Dáil debates

Wednesday, 31 January 2018

Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill 2017: Second Stage [Private Members]

 

4:05 pm

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I agree completely with the thrust of the Bill to regulate appropriately and-or prevent harassment on whatever media platform is used to cause it.

As always, there is a matter of some considerable difficulty in establishing where the boundaries lie between free speech and speech that can be constituted as harassment. The Bill defines harassment as actions by a person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly persistently follows, watches, pesters or besets another person; persistently communicates with another person; or persistently communicates with a third person about another person and by those acts seriously interferes with the peace and privacy of the other person or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other person. Such a person is guilty of the offence of harassment. I commend the Labour Party for bringing this Bill forward.

There is no doubt that we live now in a culture where online bullying is rampant and where the destruction of reputations is achieved with malicious ease. This must be addressed. I would suggest, however, that we do not limit ourselves to thinking that the idea of harassment is exclusively related to social media or to other online forums. There are plenty of ways in which apparently "respectable" institutions can and do engage in vicious harassment. I ask in all sincerity whether the definition of harassment that this Bill advances would capture the activity of some of the banks, mortgage providers or debt collectors towards distressed mortgage holders and other people who have loans with these institutions. They are routinely guilty in my view of intentionally pestering families. They are most certainly guilty of seriously interfering with the peace and privacy of the other person. Will this Bill capture the communications of such banks and lenders? If not, why not? We must look at that because that is terrible bullying.

I agree with the sentiment of the Bill, particularly because with young people, one would nearly get their finger nails off quicker than one would get the phone out of their hands. Unfortunately, that is the way it is. We must try to deal with this and stop the ruthless and merciless invasion of people's bedrooms and classrooms and their every living minute on this planet. It is very unfair. Every time Deputy Coppinger comes in here, she tries to blame it on the church. No matter what it is, the church, particularly the Catholic Church, must get a kick and a lash. It is a sad reflection that this is all she can bring up each time. No matter what the occasion is, she never lets it go.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.