hateful and harmful purposes. In the case of an offence relating to the constraints of the Bill occurring, the legislation notes a defensive proof that the behaviour in question was "a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse". There is a high risk of misinterpretation of this defence, making its misuse likely. Just because someone on Twitter or in a debate on the radio believes that their contributions are reasonable and genuine and relevant to the above discourses does not mean that they have not incited hatred. All people, no matter who they are, in all discussions, no matter which topic they fall under, must adhere to the same standards. Just because you might believe you are contributing a valuable addition to a debate does not mean you can be hateful. Whether you are in this Chamber, on television or on the radio and social media, whether a contribution is reasonable or genuine is a subjective consideration. Even those words themselves require further explanation. We cannot let vagueness shield those who intend to incite violence or hatred. For example, Scottish legislation provides greater detail by stating: "In determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb." If clarity is provided in a way similar to the Scottish legislation, the defence for particular discourses could stand and function effectively and ethically. I am glad that descent and sex characteristics have been added to the list of protected characteristics.

In the future, it may be necessary to make the list longer. Keeping an open mind regarding the nature of hatred is vital when approaching legislation of this nature.

Section 8 relates to the offences of the condonation, denial or gross trivialisation of genocide, etc., against persons on account of their protected characteristics, which is a welcome provision but nationality and gender have been omitted from the list of protected characteristics referenced in the section. The omission does not align with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and lacks foresight in respect of future offences. This should be rectified.

In respect of the list of aggregated offences, it is incredibly important to realise that different communities suffer hate crimes in a myriad of different ways. Theft, fraud and blackmail have been excluded from the list even though some individuals and groups can be subjected to these offences as a result of prejudice. The Government must provide a clear rationale for the inclusion of these 12 particular offences and not others.

The legislation should reduce incidences of hate crime but without an holistic approach, it will fail. The Government must pair this legislation with a nationwide awareness campaign to educate communities on its effects and on hatred generally. We are swimming against the tide. Incidences of hatred online that are hate crimes continue to grow exponentially. As social media platforms, new and old, embed themselves even further into our society, we must be ready to tackle hate speech comprehensively and firmly. I hope Members have educated themselves on the realities of partaking in digital life these days. The abuse that particular groups receive online is intense and nothing short of disgusting. If we do not wholeheartedly commit to making this legislation future-facing, its efficacy will not last.

Deputy Denise Mitchell

This Bill has been talked about by the Government for a long time. It is something that many stakeholders who work with minorities have been talking about for years. It is important to note some of the criticisms and concerns around the impact of the Bill on people's rights to freedom of expression. My party has reservations too. It is important that we get this Bill right and do not rush the process. We have seen significant changes since the heads of Bill were published. It is far from perfect and needs a lot of clarity in places. This is about finding a balance between people's freedom to express their views and people's rights not to be subjected to hatred because they are from a minority community.

We have recently seen the rise of hateful rhetoric towards people from minority ethnic backgrounds and those in the LGBT community. People have a right to live their lives without fear of being targeted as a result of who they are, where they come from or the faith they follow.

Section 3 is in line with the Equal Status Act 2000, which is good to see. Section 7 creates the new offence of incitement to violence or hatred but we need more clarity from the Minister as to how intent and motives are going to be weighed up in a court of law.

There were more than 4,000 submissions from stakeholders on the Bill and I believe many of their concerns remain. Sinn Féin supports a single statute in respect of hatred but we must allow time for detailed scrutiny of the legislation on Committee Stage. We want to support it but we will need to see many improvements before deciding whether we are in a position to vote for it.

Deputy Alan Farrell

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is running a tight ship today because things are flying ahead of schedule. This is landmark legislation that will strengthen our law when combatting hate crimes in Ireland. I commend the Minister and the Department on delivering on this key commitment in the programme for Government. Considerable work has gone into the Bill, which is a significant step forward. In a country that has been defined by economic and social progress in recent decades, it can be easy for our society to become complacent and think that things will only continue on that trend. However, that is not always the case and the forces of division and extremism are relentless in their efforts to pursue an alternative agenda.

Other Deputies will probably agree that during the pandemic, a certain element of denialism crept into society. It has increased significantly since then. I am sure other Deputies have received emails in recent weeks from some of the same constituents who voiced concerns about lockdowns, masks and vaccines, among other things, and who have now turned their attentions to this particular Bill.

I welcome the fact that changes were recently made with regard to how the Garda records and identifies hate crime. The statistics for 2021, published recently, were the first published statistics for a full year since those changes were made. The figures show 400 hate crimes reported by the Garda, more than half of which were motivated by race and almost one quarter related to sexual orientation. The remainder of the cases involved a number of other motivations, including nationality, religion, gender, disability and so on. These changes to the recording method of such incidents will allow us to build up a better picture of the situation for many of the minority groups in Ireland. However, we must also note that many of these incidents go unreported, which is a challenge for us all. We must not only build faith and confidence in the system but we must also build trust between minority groups and the State authorities, such as the Garda. This is easier said than done as many minority groups, for a myriad of different reasons, have historically had a strained relationship with the State.

