Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú) | Oireachtas source

All forms of discrimination are wrong and everybody who lives in this country and is a citizen of this country must have equal rights. A Republic is built on the idea that all citizens are equal. Aontú opposes all forms of discrimination and we oppose all incitements to violence. We believe that incitement to violence is wrong, that it is a criminal act and that it should be treated as such. Words do matter. Words matter a lot. Words can cast light, they can educate, they can build up and they can get to the truth. Words can hold people to account and words can inspire. Words are the framework of thought. Our thought processes are built on words. Words are the vehicles of ideas and these ideas can make change for good and can change for bad.

A liberal democracy is built upon allowing ideas to compete with each other so that we as a society can test, challenge and measure the value of those ideas. It is only through the free and respectful articulation of these ideas that we can allow them to compete. It is through that competition that we can empirically choose the best solutions for our society with regard to the problems that we face.

In a citizen's Republic, each individual has and should have an equal right to that articulation of views and the equal articulation of speech. In a civil society we need to do that respectfully. That is important. One of the biggest jobs we have to do in this country is to raise our children with the idea that, yes, we question, we challenge and we test, but we do so in a manner that does not cause hurt to others.

It amazes me at times though, especially when looking at social media, that we often see that the people who dress themselves up in the colour of love and inclusivity are often the people who are involved in shutting down debate and in stopping those ideas from being discussed. I have seen debates happen on social media, as I am sure the Minister has as well, especially with JK Rowling for example, where many people who dress themselves up in the idea of inclusivity have been involved in threatening to beat, rape, assassinate and bomb the likes of JK Rowling for having certain views. These are views that they do not believe she should have. These are views that they think is hate speech because she holds them. The fears held by people in terms of this Bill that the Minister is proposing are not theoretical fears. These are real fears. The cancel culture and the censorship culture that exists at the moment is on steroids in many ways. People fear that is encroaching into the realm of honest, respectful debate on real issues that affect people.

The history of censorship does not end well in anyway whatsoever. Censorship is an authoritarian act. It deletes the liberty of citizens, and it deletes the competition of ideas that we discussed earlier. It reduces people's ability to challenge and test the prevailing ideologies within a society. Not only does it erase the rights of citizens in terms of the articulation of their views, but it radically prevents people from stopping the significant swings that can happen in a society in relation to whichever ideological wind is blowing at a certain time.

It used to be the case that censorship was a tool of the political right.

The left fought censorship and demanded that we support the individual's right to articulate views. In many parts of the world now, though, that is not the case. Many people from that political viewpoint have become distracted by the culture wars and identity politics and have forgotten about the bread and butter issues that are affecting the people they are meant to serve. Many even admit that these tools can be used to help them engineer the society they want to achieve.

I remember speaking to former colleagues of mine in Sinn Féin in years gone by. I was one of the many who opposed section 31 because it censored people's views about what happened. As such, I am amazed to hear Sinn Féin say that its members will support a Bill that will encroach on people's ability to speak freely and respectfully about issues of real importance. It also amazes me that we have come from a society where, in the 1950s especially, we were probably one of the most censored societies in the whole of Europe. The negative consequences of that were significant and are clear to us today. Seventy years later, though, the mirror-image instincts are in many ways manifesting themselves in some of these debates.

I wish to mention the importance of pluralism in a liberal democracy. We know that tolerance of plural outlooks in society is necessary for cohesion and the competition of ideas. Pluralism means that we must allow for mutually opposing ideologies to exist simultaneously. To quote a sentence attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Does the Minister not agree that this is a foundation stone of a pluralist society? Her version of the quote is: "I may not agree with what you have to say, and I may put you in jail for actually saying that." That is the opposite of what pluralism means. Words can defame, inflame, divide and destroy, they can rob a person or an organisation of a good name, and words can and do lead to violence and death. In our modern society with its social media, those words can be amplified like never before. Damage can go viral in minutes. There has to be a balance of rights, though. We need to be able to have a society where we have the freedom to articulate, challenge and hold to account. We also need to protect the reputations of people. Opponents of this Bill are not absolutists in terms of freedom of speech. Most ordinary people would support the prohibition of incitement to violence and violence on the basis of hatred. However, what this law does goes much further than that. It damages the balance.

One of the Bill's major problems, which has already been mentioned, is the lack of clarity in its definitions. The Minister needs to proof those definitions against whatever judge might be sitting in whatever court at some time in the future. We know that views and ideas on many of the issues being discussed today are fluid. In five years' time, for example, many people will have different views and ideas. The ICCL has stated that the definitions relating to incitement to hatred and the protection of freedom of expression are not clear enough. The ICCL has also stated that the creation of an offence of preparing or possessing materials with your views in your home with a view to making them public goes too far and is an infringement on privacy. The ICCL has stated that possessing material in your home without the clear intention of ever making it public should not be an offence. It is an incredible idea that gardaí could be going into people's homes to search them on that basis. I agree with a previous speaker that this enters into the realm of thought policing.

