Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I agree with virtually every word the Minister just uttered, yet the suite of amendments we are discussing is to eviscerate the very protections this House passed. It is just taking them out because of pressure, and that is a simple fact. The Minister's powerful words are right. This is to protect vulnerable minorities that are fully part of our society, and to prevent people from redefining Irishness is in some narrow context or excluding people. All of us have come across individuals in our communities, in our families, friends and constituents, who have been vulnerable, such as gay people who are afraid to walk in certain areas, to hold hands or to show affection for fear of being attacked, or people of colour who would not canvass because they are afraid of the reaction on the door. These are real, vulnerable people we must protect, and we must not allow anybody to redefine, in 1916 terms, what Irishness is or to exclude anybody from it. I hear some arguing from both sides, that is, arguing fully that they want to protect but saying this is fundamentally flawed, for some reason, and trying to find a word or reason preventing us from going ahead now. It is disappointing that all these deletions are happening on this Bill, but so be it. Let us progress with what we have and have an opportunity to visit this again.

I am one of the people who was around the Dáil in 1989, when the original Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act was passed. I invite some of the people who are criticising the proposals here to read that Act, because the bulk of the prohibitions and protections were very broadly welcomed by Members of these Houses 35 years ago. I have always believed, and I am in my last couple of years in this House, that there has been a natural progression in my lifetime. I came in here in the year these Houses passed the eighth amendment to the Constitution. We now have a greater empathy with people and a greater tolerance of a lack of uniformity, and we are a better place because of it. Let us not go backwards. Let us not allow anybody to misinterpret what has been done in all the progress we have made to make Ireland a better, more inclusive and more tolerant place, but we have a lot to do still. Let us not be bullied off track. Those of us who see ourselves as progressives have tried to map a future where everybody is welcomed, tolerated, protected, included and intrinsically a member of our community or society. Some of the stuff online is depressing, but it is what it is. That is the new way of communication. I think the Minister believes from her heart every one of the words she powerfully argued, but they are not reflected in the actions of the amendments we are debating. I understand why, but I have to make the point.

On the specific amendment I put forward, the Minister told me the reason it is not being accepted is that, under section 3, “protected characteristic” is referenced and it is not referenced in the 1989 Act. The most fundamental point, however, is that there is always a technical reason something cannot be done, but some categories that are protected under the Bill the Minister is going to push tonight are not protected in the 1989 Act. It was fine when the 1989 Act was being repealed in its totality, but the Government is going to maintain the 1989 Act, for however long it takes the next Oireachtas and Government to amend it, if they do amend it. Until that time, there will be two different categories of protected people, under the 1989 Act and under this Bill. I would have thought it was possible to fix that, if the Minister had wanted to fix it, rather than to have the anomaly of two separate definitions, as I said. For clarity, there are going to be two different categories side by side, namely, the one set out in section 3 of this Bill, comprising race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sexual characteristics, sexual orientation or disability, and in the 1989 Act, race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the Travelling community or sexual orientation. Those two definitions should be aligned. I think the Minister would accept that, and I do not think it is beyond the wit of her officials to have found a way of aligning them if there are an objectionable two words therein that we could have amended as well.

There will be a great deal of misinformation about a lot of the progressive things we do into the future now in a way that probably was not the case even in 1989. We were much a more conservative place, I thought, at that stage, but maybe not. The voices of blurring reality and misinterpreting what is intended are stronger now, and that is why those of us who want to protect vulnerable minorities and to continue on the path of inclusion and not exclusion, separation or demeaning have to be clearer. We have to be even stronger in our determination, to be clear and not to be put off, because if people feel that a campaign has made the Government retreat on this, they will feel there will be another issue on which it will retreat, and the people who will lose out from that are the more marginal members of a society, who have in recent times felt Ireland is a welcoming, comfortable place for them to be in. We should be determined that that progress will continue to be made.

See this speech in context