Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and thank her for being here and for listening to the contributions at the previous session and today. She has an unenviable task in bringing forward this legislation. We need clarity and less ambiguity around anything to do with this legislation. I will be clear. We absolutely need hate crime legislation. There is no question about it. We are coming from the premise that the legislation is needed. There is an issue about its interpretation, including about the definition of "hatred". The United Nations has published a definition of "hatred" on its website. Somehow the UN can have a definition of "hatred", "incitement to hatred" and crime but we are falling short in this legislation.

At the outset, I co-signed a motion with my colleague, Senator McDowell, who is a former Attorney General, former Minister for Justice, senior counsel and a strong legal and parliamentary advocate with a lot of experience in this area. The Minister will agree with that. The motion proposed that the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 be read a Second Time on 31 December 2023. The motivation behind it was that we felt more time was needed. I am conscious of the debate and what happened in the Lower House. Since then, there has been further comment. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties had one view of the Bill that evolved and changed, as did the Law Society and the Bar Council or members of the legal professions who may not always have been speaking on behalf of the Law Society or Bar Council as collectives. There are huge concerns. The Leader of the House spoke earlier about the two major issues raised in emails. One was the mother and baby homes and we will deal with that later today. This is the other one. We have received hundreds of emails, some of which are repeat emails. Many people will be listening from their homes and offices and they are welcome. They are telling us in their emails that they are listening and engaging. They are pleading with us. They are from all walks of life and all different sectors and divisions. We need a more caring, compassionate and gentle world. We need to treat one another in a more compassionate way.We also need to be able in our political discourse to disagree amicably and respectfully. We may hold different positions based on our experiences, our identities or our religious beliefs or backgrounds but that is what makes for diversity and society, and that is especially good.

I am still of the view we should proceed with the amendment to defer this matter. I have talked to colleagues in the Minister's party and other parties in the House and, as individuals, they have concerns. I do not believe a Whip should apply, and I appeal to the Minister and the leaders of the three parties in government not to apply a Whip to this issue. Members should be able to vote according to their conscience, sets of beliefs and principles, and I ask the Minister to convey that to her ministerial colleagues. Clearly, it is a matter for them, but I am asking her to raise it with them. Furthermore, I ask that we all be respectful of one another in this debate. It is important the Minister give some assurance today, if she can, that there will be no attempt by the Government to guillotine this legislation. My colleague Senator McDowell asked that of the Minister and impressed it on her in respect of the amendment. I do not believe she was in a position there and then to make a commitment in that regard, and while she may or may not be now, but I would like her to share her view on it. I do not think there should be a guillotine on this debate. There should be a teasing-out of all the issues.

The Bar of Ireland publishes a great magazine known as The Bar Review, editions of which I am sure the Minister receives. I have to hand a copy to hand of the June edition. It contains a great article penned by Grace Sullivan BL under the title "Speaking Freely?". I am not going to attempt to interpret it but rather just quote from it. The article states, "The creeping criminalisation of aspects of religious speech in Ireland may mean that society's 'offence' will write individual criminal records." It goes on, “The Constitution of Ireland guarantees, subject to public order and morality, freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion". We all know that but it is important to note it has been written in an independent publication. Further in the article, the author states, "it is argued that free speech protections are rendered impotent if they only cover speech that is endorsed by the majority." What a challenge to us that is. The final line I wish to highlight from this extensive paper is as follows: "A free society will be one in which unpopular and offensive concepts will be aired publicly." For anyone who wants to read the article, every Member of the Oireachtas will have received a copy, given everyone is on the mailing list. It appears in The Bar Review, volume 28, number 3 this month. I would urge anyone who has not had time to look at it to do so because it is important.

We operate in a parliamentary democracy, so it is only right and appropriate that we have regard to those issues I touched on. How can we move on? How can we collaborate constructively in a parliamentary democracy to tease out the various important issues? I do not doubt the Minister's commitment. She knows more about this than anyone, given she has spoken in both Houses regarding the knock-on effects of hatred. It is not right that people should be singled out, whether because of their religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or background, to be subject to hatred. There can be no place for hatred. I am not sort of religious maniac by any stretch of the imagination, but I value the prayer that is recited in these Houses. Our Standing Orders provide for a prayer to be said every day in each of the Houses. I again mentioned this on record the other day because it is important. I have always said every parliamentarian should have to take a copy of the Constitution in his or hand before being sworn into office. I would love that to be the case at some point, given the Constitution is what shapes and moulds us as a republic. Whether we say a prayer, make a declaration or bow our heads in silence and reflect, I think I can say that, in general, we are here to do good, be kind and supportive of one another and help validate and encourage one another, regardless of our tradition, background or where we come from. That is the essence of a true republic, to which we all aspire and want to live in and be happy to live in.

I would like the Minister to touch on the question of providing for a free vote for members of her party, given she can speak only for them, and to carry that message back to the Government. Second, I would like there to be a guarantee there will be no guillotining of this legislation in this House and that we can work constructively. The record of this tripartite, coalition Government is not good when it comes to amendments being debated in this House. Cleverer Ministers have come in and gone halfway to accepting some of the amendments put to the House, but time and again, it is a case of "No" and a simple majority sitting to my right comes in and opposes everything. A log has been kept throughout the term of this Seanad and it is a disappointing read for what is meant to be a parliamentary democracy.

I am not saying the Minister is part of that and I have always found her to be decent and forward in assisting us both inside and outside the House in regard to her brief, and I genuinely acknowledge that. I know where she stands on this legislation. She is a reforming Minister and she wants to get this through. I want to support legislation that will address hatred. I want to go most of the way with the Minister in respect of this legislation, but let us be open to listening to the amendments because they tend to go only one way, although each Senator will have an opportunity to have amendments put to the House. I noted with some interest that Senator Ward, who studied law in preparation to become a barrister, indicated to us he was considering putting down amendments. I thought that was a pleasant surprise, given the Government side does not tend to do that. I will remind him about it at a later date, but I look forward to reading his amendments and to, I hope, being able to support them. I urge other Senators on the Government side of this House to work constructively, and the Minister with them, to bring forward amendments she might have reflected on or changed her mind about in the course of this debate. Likewise, I hope we on this side of the House will collaborate and put forward amendments. We do not have to agree on them all, but we should at least be respectful in teasing out the debate on them before we vote on them. Whatever the outcome, that will amount to democracy and the legislative process.

Let us not fool ourselves, however. This legislation was passed in Dáil Éireann; we in the Seanad now have an opportunity to shine. We are the reforming Chamber, the revising Chamber, as the leader of the Minister's party, our Taoiseach, has reminded us time and again. We should be polishing up and improving legislation that has come from the Lower House. We have that opportunity here but in a constructive, positive way. I hope we can have that sort of healthy, political dialogue and traction to address the issues of hatred, which have no place and should have no place in our society and democracy.

I thank the Minister for her time and look forward to engaging with her. I would like to be in a position to wholly embrace her legislation because I see the need for it, but there is some tweaking to be done, which we can do at various stages of the passage of the Bill.