The Minister tells us that hatred is a key reason for the Bill, yet the word "hatred" is not defined anywhere in it. I absolutely oppose hatred. Calling for violence against people is hatred and should be illegal. However, others would define "hatred" as saying that a woman is a female adult. This is not a theoretical issue. In Britain, police have arrived at the homes of citizens under hate speech law because they tweeted the sentence, "A woman is a female adult". The definition of "gender" in the Bill is not a definition at all. According to the Bill, the definition of "gender" is what the individual decides it to be. Some people say that there are 72 genders. Others say that putting a limit on the number of genders is itself wrong. These can have serious consequences for people's lives. In many ways, a large number of our debates are occurring in a political and media bubble. Most people in Irish society would adhere to the scientific understanding of gender. Most people would believe that a woman is a female adult, and most people would believe that that sentence is not transphobic.

A group of women spoke on Joe Duffy's "Liveline" show a number of weeks ago. They articulated their fear about potentially allowing men - not people who had real issues in terms of gender identity - to use the opportunity of identifying as women for their own reasons, etc. They were fearful that women's safe spaces would not continue into the future. They articulated that view respectfully and calmly on the show. It was a wonderful opportunity. "Liveline" is one of those few opportunities where real people get a chance to discuss the issues that are important to them. Most of the radio and television shows that we listen to have on them people from the bubble in which we in politics and the media live. After that calm and respectful articulation of their fears, however, there was a significant backlash against their views. Many people said that the views were transphobic and hate speech. Incredibly, Dublin Pride left its partnership with RTÉ on the basis of the show.

Does the Minister believe that women saying that a woman is an adult female is transphobic and hate speech? Is it possible that a judge might in future have those views and implement the Minister's legislation on the back of those? These are important questions for us to debate.

There has recently been a significant shift in the political bubble concerning these ideas. The Government has taken on a policy of gender affirmation. I spoke to a teacher recently who told me that he had attended an in-service day where a person from his department told him not to use the words "mother" and "father" in class any more because they were not inclusive. The website of the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, provides resources for teachers to deal with these issues in school. One of its pieces of advice states that teachers should not call the class to attention by using the phrase "boys and girls" because it was not inclusive. Recently, the Government deleted the word "woman" from legislation. Obviously, it was put back in because there was an outcry across the country at the bubble - the bubble did not understand how angry people were - and the Government responded to that. The HSE developed leaflets about cervical cancer that spoke of women as people with cervixes. Many women do not want their identity to be deleted in that respect. This ideology is at the heart of Government policy at the moment, but many people are fearful that this Bill will be used to delete people's opportunity to speak respectfully and openly against that ideology.

I have mentioned the political class's focus being distracted by the culture wars and identity politics instead of being on bread and butter issues. I have been looking at the Bills that have come out of the Minister's Department recently. Many of them focus on the former instead of the real bread and butter issues that people are dealing with at home. I recently submitted a large number of parliamentary questions to the Minister. The reply to one stated that 2,100 gardaí had been physically assaulted in the past ten years, 400 had resigned in the past five years, only 24 people had started Garda training college so far this year, the Garda Reserve was nearly at an all-time low, Ireland had one of the lowest numbers of police in Europe, and the Minister's constituency had the lowest number of gardaí in the country.

This is not a new phenomenon. Hatred has been in our communities for much longer than we are comfortable acknowledging. There is now, thankfully, a broad consensus that hatred needs to be reflected in law, that incitement to violence and hatred needs to be held to account in a court of law and that those who perpetrate it need to be held to account. That is a concept I support. However, key to any such law is that it be effective and enforceable. In that regard, this Bill is weak. Substantial work remains to be done and serious issues need to be addressed.

The terminology contained in this Bill appears sloppy or not well thought-out. For example, the line "'Hatred' means hatred [...]" reads like an advertising tag line as opposed to a clear, unarguable definition. It is far from the clear definition we and those of the protected characteristics need. It is substandard, even below the standard of what is classed as hatred on An Garda Síochána's website. Because of that lack of clarity, the Bill will be ineffective. It will be unenforceable and will place an unrealistic expectation on the Garda and the Courts Service.

I draw the House's attention to an excellent article in The Irish Timesby Dr. Amanda Haynes and Dr. Jennifer Schweppe, associate professor of law. They are co-directors of the European Centre for the Study of Hate, based in the University of Limerick. Deputies should read that article. It is fantastic and sets out why we need this Bill, as well as setting out clearly why this Bill needs to be saved. Hate threatens the societal fabric we hold dear. The level of physical and emotional harm it causes to individuals needs to be held to account, but we also need to recognise the wider impact it has on all of our communities. To do that, we need to get the balance right. That is not easy but that does not mean that we do not try or that it is not possible to get it right.

I thank and acknowledge those in our community who stand up against hatred and with those who experience hatred, particularly our younger people. We have all been there when it is easier to say nothing than to call something out. I commend and congratulate them and hope they continue to do that because hatred has no place in our society.

See this speech in context