The Government should undertake an educational campaign aimed at the public on how to identify discrimination, hate crimes and incitement to hate and, in doing so, give the vast majority of decent people the tools to identify and highlight to others when they cross a line.

Importantly, the Bill will create new aggregated forms of certain existing criminal offences where those offences are motivated by hatred against a protected characteristic or where the perpetrator demonstrated hatred at the time of committing the offence. The protected characteristics for the purpose of the legislation are race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation or disability. These are important steps that will allow the Garda and the legal system to prosecute perpetrators and send a clear message to minority groups that the State and the relevant authorities are on the side of their efforts.

As the Minister said, the Bill, taken in conjunction with other legislation, most notably the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill 2022, shows that we are making progress in pushing back against those who wish to sow discord in our society. The online Bill will abolish the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and establish a new regulator, the media commission. It will also provide for the appointment of an online safety commissioner to oversee the new regulatory framework for online safety, something that many of us have been working towards for some time. Indeed, when I was chair of the Joint Committee on Children and Youth Affairs, that was one of things we were trying to push the Government to deliver. I am delighted that work is ongoing.

Social media companies will be governed by legally binding online safety codes under the Online Safety and Media Regulation Bill. Breaches of these codes will lead to serious financial sanctions. These online safety codes will deal with a wide range of issues, including measures to be taken by online services to tackle the availability of harmful online content, including hate material, on their services.

There will be those who will criticise the Bill, as some have done. Some people have claimed it subverts an individual's right to freedom of speech. I, frankly, believe that to be a fig leaf in the context of this Bill, particularly with regard to the incitement of hate crimes. The Bill will not limit free speech or shut down public debate. However, individuals who deliberately or knowingly put other people in harm's way because of their statements and views will be committing a crime. Fundamentally, free speech does not entitle a person to cause harm to another.

There has been growing anxiety among a number of minority groups in Ireland regarding hate crimes, and it has been increasing in recent years, in particular. Many people have experienced increased fear in their daily lives. This legislation, therefore, has not come a moment too soon. It reaffirms the Government's commitment to the delivery of equality at all levels of society, the stamping out of criminality and the protection of victims.

I was only recently appointed to the Joint Committee on Justice and, unfortunately, did not get to participate in the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. However, I have read the report of the committee and the observations of many NGOs, advocacy groups and Oireachtas Members.

I look forward to the passage of the Bill and I thank the Minister for the work she put into it.

Deputy Paul Murphy

I apologise for missing my slot. Things moved very quickly.

I acknowledge the excellent work carried out by the member organisations of the Coalition Against Hate Crime Ireland - organisations and networks like Pavee Point, the Irish Traveller Movement, the Irish Network Against Racism, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Transgender Equality Network. They all have a proud track record in fighting against the many forms of prejudice, discrimination and oppression.

In December 2020, People Before Profit worked with many of those groups to launch the Le Chéile coalition. Its goal is to work together to counter the rise of the far right and the potential rise of fascism in this country and to prevent it from gaining the kind of foothold that we have seen in other European countries such as Italy, Sweden and France. People Before Profit is completely opposed to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and all the other forms of prejudice and oppression. We condemn hate speech, threats, harassment, intimidation and violence against anyone purely on the basis of the colour of their skin, their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Unfortunately, this discrimination, oppression and prejudice has become more common in recent years and far too little is being done about it. The latest annual report from the Irish Network Against Racism, INAR, records 14 racist assaults in 2021, 39 cases of racist harassment and 13 threats to kill or cause serious harm. In one case, a mixed-race woman in a supermarket was asked by a stranger about her background and then sexually assaulted, which is horrendous. In another, a black African woman was verbally abused and threatened with a 30 cm knife held to her throat after she asked a stranger to respect social distancing in a bus station. The psychological impacts on victims can be devastating, making them too scared to go out at night or let their children go out to play. One parent quoted in the report said, "My youngest son is getting scared to go out my door and play in case of being called names."

None of this should be happening in our society and action must be taken against it. We support the Coalition Against Hate Crime Ireland's call for a national action plan against hate. This must include much greater Government funding of education and outreach to combat hateful attitudes and to make protected groups aware of their rights, better data gathering on hate speech and hate crimes, and better victim support.

The best way to combat hate crimes is to prevent them from happening in the first place. For us, as socialists, that means tackling the extreme inequality and oppression that are part and parcel of the for-profit capitalist system and written into its DNA. It is in the interests of capitalists and this right-wing Government to pit men and women, migrant and non-migrant, black and white, straight and LGBTQ+ against each other and have them blame each other for their problems rather than to have them unite as workers and demand better wages, better public services and a better life for all.

