Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is clear this is a complicated issue for legislation to deal with, as all the Deputies who have spoken made clear by pointing out the complexity of meeting some of its requirements. The Minister outlined the extensive procedure her Department went through in the form of public consultation, with many meetings and a number of independently facilitated discussion workshops that took place throughout the country. She indicated that a series of meetings had been held with interested groups, organisations, academics, law enforcement professionals and other experts and that this engagement rightly produced many insights, as legislation such as this requires.

Nevertheless, Second Stage is being taken on a Thursday, the deadline for Committee Stage amendments has passed and Committee Stage will be taken next Tuesday at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice. Why is there such a rush to get the Bill through the Houses given it took such a long time, rightly, to conduct the consultation and the hearing of views in advance? We are now going to fly through all Stages in the Houses and very little discussion will take place here, and that is wrong. This leads me to think that perhaps some of the concerns regarding the legislation are well founded and perhaps that is why the Government wants to rush it through the House in order that they cannot be teased out with an examination of what the Bill’s impact will be. It is a matter of just getting it enacted and saying everything will be grand once it is on the Statute Book. It is as though all will be rosy and it will be "job done", but I think that is wrong. If proper scrutiny takes a further six months, so be it. It took a considerable period up to now and that is the way it should be. For it now to be rushed through on all Stages in the House is wrong.

I agree with submissions made by the ICCL and others that expressed concern about the proposed steamrolling of the legislation through the legislative process. That body called on the Government to ensure there would be sufficient time for meaningful democratic debate to take place. How can we have sufficient time for meaningful democratic debate when the deadline for Committee Stage amendments has passed? The fact Committee Stage is scheduled to take place next Tuesday is wrong and the Minister might address that in her concluding remarks. Perhaps she is not in control of the process; I do not know. Alternatively, if the House is in control of the process, it needs to address that because something is badly wrong when legislation is being rushed through in this way, after the appropriate process it went through. It is very worrying.

Legislation of this type is necessary. The UN Secretary General stated, “Hate speech undermines social cohesion, erodes shared values and can lay the foundation for violence, undermining peace, stability, sustainable development and the fulfilment of human rights for all.” Similarly, the European Commission stated, “Hate speech and hate crime affect not only the individual victims and their communities ... but also society at large”, and there is no doubt it can have that impact. Rushed legislation, or legislation that does not serve its intended purpose and where there might be concerns, can have an even greater impact.

There are concerns with regard to this. We need to legislate to ensure minority groups are protected and people are not targeted because they are members of those groups. That is vitally important. Every Member with a proper sense of right and wrong will agree that is correct and true. I do not know whether this Bill will achieve that, however. That is the danger. This legislation may have additional impacts that could have a more serious effect. It could actually limit the right of people to have thoughts and to speak, which is very important. It is a difficult piece of balancing to get this right.

It is interesting to see that "hatred" is not defined in the legislation. That is worrying given that it deals with hate speech. There are bodies of which the State is a proud member, in which it has a long history of participation and which it has used to defend citizens. I have in mind the Council of Europe and other such bodies, which have introduced legislation that we should take on board. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a Council of Europe, states that"'hatred' shall mean a state of mind characterised as intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group". There are definitions that could possibly be used. We should have been using all those bodies of which we are members to help inform and formulate this process.

There are other aspects of the Bill. We talk about different standards for different bodies and people. Politicians can have a different standard in terms of a more lax standard. Politicians can fuel hate speech. We have seen it in this House at times. Maybe it is not hate speech but it is definitely speech that is very wrong and could cause upset to people. Why are we treating politicians differently? In fact, we should possibly hold politicians to a much higher standard than the public. Politicians should have more responsibility because we can stand up in this House and our words can be broadcast all over the country and on the Internet. We have a bigger responsibility to act properly and speak with restraint. That is vitally important.

Overall, some form of legislation is necessary but I have severe doubts about whether this particular legislation is necessary because I have serious problems with it. I doubt very much if the so-called democratic process we have in this country will be able to deal with the issues arising from this Bill. For this reason, I am very concerned about the possibility that this legislation will go through, what it will mean for people in the future and whether we will provide the necessary protection we are talking about. That is vitally important. We should ensure we get workable legislation passed rather than legislation that will be left on the Statute Book and probably not used.

See this speech in context