Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State seemed to suggest there is no way out of this and we are required to legislate for this provision in this way. That is not correct. We have given examples from France, Germany, Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria, all of which have chosen to incorporate this provision in an entirely different and restrictive way than the Minister of State and his Government have proposed. None of these countries is to include what we are including, the idea of indirect provocation. It is such a loose description, it is almost beyond comprehension what this could cover. It could cover absolutely everything, and the countries I mention left this out altogether.

I have a real problem with the Minister of State again coming here and quoting the advice of the Attorney General. The Attorney General did not think the words in the framework directive were loose enough, in effect, and she thought there might be a problem with prosecutions later if the term was used. This is the term recommended in the EU and in the framework because "inciting" is something that is clearly defined and utilised much more clearly before our courts. Our civil liberties and our human rights are worth protecting. We are not necessarily talking about concrete acts but somebody interpreting that somebody else has not necessarily done something but possibly encouraged somebody else to do or think something. Big Brother has really lost the plot here, and 1984 in 2015 is beyond the bizarre when we see the repressive legislation that is being attempted.

The language is disproportionate and unnecessary. The Minister of State's response in saying we are required to do this is just not true. It is absolutely the case that we could put in the alternative wording that we use to replace "encourage" with "incite" because we know many of our European peers have done that. Instead, the Government is taking its old reliable option of copying what is done in Britain, even after it has been found not to work there and open to abuse or scrutiny. I have no doubt that if there are prosecutions under this provision, we as a State will find ourselves open to challenges under human rights legislation as a result.

See this speech in context