Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Of course not. Unlike the Minister, I am not the sensitive type.

I welcome the Bill and this debate. I commend Deputy Stephen Donnelly on his introduction of this legislation and I thank him for raising this important issue. I note that the Minister is here this morning to contribute to the debate, even though from his introductory remarks it seems he is having a bad hair day. I do not know whether it was the queen's pheasants in London or something else that upset him, but he is not in great humour. I would be a smoked cod and chips man myself.

This debate is about freedom of speech, the right to express an opinion and the ending of censorship. Any society or state that does not protect the rights of its citizens to express their views or opinions is not an inclusive or democratic society or state. Minority groups must be protected and they must be allowed to defend themselves by expressing their views without threats, intimidation or legal challenge. We need to ensure our broadcasters are not forced to shy away from difficult social issues. We politicians know there is nothing wrong with honest, good and robust debate and we often get it in the neck at times. As I say to my friends, "If you cannot take it, look for another day job." Politics is not for the precious types and neither is working in the media. We all need to wake up to that reality.

Deputy Donnelly's Bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Act 2009 to remove any mention of the subjective term “offence” from the duties of broadcasters:

Section 39(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 is amended by substituting the following for paragraph (d):(d) anything which may reasonably be regarded as causing harm, or as being likely to promote, or incite to, crime or as tending to undermine the authority of the State, is not broadcast by the broadcaster,”.

At all times hard questions need to be asked, and views should always be challenged. Only then can we live in a healthier society. Recent events have shown us how true this is.

The Bill removes any mention of "offence" from the duties of broadcasters as listed in the Broadcasting Act 2009. Currently, broadcasters are duty bound to ensure no material is broadcast that can be reasonably regarded as causing harm or offence or as being likely to promote or incite to crime or as intending to undermine the authority of the State. From the point of view of broadcasting, giving offence has been elevated to the same level as undermining the State's authority. As a result, the broadcasting complaints process is a happy hunting ground for people who are determined to take offence regardless of whether a remark has been broadcast as offensive. As a result, our broadcasters often shy away from difficult social issues.

This Bill does not deal with the issue of defamation, although many broadcasters are calling for changes following the Pantigate issue. I use this opportunity to commend Rory O'Neill on his forthright and honest interview on RTE. He was dead right to challenge the prejudice against gay people in Irish society and his interview made an important contribution to the debate on equality. That interview and his speech in the Abbey Theatre should be shown in every second level school in the State as part of social and personal education and development. He was perfectly right to defend gay people and to challenge those who regularly attack the gay community in this country through newspaper columns. I remember well the event of 20 years ago when a young gay person was kicked to death in Fairview Park in my constituency. I remember the hatred and the prejudice. We have moved on since then, but other people have not moved on and we need to challenge those people. I commend Rory O'Neill on doing so.

It is important to listen to the views of the broadcasters. I commend Deputy Stephen Donnelly on the research he has carried out on this issue. He has obtained the views of many broadcasters. His research has shown that 100% of broadcasters are aware of the current duties of broadcasters - I was delighted with that statistic. A total of 80% of broadcasters favour change to the duties of broadcasters as set out in the legislation while 60% favour a change in the defamation laws.

The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has indicated that he may address the issue by changing the term from "offence" to "reasonable offence" or "undue offence". Any qualification of the term "offence", however, retains the troublesome subjective element in the legislation. Any potential solution would include changing the term "harm or offence" in section 39. That the current legislation is potentially at odds with European law has been ignored. Article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union makes no reference to "offence". Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression, makes no reference to "offence". I accept the point that we need a balanced debate on this issue. As some colleagues have argued, the right to free speech is not a right to engage in hate speech.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly's Bill is part of that debate. The Minister talked about a more nuanced approach. We need a balanced debate. However, we do not mean a debate similar to the "The Jerry Springer Show". I refer to what the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, said about Deputy Mick Wallace on "Prime Time", which was an appalling statement for a Minister for justice to make on the national television station. In any other country, he would probably have been gone the following morning.

We have walked away from the censorship that was in place in the period before the Good Friday Agreement. When I visit the North and talk to Northern Nationalists they often say that the implementation of section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960 delayed the peace process and prevented people from participating in inclusive negotiations. I wonder if many more lives could have been saved.

The right of freedom of speech does not equate to a right to incitement to hatred. Racism, sectarianism and some of the views expressed about Travellers are not acceptable and should be challenged at all times. In note in this morning's media that a number of Fine Gael candidates are using the Traveller issue to help get themselves elected in the local elections. Their anti-Traveller views are known and they are stoking up the issue. Some colleagues referred to the French model for dealing with the issue of privacy. I welcome this debate, which is part of a process to create a modern, inclusive, democratic country in which all views are listened to and in which diversity and difference are enjoyed and celebrated.

We have seen evidence of this in the past week during the President's State visit to England and his meetings with the queen. We must respect different views and cultures, while also retaining our own rights. I stand by the rights of citizens in our democratic Republic. I also stand by the right of citizens to express their views. This matter lies at the core of Deputy Donnelly's legislation. I welcome his contribution to the debate and I strongly support his Bill.

See this speech in context