Refugees and migrants are not to blame for the housing and homelessness crisis or for low wages and poor working conditions. The ones to blame are Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and the landlords, bosses and vulture funds they represent. We need to target our anger not downwards but upwards against the rotten system of capitalism that oppresses and exploits us all, not the people most marginalised and oppressed by it. That is also how we will combat the far right.

Turning to the detail of the legislation, I strongly support the original idea behind the Bill which is to protect groups that are discriminated against and oppressed in our society from hate speech and hate crimes. However, People Before Profit is very concerned about how this Bill has been drafted by the Government, in particular the lack of clear human-rights based definitions and the insertion of problematic new clauses relating to hate speech that are wide open to abuse by individual District Court judges and gardaí. It is mainly the sections on hate speech in Part 2 that we find problematic. We agree with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties that hate speech should not have been bundled into the same Bill as hate crimes, as the Government has done. However, we also have some issues with the manner in which less serious crimes can be treated as hate crimes in Part 3.

The definition of hatred in section 2, which applies throughout the Bill, is "hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics". That is a tautological definition. Its effect, as the ICCL has pointed out, is to effectively say that hatred is hatred. I do not understand why this definition was used rather than more precise language. There are many international examples of more precise language. For example, hatred could be defined far more clearly as "a state of mind characterised as intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards a person or group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics and that involves bias, prejudice, contempt or hostility".

Regarding the protective characteristics in section 3, because of the shoddy way in which the Bill has been drafted by the Government, we have concerns that the inclusion of religion as a protected characteristic in exactly the same way as the other grounds could create a chilling effect on legitimate criticisms of the Catholic Church. This could even potentially discourage people from criticising the church's promotion of exactly the kind of sexism, homophobia and transphobia that the Bill seeks to address. It could also potentially be used to level bogus charges of antisemitism and antisemitic hate speech against pro-Palestinian activists.

Section 11 on freedom of expression is also problematic. It protects "discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic" but it fails to clearly defend the rights to express information or ideas that may be offensive, shocking or disturbing to some. Using again the example of the Catholic Church, it is clear that strongly worded criticism of paedophile priests and the church's institutional cover-up of clerical sexual abuse would be protected, especially if a case came before a religiously minded District Court judge. I do not think it is clear that that would be protected. On the other hand, we are concerned that the general defence provided for that the objectionable speech or behaviour "consisted solely of ... a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse" could turn into a carte blanche or religiously motivated homophobia or transphobia. Again, this problem could be addressed with a proper definition of hatred and a better definition of freedom of expression.

I now turn to the sections of the Bill that are totally unacceptable from our point of view and should be taken out in their entirety. Section 10 criminalises preparation or possession of hateful material "with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public" even where the material has not actually been published. That seems to amount to a form of thought crime. There is no actus reus here. There is no act of actually publishing. It is simply someone having this material in their private home.

Section 10(3) states that where "it is reasonable to assume that the material was not intended for the personal use of the person", the onus will be placed on the accused to prove their own innocence by showing that the material they prepared or even just material they possessed was never intended to be publicly communicated. That makes section 10 a dangerous reversal of the fundamental principle of being innocent until proven guilty by reversing the onus in terms of proof as well as effectively legislating for a thought crime. That should be removed.

Section 15 allows a District Court judge on the say-so of a garda of any rank to issue a search warrant for any premises, including people's homes, on suspicion that hate speech is being published or prepared for publication there. This grants the Garda wide-ranging powers to search electronic devices and linked electronic devices, to demand passwords for people's phones, etc. No safeguards appear to be in place to prevent this from potential abuse by politically motivated judges or gardaí. It applies equally to offences under section 10 as to actual published hate speech or genocide denial.

Part 3 deals with hate crimes.

We support the idea that serious crimes like assault, threats to kill or to cause serious harm, coercion, harassment and endangerment, should be treated as aggravated offences if hatred is a motivating factor. However, we are concerned about the manner in which the Government is seeking to apply the same rationale to more minor offences. I fear that the way the Bill is drafted would mean that some of the public order offences, which are covered under section 18, in particular threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place, could be used as a weapon to stigmatise legitimate protesters by politically motivated gardaí.

The Government's decision to use a demonstration test as evidence of hatred, rather than the usual test of a criminal motive, heightens the risk of political abuse of this section. This means that rather than having to prove that hatred was a motive for abusive or insulting behaviour in order to gain a conviction for abusive or insulting behaviour aggravated by hatred, all a Garda would have to do is to say under oath that someone used a racial or sexist slur during or immediately after abusive or insulting behaviour. As was shown, for example, in the Jobstown trial, the media and the courts would be likely to take their word for it unless there happened to be, as there was in that case, video evidence to the contrary. The risk of political policing is further increased by the inclusion of wording that, "It is immaterial whether or not an accused person’s hatred is also on account (to any extent) of any other factor." That means that protesters with legitimate grievances could be stigmatised forever as hate criminals, simply on a garda’s say so.

