Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

This legislation is long overdue. We know the negative impact of hate speech and incitement to violence. We also know these are often targeted at vulnerable or minority groups. While I welcome the Bill, it would be wrong to think that it can eradicate the disgusting beliefs and attitudes that lead to hate speech. It is important that as we bring in much-needed criminal law for this serious matter, the Government must also commit to a programme of outreach and education on a national scale to tackle the root causes of hate offences. Without a commitment to raising awareness about the beliefs and attitudes that lead to hate crimes, the legislation only fights half the battle. We must treat the disease, not just the symptoms. There is a glaring need for a suite of measures to understand the complexity of hate speech if we are to undermine it. The ICCL has called for greater levels of monitoring, reporting and recording data of hate incidents to help make the legislation effective. While we sit and discuss how best to fight the scourge of hate speech and hate crimes, people around the country are being targeted by it. For that reason, Government must also commit to improving victim support throughout this process and after its conclusion. The last thing victims should feel is that they are suffering while we debate over several months.

Hatred is defined in the legislation as "hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics". Here, hatred itself is left undefined, which is a cause of concern. Hatred is ever-evolving and newer, more covert methods of conveying hatred are emerging every day. We see this prolifically online, where certain communities founded on vile intent codify hostility and develop so-called dog whistles that are not easily identifiable as hatred. They are unscrupulous in their methods, wrapping contempt and venom up as seemingly legitimate positions. These actions are intentionally difficult to identify, meaning they can often slip through the laws that should protect individual and groups against the harm they cause. The vagueness in the legislation leaves too much debate about what qualifies as hatred and, therefore, needs further research and specification. The ICCL recommends aligning the definition of "hatred" with the Council of Europe Commission Against Racism and Intolerance's definition, which denotes "hatred" as "a state of mind characterised as intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group". This definition would be more useful in terms of purpose, clarity and precision. Similarly, the protection of freedom of expression must be clarified. A lack of detail in the legislation leaves the section ripe for manipulation.

Without clear frameworks and a precise definition of "hatred", there could be a chilling effect on the critical discourse nationally. There are organisations in Ireland with publically-stated positions that can objectively be deemed to be homophobic, for example. However, without greater clarity, this law could be used to suppress criticisms of those organisations. The law must distinguish between objective civil discourse and media freedom and actions with hateful and harmful purposes. In the case of an offence relating to the constraints of the Bill occurring, the legislation notes a defensive proof that the behaviour in question was "a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse". There is a high risk of misinterpretation of this defence, making its misuse likely. Just because someone on Twitter or in a debate on the radio believes that their contributions are reasonable and genuine and relevant to the above discourses does not mean that they have not incited hatred. All people, no matter who they are, in all discussions, no matter which topic they fall under, must adhere to the same standards. Just because you might believe you are contributing a valuable addition to a debate does not mean you can be hateful. Whether you are in this Chamber, on television or on the radio and social media, whether a contribution is reasonable or genuine is a subjective consideration. Even those words themselves require further explanation. We cannot let vagueness shield those who intend to incite violence or hatred. For example, Scottish legislation provides greater detail by stating: "In determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb." If clarity is provided in a way similar to the Scottish legislation, the defence for particular discourses could stand and function effectively and ethically. I am glad that descent and sex characteristics have been added to the list of protected characteristics.

In the future, it may be necessary to make the list longer. Keeping an open mind regarding the nature of hatred is vital when approaching legislation of this nature.

Section 8 relates to the offences of the condonation, denial or gross trivialisation of genocide, etc., against persons on account of their protected characteristics, which is a welcome provision but nationality and gender have been omitted from the list of protected characteristics referenced in the section. The omission does not align with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and lacks foresight in respect of future offences. This should be rectified.

In respect of the list of aggregated offences, it is incredibly important to realise that different communities suffer hate crimes in a myriad of different ways. Theft, fraud and blackmail have been excluded from the list even though some individuals and groups can be subjected to these offences as a result of prejudice. The Government must provide a clear rationale for the inclusion of these 12 particular offences and not others.

The legislation should reduce incidences of hate crime but without an holistic approach, it will fail. The Government must pair this legislation with a nationwide awareness campaign to educate communities on its effects and on hatred generally. We are swimming against the tide. Incidences of hatred online that are hate crimes continue to grow exponentially. As social media platforms, new and old, embed themselves even further into our society, we must be ready to tackle hate speech comprehensively and firmly. I hope Members have educated themselves on the realities of partaking in digital life these days. The abuse that particular groups receive online is intense and nothing short of disgusting. If we do not wholeheartedly commit to making this legislation future-facing, its efficacy will not last.

See this speech in context