Mr. Martin Collins:

I thank the Chairman. I apologise for the technical difficulties. I thank the committee on behalf of Pavee Point Traveller and Roma Centre for the invitation to address it on the Criminal Justice (Hate Crime Bill) 2021. As some members may know, Pavee Point is a national non-governmental organisation that has been campaigning for the last 35 years to address racism at both the institutional and individual level and to promote Traveller and Roma inclusion in society overall. We welcome the Government’s plan to introduce stronger and more effective legislation to deal with hate speech and hate crime. This is a recognition the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act is not fit for purpose. As we all know, there have been very few prosecutions under it.

Hate speech and hate crime are different from other crimes. If other speakers have alluded to this I apologise for the duplication. I was out for about ten minutes. Hate speech and attacks are not just on the individual but on the whole community that individual comes from. As a result, this instills great fear, anxiety and uncertainty in that community. Hate speech and hate crime create barriers to a more pluralist, inclusive society based on principles of equality and respect. There must be zero tolerance towards hate speech and hate crime. Unfortunately, it is well documented that both my community and the Roma community all too frequently experience hate speech and hate crime. For the committee's information, in the last eight years six homes allocated to Traveller families were either vandalised or suffered arson attacks before those families could occupy them. This was quite clearly motivated by hate. Unfortunately, in all six cases none of the culprits was ever arrested and held to account before the courts. That was one house per year. It is absolutely frightening. More recently, we have seen examples of graffiti being sprayed on the walls of Travellers' houses that says: "Knackers out". This was a very recent development. It occurred in Limerick only three weeks ago. Thus, it is quite clear we need strong, effective legislation to deal with hate speech and hate crime. As we all know, hate speech must be nipped in the bud because quite often it is a precursor to hate crime.

Before I hand over to my colleague, Ms Liston, who may wish to say a few words, I want to make an observation on an aspect of the Bill I am quite concerned about. The defence paragraph is certainly very expansive. In particular, I am very concerned about what I would describe as a loophole or opt-out clause in relation to political discourse. The Bill as constructed at present would seem to suggest politicians who come out with effectively racist or other homophobic comments can use political discourse as a defence. That is how I read the Bill and it worries me. It needs to be addressed because too often, especially with my own community, the Traveller community, and also the Roma community, it is during elections when politicians are canvassing when we hear most of the racist rhetoric and hate speech directed against Travellers and Roma. If political discourse is going to be a line of defence, then the legislation will be all the poorer for it when it materialises. I caution against that and urge the legislators and the drafters to revisit that because it worries us considerably.

As a final point, we note strong, effective hate speech law must, as a priority, be victim-centred. It must give an effective legal remedy to those who experience hate speech and hate crime. Those should be the overriding priorities for this piece of legislation. As we all know, the legislation on its own will not address hate speech and hate crime. We need a more holistic, co-ordinated approach. We need other educational and training initiatives for the Judiciary, for prosecutors and for society overall. The forthcoming national action plan on racism will be a huge complement to this legislation when it materialises. I thank the committee. My colleague, Ms Liston, might like to say a word.