David Norris (Independent)

The Minister of State gives the impression that to include this would be to include a new body, idea or concept. I ask for clarification. The section, as proposed in the Bill, reads:

(10) In this section "purpose that is of benefit to the community" includes—

(a) the advancement of community welfare including the relief of those in need by reason of youth, age, ill-health, or disability,

(b) the advancement of community development, including rural or urban regeneration,

(c) the promotion of civic responsibility or voluntary work,

(d) the promotion of health, including the prevention or relief of sickness, disease or human suffering,

(e) the advancement of conflict resolution or reconciliation,

(f) the promotion of religious or racial harmony and harmonious community relations,

(g) the protection of the natural environment,

(h) the advancement of environmental sustainability,

(i) the advancement of the efficient and effective use of the property of charitable organisations,

(j) the prevention or relief of suffering of animals,

(k) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or sciences, and

(l) the integration of those who are disadvantaged, and the promotion of their full participation, in society.

I did not read this out to be tedious but to indicate the textual nature of what confronts the House. I do not believe this precise formula has occurred in legislation before. Can the Minister of State tell me if it has and, if so, where? For example, environmental sustainability is a comparatively new concept. I do not believe it was included before. Will the Minister of State be kind enough to show me in previous charitable legislation, or anywhere else, where exactly this formulation exists? If he cannot, it is obvious that the formulation has been changed, concocted or dreamt up and there is a precise intention to exclude one for political reasons.

Another example is racial harmony. Ten years ago, this was a completely homogenous society and we would not have been thinking about racial harmony. It is absolutely appropriate that we should and I welcome it, but new concepts are being included in this.

The point made by Senator Bacik is a good one. I am not sure if I referred obliquely to the political purposes but I would like to expatiate on it. Senator Buttimer referred to a case I raised this morning. There is a direct Irish involvement in it but there is a more significant one reported in the columns of The Irish Times today. Without being tedious, I wish to put on the record this story about a Zimbabwean activist. This House passed a composite motion on Zimbabwe that was ably advocated by all of us, including Members on the other side. The article states:

Leading Zimbabwean human rights activist Jestina Mukoko was abducted from her home at dawn yesterday by a group of armed plain-clothes men who identified themselves as police. Her whereabouts are now unknown. Ms Mukoko, who visited Ireland in May as a guest of Trócaire, is the national director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project, a local human rights organisation that is involved in monitoring and documenting human rights violations.

She was snatched from her family in the early hours of the morning by a mob, consisting at its core of armed Zimbabwean police officers. This is a pattern. The article continues:

Both Trócaire and Amnesty expressed concern for Ms Mukoko and demanded her release. Lawyers are going from police station to police station looking for her.

"The abduction or arrest of Jestina Mukoko is part of an established pattern of harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders by Zimbabwean authorities in an attempt to discourage them from documenting and publicising the violations that are taking place," Erwin van der Borght, Amnesty International's Africa programme director, said yesterday.

Amnesty International is in the centre of it. Will Amnesty International be in the same position after this? Every year, I go to a remarkable breakfast function, where Frontline, which sprang from Amnesty International, celebrates the extraordinary heroic courage of people in extremely difficult circumstances. This includes people in the Middle East and the Congo. There is a risk to their lives and several have gone back and disappeared. That is a political objective and it is one that the President of this country is happy to honour with her presence.

Members of the Government, including Ministers, queue up to be photographed at this event, yet the organisation is in serious difficulty as a result of this legislation. Does the Minister of State purport to know more about the best interests of human rights organisations such as ICCL, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all those that have been listed, that have lobbied us and that have flatly contradicted every statement of the Minister of State on this matter? Does the Minister of State purport to know more on this subject than the human rights committee of the law society? That absolutely beggars belief. From where is the pressure for this exclusion coming?