Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Bríd Smith.

We are debating and discussing a change to the law. Where has the pressure for this change come from? It has come from below. It came from the repeal movement, the Me Too movement, and from the sentiment for I Believe Her in the aftermath of the Belfast rape trial. Insofar as this legislation is a reflection of the aspirations and the demands of those movements, it is positive and represents a step forward. However, it is a mild reflection of the aspirations and demands of those movements, it does not go far enough and the process of putting the changes before the Dáil has been very slow. It has been five years, which is too long but it is here now so we will debate some of the issues at stake.

On the issue of consent, it is currently a defence in a rape trial to say "I thought there was consent" or "In my opinion, there was consent". That is now going to change, if and when this legislation is passed and that is a good thing. It is definitely a step forward. What will be required now is something a reasonable person would see as consent, which is better than what is there beforehand. It is less than a situation where it could be said that consent must be actively obtained. That would be a higher bar and a clearer position, and it would be a better position than what is proposed in the legislation. It also needs to be made clear that consent can be withdrawn at any time.

On the issue of the sexual history and sexual experience of a victim, we have seen many times where a victim has ended up defending themselves in the courtroom or that the victim - overwhelmingly in the majority of cases a woman - gets put on trial and her sexual experience and history becomes part of the debate in the court. That should not be the case. It should never be the case. It should be ruled out and the fact that it is still allowed in any circumstances in this legislation is a weakness in the legislation.

On the issue of character references, the Bill seeks to reform the use of character references by making them sworn and for the authors of said references to be potentially subject to cross-examination. This too is a step forward. I agree with Deputy Pringle and also ask whether character references should be allowed to play any role in such cases. Recently we had the case in the United States of the Hollywood actor Danny Masterson who was sentenced to 30 years to life for the rape of two women. Mr. Masterson's co-stars in the comedy "That 70s Show", Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis, provided character references for him. Mr. Kutcher said that Mr. Masterson was a role model, that he "set an extraordinary standard around how you treat other people", and that he was not able to recall an incidence where Mr. Masterson had lied to him in the 25 years they had known each other. Ms Kunis said she had first met Mr. Masterson when she was a teenager and that on meeting him she could "sense his innate goodness and genuine nature". Now I have no doubt that there are rapists who have friends who admire them and some of their personal qualities. Equally, I have no doubt that there are rapists who have little good that could ever be said about them. However, the point is that it does not really matter. Both do equal harm to the victims.

I do not think a victim-centred justice system would allow such character references any longer in such trials.

If I had more time, which I do not, I would make more detailed points about trafficking. I would say the State is part and parcel of a racist EU border policy, the fortress Europe policy, which helps put traffickers into business. Victims of trafficking need protection from prosecution and should have a guaranteed right to live and work here.

I welcome the fact that the legislation proposes an end to a situation whereby someone would be tried for rape in front of a military court. That case would now be heard in the civil courts. That is a significant step forward, and I salute the work that has been done by the Women of Honour, who I believe have played an important part in pushing for that change.

A key to this whole issue is education. We need comprehensive sex education programmes in the education system. The question of consent needs to be central to that education. Awareness about consent needs to be raised right throughout society. There is a pushback against modern and progressive sex education in this country at the moment. It is coming from the far right. They have their supporters in this Chamber, who echo the talking points and pushback against sex education. Some of them have made spirited contributions to this debate but have avoided that issue and the boost they are giving to the far-right talking points. The far-right pushback against sex education needs to be defeated, and the Government needs to stop wobbling and bending to that pressure.

See this speech in context