Legal experts in this area, Jennifer Schweppe and Amanda Haynes, point out in their submission on the Bill that the demonstration test is not used in hate crime legislation anywhere else in the world apart from the UK, Singapore and Malta. Ironically, it can actually lead to a disproportionate level of convictions of people from oppressed minorities for hate crimes. This happened with black people in the UK. They also show how being convicted of a hate crime creates a stigma and can prevent people from finding employment, which means that wrongful convictions for any form of hate crime have very serious and lifelong consequences.

For all these reasons, People Before Profit-Solidarity will unfortunately be unable to support this Bill as it is currently drafted. It is a real pity that the worthy goal of protecting oppressed groups from hate crimes has been dealt with so badly by the Government, including by tangling it up with provisions that grant excessive powers to the gardaí without including effective safeguards. We will be tabling a range of amendments to the Bill on Report Stage, including for the complete deletion of section 10, the deletion of the demonstration test and for proper definitions of hatred and freedom of expression.

Deputy Martin Browne

I am happy to speak on this. The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. However, it is an extremely complex area and my focus in relation to this issue and indeed the Bill is straightforward, namely, does it provide adequate protection to those who are or who may be subjected to hate crimes while at the same time protecting a fundamental right to free speech.

The world is changing faster now than it has done in history. The Ireland that we see today is very different to the one that we were all born and raised in. With the more connected world that has emerged comes the responsibility not only to talk a good talk but to back it up by our actions. No longer can we remain a step removed from the injustices that others face, nor can we continue to ignore them. An onus is on us to do what we can to assist those who are denied a voice or who are denied rights that we take for granted. That is why I support a single statute on hate and why I feel that more needs to be done to tackle those who foster and spread hate, especially when the spreading of such hate leads to violence against others.

The Irish people are renowned for our compassion but unfortunately the same could not have always been said about this State. Compassion is comprised of tolerance, understanding and empathy. I believe that rights and protections that we take for granted should apply to all and should exist in compatibility with freedom of speech, disclosure and expression. That is why it is important that a Bill such as this is worded carefully and reflects and addresses current challenges, attitudes and the progression of ever-developing societal make ups.

Take, for example, the definition of a “protected characteristic”. We have to ask ourselves if a Bill such as this accurately encompasses and protects those who need protection. The intricate nature of each individual and community makes this a complex and sensitive task. While I want to give my support to this Bill, it is clear that it needs perfecting or strengthening. We will be tabling amendments to it and I hope they would be taken onboard. We cannot allow for vagueness, whether that is in clarity about the laws concerned or in the ability of constructive disclosure. We need more. We need to see an action plan to tackle and reduce instances of hate crimes that currently exist or are taking place.

Our record towards the Traveller community needs improvement. They are often treated as the other. Their life expectancies are lower and instances of depression are higher. This is well known but it still needs addressing. Action needs to follow words and, for the Traveller community, that action is long overdue. We also need to ensure the equality of treatment for people with disabilities. The recent revelations about the assessment of needs process and the High Court findings are a case in point. We need laws and we need leadership to accompany those laws. Indeed, we have needed that leadership for some time, not a system that finds ways around obligations, such as was done with the standard operating procedure.

I look forward to further debate on this. I reiterate my support and that I will work with the Government, other Opposition parties and stakeholders to improve what is before us on Second Stage. A holistic approach to tackle the spreading of hate is needed.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Sorca Clarke)

We now move to the Regional Group and to Deputy Tóibín.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

All forms of discrimination are wrong and everybody who lives in this country and is a citizen of this country must have equal rights. A Republic is built on the idea that all citizens are equal. Aontú opposes all forms of discrimination and we oppose all incitements to violence. We believe that incitement to violence is wrong, that it is a criminal act and that it should be treated as such. Words do matter. Words matter a lot. Words can cast light, they can educate, they can build up and they can get to the truth. Words can hold people to account and words can inspire. Words are the framework of thought. Our thought processes are built on words. Words are the vehicles of ideas and these ideas can make change for good and can change for bad.

A liberal democracy is built upon allowing ideas to compete with each other so that we as a society can test, challenge and measure the value of those ideas. It is only through the free and respectful articulation of these ideas that we can allow them to compete. It is through that competition that we can empirically choose the best solutions for our society with regard to the problems that we face.

In a citizen's Republic, each individual has and should have an equal right to that articulation of views and the equal articulation of speech. In a civil society we need to do that respectfully. That is important. One of the biggest jobs we have to do in this country is to raise our children with the idea that, yes, we question, we challenge and we test, but we do so in a manner that does not cause hurt to others.

