Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will be sharing time with Deputy Clare Daly. It is welcome to have the issue of hate crime, or aggravated bias, on the agenda in the House tonight. Unfortunately, I will be voting against the Bill because I believe it is outdated and not fit for purpose. I am suspicious of the timing of the Bill and wonder if this is the dark side of new politics. Is it a way to get the European Commission off the Government's back as it investigates Ireland with regard to its obligations under the 2008 Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia?

What is most astonishing is the fact Fianna Fáil did not seem to consult with any of the victims' groups or any representative organisations in regard to the Bill. I remind the House of the incredible work carried out by the Hate and Hostility Research Group, which is the only research group in Ireland dedicated to the study of hate crime. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work carried out by Dr. Amanda Haynes and Jennifer Schweppe who, alongside ENAR Ireland and TENI, have been pushing for progressive policy and legislative changes for over a decade. In fact, in 2015, the findings of all their research and the heads of a Bill were published, which Fianna Fáil seems to have completely sidestepped and dismissed throughout this whole process. That 2015 Bill had the support of the working group on hate crime established by the former Labour Party Minister of State, now Senator Aodhán Ó Ríordáin.

According to experts in the field of hate crime, international best practice draws on three key elements which need to be considered in a legislative context. First, determining which victim groups are to be protected; second, deciding whether the "hate" element will be addressed by way of aggravated offences or aggravated sentencing; and, third, determining how "hate" will be established and what "hate" is understood to mean. This Bill substantially fails in all three elements. However, due to time constraints, I will focus on the first element, which is the identification of victim groups that should be afforded protection in legislation.

First, Deputy O'Loughlin failed to reference the most recent statistics on hate crime. There was mention of CSO figures and that 113 hate crimes were recorded in 2013 but the most up to date figure for 2015, directly obtained by ENAR Ireland’s iReport data project, would suggest a much higher figure of 165 crimes. The report showed the highest rate of assault for a six month period since iReport began in 2013, which is a very worrying trend but not worrying enough for Fianna Fáil to mention. How can it legislate for an issue if it does not know the true extent of it?

Fianna Fáil has also failed to determine the victims' groups. The Bill refers to transgender identity, which includes transvestism, transsexualism, intersexuality or having changed gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2015. However, that language is dated and does not represent the full diversity of the trans community. The correct wording in the Bill should instead reference sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. This would be in line with international best practice and provide robust coverage of trans and intersex experiences and identities.

The inclusion of intersex is positive but it fails to mention agender or gender fluid persons, which fails to afford the protection of individuals on the basis of their gender identity and gender expression.

There is no mention of membership of the Traveller community, which is consistently targeted in hate crime or bias. It is not good enough to mention ethnicity in the Bill when the Traveller community is not recognised as an ethnic group. Furthermore, the Roma community, which is very much vulnerable to hate crime or bias, is not mentioned in the Bill. We only have to recall the murder of Marioara Rostas to remind us of the fact.

It is not clear in the Bill if the mention of disability includes developmental and intellectual disabilities such as autism. The list goes on. There is no mention of cisgender identity and it excludes protection of women who are subject to misogynistic hate crime or bias. There is no reference to religion, belief or lack of, and in the context of rising Islamophobia, it is incredible that was omitted in the Bill.

The Bill also failed to mention residence status, which will leave out protection for those who are targeted because they are refugees or are seeking asylum seeker status. There is no mention of age, either of elderly people or children targeted by their status.

The Bill fails in its codifying of outdated language, including the term "hate crime", although I use it here; in its lack of consultation with interest groups; in not identifying the victims groups who need protection; and in not specifically addressing the groups that are disproportionately targeted in society.

It will serve well to remember what one victim said of hate crime, “in theft, you are going for the value of the object [but with hate crime] you are going for the value of the person”.

See this speech in context