Dr. Jennifer Schweppe:

I thank Deputy Costello for his question. I cannot think of a single circumstance in which it would be appropriate in any academic content to utter language which incites hatred. This is not hate speech or people saying nasty things about groups of people. This is speech which incites hatred. Is academic discourse Dr. Haynes and I having a cup of coffee or me speaking to my class? Is it me writing in academic work? It is not defined. I cannot think of a single circumstances under which me inciting hatred could in any way be justified or excused, which are the ways in which we frame defences. In the same way, there are no circumstances I can think of where it would be appropriate, justified or excused for a politician to incite hatred, and the standard of speech required in this criminal offence is incredibly high. There are no circumstances in which we should incite hatred.

I completely agree with Ms Hurley that this is really not a criminal justice hate crime Bill but a criminal justice incitement to hatred and hate crime, and incitement to genocide, Bill. We need to be really careful about what we are doing here. What the incitement to hatred provisions in head 3 do is broaden out what is in the 1989 Act through the definition of "hatred" and the inclusion of the recklessness test, on which I am not as keen as Dr. Taylor. The Bill broadens out and expands the scope of what we understand by incitement to hatred but then provides these really broad defences. This means I cannot imagine a circumstance in which it would be at all possible to secure a conviction because somebody could simply say he or she was engaging in political discourse when he or she produced a pamphlet or made a comment on social media or in a lecture. People could argue they are a politician, or not even a politician but speaking in a political context, or that the speech in question was political speech and, therefore, they have an absolute exemption and can incite hatred all they want. We need to look back at the 1989 Act. I acknowledge it has flaws but maybe just a tweaking of the 1989 Act or a reworking of elements of it is what is required rather than the introduction of this, as I said, inherently inconsistent provision in head 3.