It amazes me at times though, especially when looking at social media, that we often see that the people who dress themselves up in the colour of love and inclusivity are often the people who are involved in shutting down debate and in stopping those ideas from being discussed. I have seen debates happen on social media, as I am sure the Minister has as well, especially with JK Rowling for example, where many people who dress themselves up in the idea of inclusivity have been involved in threatening to beat, rape, assassinate and bomb the likes of JK Rowling for having certain views. These are views that they do not believe she should have. These are views that they think is hate speech because she holds them. The fears held by people in terms of this Bill that the Minister is proposing are not theoretical fears. These are real fears. The cancel culture and the censorship culture that exists at the moment is on steroids in many ways. People fear that is encroaching into the realm of honest, respectful debate on real issues that affect people.

The history of censorship does not end well in any way whatsoever. Censorship is an authoritarian act. It deletes the liberty of citizens, and it deletes the competition of ideas that we discussed earlier. It reduces people's ability to challenge and test the prevailing ideologies within a society. Not only does it erase the rights of citizens in terms of the articulation of their views, but it radically prevents people from stopping the significant swings that can happen in a society in relation to whichever ideological wind is blowing at a certain time.

It used to be the case that censorship was a tool of the political right.

The left fought censorship and demanded that we support the individual's right to articulate views. In many parts of the world now, though, that is not the case. Many people from that political viewpoint have become distracted by the culture wars and identity politics and have forgotten about the bread and butter issues that are affecting the people they are meant to serve. Many even admit that these tools can be used to help them engineer the society they want to achieve.

I remember speaking to former colleagues of mine in Sinn Féin in years gone by. I was one of the many who opposed section 31 because it censored people's views about what happened. As such, I am amazed to hear Sinn Féin say that its members will support a Bill that will encroach on people's ability to speak freely and respectfully about issues of real importance. It also amazes me that we have come from a society where, in the 1950s especially, we were probably one of the most censored societies in the whole of Europe. The negative consequences of that were significant and are clear to us today. Seventy years later, though, the mirror-image instincts are in many ways manifesting themselves in some of these debates.

I wish to mention the importance of pluralism in a liberal democracy. We know that tolerance of plural outlooks in society is necessary for cohesion and the competition of ideas. Pluralism means that we must allow for mutually opposing ideologies to exist simultaneously. To quote a sentence attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Does the Minister not agree that this is a foundation stone of a pluralist society? Her version of the quote is: "I may not agree with what you have to say, and I may put you in jail for actually saying that." That is the opposite of what pluralism means. Words can defame, inflame, divide and destroy, they can rob a person or an organisation of a good name, and words can and do lead to violence and death. In our modern society with its social media, those words can be amplified like never before. Damage can go viral in minutes. There has to be a balance of rights, though. We need to be able to have a society where we have the freedom to articulate, challenge and hold to account. We also need to protect the reputations of people. Opponents of this Bill are not absolutists in terms of freedom of speech. Most ordinary people would support the prohibition of incitement to violence and violence on the basis of hatred. However, what this law does goes much further than that. It damages the balance.

One of the Bill's major problems, which has already been mentioned, is the lack of clarity in its definitions. The Minister needs to proof those definitions against whatever judge might be sitting in whatever court at some time in the future. We know that views and ideas on many of the issues being discussed today are fluid. In five years' time, for example, many people will have different views and ideas. The ICCL has stated that the definitions relating to incitement to hatred and the protection of freedom of expression are not clear enough. The ICCL has also stated that the creation of an offence of preparing or possessing materials with your views in your home with a view to making them public goes too far and is an infringement on privacy. The ICCL has stated that possessing material in your home without the clear intention of ever making it public should not be an offence. It is an incredible idea that gardaí could be going into people's homes to search them on that basis. I agree with a previous speaker that this enters into the realm of thought policing.

The Minister tells us that hatred is a key reason for the Bill, yet the word "hatred" is not defined anywhere in it. I absolutely oppose hatred. Calling for violence against people is hatred and should be illegal. However, others would define "hatred" as saying that a woman is a female adult. This is not a theoretical issue. In Britain, police have arrived at the homes of citizens under hate speech law because they tweeted the sentence, "A woman is a female adult". The definition of "gender" in the Bill is not a definition at all. According to the Bill, the definition of "gender" is what the individual decides it to be. Some people say that there are 72 genders. Others say that putting a limit on the number of genders is itself wrong. These can have serious consequences for people's lives. In many ways, a large number of our debates are occurring in a political and media bubble. Most people in Irish society would adhere to the scientific understanding of gender. Most people would believe that a woman is a female adult, and most people would believe that that sentence is not transphobic.

A group of women spoke on Joe Duffy's "Liveline" show a number of weeks ago. They articulated their fear about potentially allowing men - not people who had real issues in terms of gender identity - to use the opportunity of identifying as women for their own reasons, etc. They were fearful that women's safe spaces would not continue into the future. They articulated that view respectfully and calmly on the show. It was a wonderful opportunity. "Liveline" is one of those few opportunities where real people get a chance to discuss the issues that are important to them. Most of the radio and television shows that we listen to have on them people from the bubble in which we in politics and the media live. After that calm and respectful articulation of their fears, however, there was a significant backlash against their views. Many people said that the views were transphobic and hate speech. Incredibly, Dublin Pride left its partnership with RTÉ on the basis of the show.

Does the Minister believe that women saying that a woman is an adult female is transphobic and hate speech? Is it possible that a judge might in future have those views and implement the Minister's legislation on the back of those? These are important questions for us to debate.

There has recently been a significant shift in the political bubble concerning these ideas. The Government has taken on a policy of gender affirmation. I spoke to a teacher recently who told me that he had attended an in-service day where a person from his department told him not to use the words "mother" and "father" in class any more because they were not inclusive. The website of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, provides resources for teachers to deal with these issues in school. One of its pieces of advice states that teachers should not call the class to attention by using the phrase "boys and girls" because it was not inclusive. Recently, the Government deleted the word "woman" from legislation. Obviously, it was put back in because there was an outcry across the country at the bubble - the bubble did not understand how angry people were - and the Government responded to that. The HSE developed leaflets about cervical cancer that spoke of women as people with cervixes. Many women do not want their identity to be deleted in that respect. This ideology is at the heart of Government policy at the moment, but many people are fearful that this Bill will be used to delete people's opportunity to speak respectfully and openly against that ideology.

I have mentioned the political class's focus being distracted by the culture wars and identity politics instead of being on bread and butter issues. I have been looking at the Bills that have come out of the Minister's Department recently. Many of them focus on the former instead of the real bread and butter issues that people are dealing with at home. I recently submitted a large number of parliamentary questions to the Minister. The reply to one stated that 2,100 gardaí had been physically assaulted in the past ten years, 400 had resigned in the past five years, only 24 people had started Garda training college so far this year, the Garda Reserve was nearly at an all-time low, Ireland had one of the lowest numbers of police in Europe, and the Minister's constituency had the lowest number of gardaí in the country.

There are districts in the Minister's constituency that had zero detection rates for the first six months of this year for certain types of crime. Many people believe that the job of the Minister for Justice is to actually focus on the safety and protection of citizens, which is the real bread and butter stuff. That does not seem to be happening. People would feel safer at night if there was more focus on these issues by the Minister's Department, as well as on the other issues.

I urge the Minister to rethink this Bill. I too want a society where citizens can engage respectfully, with empathy and with generosity with views and ideas that they profoundly disagree with. I believe this can be achieved culturally within society by trying to raise our children with respect, and in many other ways, but I believe that this Bill takes away human rights of citizens. It reduces the liberty and the freedom of citizens to express themselves democratically. So-called definitions under the Bill are so ill-defined that they are wide open to misinterpretation and abuse. Like many others, I feel this would inhibit the ability for honest democratic discourse. As a result, it would weaken society's ability to grapple with the real and significant challenges that we face. This Bill is a threat to the democratic function of our society in the long term.

The Bill is out of step, in many ways, with the views of people. It is also out of step with the most recent scientific and medical practice in relation to some of the aspects the Minister seeks to protect in the Bill. I urge the Minister to withdraw the Bill.

With the few seconds I have remaining, I wish to raise a matter on which the Minister might have some influence. Tomorrow there is a planned rolling protest about the closure of childcare facilities, including early childhood care and education facilities. The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth has introduced a core funding plan which will make it impossible for thousands of small childcare facilities to survive. Hundreds of these businesses have closed already, and hundreds more will close in the coming months, unless the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, provides a fair amount of funding. Those owners will be protesting at five locations in Cork, Mayo, Ennis, Tuam and Dublin tomorrow. They will close their facilities. Tens of thousands of parents will be discommoded because they will not have any place to send their children tomorrow. This will be the first of a number of rolling closures. I will ask the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to meet these business owners as soon as possible, with a real plan to make sure their businesses can function.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

My apologies; I got a little distracted from the relevancy of what was being said. Deputy Tóibín has benefited from my distraction.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I commend my colleague Senator O'Loughlin on her work on earlier iterations of this Bill in 2016 and in 2020. It is a sad reality of modern Ireland that hate crime is a real and lasting problem. Ireland has become one of the most diverse and inclusive societies in recent decades. Irish people of different races and religions, Irish Travellers, LGBTQ people and persons with disabilities have all become much more visible and engaged in our communities throughout Ireland. This diversity is now a core strength and one we must all work together to encourage and expand. There is no place where this is better reflected nowadays than in rural Ireland, especially in my area in County Longford where per capita we have one of the largest numbers of new Irish communities, all of whom are thriving and making a vast difference to a modern, inclusive and progressive county. We would like to think in Longford that we are a richer and much more vibrant society as a result of all these new people and new cultures that have come to join us.

Sadly, not everybody has welcomed these changes. In fact, some people see this very strength as a threat and are willing to engage in verbal or physical violence in order to continue the perpetration of exclusion. It is simply unacceptable in modern Ireland that anybody should be the victim of a crime simply because of their skin colour, country of origin, asylum status, religion, disability or sexual identity. The current legislation on hate crime is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be modernised. The Bill is an important step in fulfilling two commitments made in the programme for Government: to introduce hate crime legislation and to update the prohibitions in the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. The Government is committed to ensuring the Bill is signed into law before the end of the year. As a Government Deputy, I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Bill. I commend the Minister on her work in bringing this to the floor of the House, and on doing so in such a timely fashion. I want to share my remaining time with my learned colleague.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thought I had seven minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You can have seven minutes, but if you share the slot you will not have seven minutes.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Okay. Perhaps Deputy Flaherty wishes to continue.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thought I was doing a neighbourly deed there.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank Deputy Flaherty. It is no problem.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I commend the Minister and her officials on the Bill. As I have said, we are a much better society for the changes we have seen. We have seen a radical change in Ireland over the past 20 to 30 years. This is very evident in our schools, communities and sports clubs. In County Longford and in Longford town, we have companies with diverse workforces. There can be anything up to 17 nationalities working on the factory floor. All of these people live in the town, contribute to the town and make it a much more vibrant place to be. They are fiercely proud of their nationality. They are extremely proud that they have found a home, employment and a future for themselves and their families here in Ireland. As Irish people, we are aware that we travelled all over the world. We were welcomed in the UK, we were welcomed in Australia and we were welcomed in America. It behoves us to extend the hand of friendship that met countless generations of our people from the time of the Irish Famine when we went in our coffin ships with little other than destitution to accompany us. We found homes and we found opportunity on far-flung shores. As a society, it behoves us always to be a warm and embracing country for anybody who wishes to come and join us.

Unfortunately, the advent of social media has made hate crime and verbal abuse much easier to perpetrate. It is often done under the obvious cover of darkness but behind a keyboard, and all too often with anonymous accounts. It is a piece of work in itself to try to come to terms with that, and I am aware the Minister is working on it. We have seen a shift in society in this country where people believe it is much more acceptable to harangue and abuse people and encourage others to do so. It is the ugly dimension that is emerging in our society and one that all political parties need to stand up to, whether they are on the left or on the right.

We may differ on many things but one thing we should never disagree on is the fundamental right of everybody to have a fair, equal and decent life in this country of ours. It is particularly evident in the progress we have been making in our schools. We see the diversity right across all of our schools. Even in our most rural schools we are seeing this diversity now. Children are growing up not knowing any differentiation in people. They are ready and willing to embrace alternative cultures and alternative lifestyles. The great educators in many respects have been the young people. They have brought this message home to their family homes the length and breadth of the country. They have played a huge part in this process, and have probably played just as much a role as this legislation is now playing.

It is important that this is seen for what it is. It is landmark legislation but it is also setting an example for the rest of Europe. This is very important. In the short lifetime of this Government so far, on several occasions we have been prepared and willing to grapple with the big issues of the day. We have been willing to prepare landmark legislation and bring it to the floor of this House. This is very much an example of such legislation. When the Minister was appointed to her role, she said that this was one of the key planks of legislation she wanted to bring to fruition in the lifetime of the Government. I am happy that the Minister will meet her timeline and that we will have the legislation on the Statute Book before the end of this year. That in itself is a momentous achievement and will hopefully be one of many defining footnotes in the Minister's long political history.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

Speaking as a Deputy for a very vibrant constituency, one that has a multitude of nationalities, from one end of Longford to the far side of Westmeath, I have seen hatred. I know that my constituents have received abuse and physical assault because of hatred.

This is not a new phenomenon. Hatred has been in our communities for much longer than we are comfortable acknowledging. There is now, thankfully, a broad consensus that hatred needs to be reflected in law, that incitement to violence and hatred needs to be held to account in a court of law and that those who perpetrate it need to be held to account. That is a concept I support. However, key to any such law is that it be effective and enforceable. In that regard, this Bill is weak. Substantial work remains to be done and serious issues need to be addressed.

The terminology contained in this Bill appears sloppy or not well thought-out. For example, the line "'Hatred' means hatred [...]" reads like an advertising tag line as opposed to a clear, unarguable definition. It is far from the clear definition we and those of the protected characteristics need. It is substandard, even below the standard of what is classed as hatred on An Garda Síochána's website. Because of that lack of clarity, the Bill will be ineffective. It will be unenforceable and will place an unrealistic expectation on the Garda and the Courts Service.

I draw the House's attention to an excellent article in The Irish Times by Dr. Amanda Haynes and Dr. Jennifer Schweppe, associate professor of law. They are co-directors of the European Centre for the Study of Hate, based in the University of Limerick. Deputies should read that article. It is fantastic and sets out why we need this Bill, as well as setting out clearly why this Bill needs to be saved. Hate threatens the societal fabric we hold dear. The level of physical and emotional harm it causes to individuals needs to be held to account, but we also need to recognise the wider impact it has on all of our communities. To do that, we need to get the balance right. That is not easy but that does not mean that we do not try or that it is not possible to get it right.

I thank and acknowledge those in our community who stand up against hatred and with those who experience hatred, particularly our younger people. We have all been there when it is easier to say nothing than to call something out. I commend and congratulate them and hope they continue to do that because hatred has no place in our society.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

It is very beneficial that the Oireachtas is giving considerable time to this debate. It is an important piece of legislation. The Minister and Department have spent considerable time in preparing it; similarly, this House should give it detailed consideration. Much legislation goes through this House that most of us are confident will not be subjected to much judicial scrutiny. However, anyone who has spoken on this Bill will know the strong likelihood that in the not too distant future judges in the superior courts, probably the Supreme Court, will be considering it. Legislation such as this is always difficult and it is important that we scrutinise it properly when there are conflicting constitutional rights.

Here we have heard much about freedom of expression and the right to equality, which I will talk about in due course. They are on one side of the scale; on the other side - and the political motivation behind the legislation - is the constitutional protection afforded to the person under Article 40.3.2. The State is trying to follow the constitutional command to protect the person by recognising that groups in our society are targeted because of certain characteristics. It is a constitutional requirement, as well as an obligation under the European decision, for us to bring forward legislation to this effect.

Where there are conflicting constitutional rights, a balancing act needs to be performed. It is our job to try to get the balance right. When we come into this House, we look at legislation from the point of view of our political objectives and what we want to achieve politically. That necessarily involves us promoting one constitutional right at a particular time. We need to recognise that when it comes before the courts, they will understand the desire of the Oireachtas to protect the constitutional right of the person under Article 40.3.2, but will ask where the conflicting constitutional rights are protected, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to equality. I am pleased to say I think this House, if it enacts this legislation, will pass that test as we do take into account the conflicting constitutional rights.

We need to be realistic about what this legislation can achieve. Its primary objectives are, first, to repeal the 1989 Act, second, to provide updated and more modern legislation for the offence of incitement to hatred and violence and, third, to transpose into Irish law the Council decision 2008/913/JHA concerning hate crime. We need to recognise that simply enacting this legislation will not mean the problem of hatred and incitement to violence in our society will be resolved. It will not. Laws can be drafted every day of the week but they may not be able to resolve society's problems. It is important that the laws reflect what we as a society and as a House of the Oireachtas believe should be the law of the country. We also need to recognise that it is a function of society and people in society to ensure our behaviour changes. I do not suggest it should be the objective of society for people to try desperately to get rid of hate. Hatred is an emotion and will exist no matter where we are and in what society we are. This legislation is not trying to change people's personal opinions or the personal hatreds many people may have, though it is a wasted emotion. The legislation is designed to deal with public utterances which are designed to incite hatred or violence against certain groups.

The legislation sets out ten protected characteristics. It is important to point out those characteristics are of universal effect, or certainly nine of them are. Race, gender, sexual orientation and colour are things that apply to us all. It is important to recognise this legislation is not for the protection of one or two groups but that of society as a whole.

The principal provision is contained in section 7, which sets out the new offence of incitement to hatred or violence. I commend the Minister on the recognition in that section that it shall be a defence against any such prosecution for a person to show the behaviour:

consisted solely of—

(a) a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse.

I do not think the concerns Deputy Tóibín has will arise as a result of this legislation. People are perfectly entitled in Irish society to call for the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act 2015 or any other legislation. That does not make that a hate crime. Section 11 expressly refers to protection of freedom of expression. The draft Bill takes into account the conflicting right to freedom of expression on the one hand and the constitutional command on the other to protect the persons of individuals.

An area worth examining again concerns Part 3, which sets out that there shall be a new offence. I will take the example of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, which deals with assault or assault causing harm. In respect of each of those offences in that legislation, there will be a new offence of aggravated assault as a result of an act of hate. I mentioned the principle of equality under the Constitution because I suspect that when this comes before any court, it may come in on the basis of the principle of equality, where a person convicted of an aggravated crime, including aggravation through hate, will compare themselves to another person convicted of the same crime that was not aggravated through hate, but the appropriate comparison of the two will result in scrutiny. That is something of which the Minister needs to be conscious.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 10 Nov 2022

Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022: Second Stage

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Nov 2022