David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Leas-Chathaoirleach that the debates in the Seanad are always very constructive, thoughtful, useful and welcome. I sincerely thank the Members present for their considered contributions and their views on this Bill in particular. I thank everybody for their co-operation in making extra time available to deal with all Stages of the Bill today.

Deputy Ned O’Sullivan rightly raised the issue of hate speech, hate crime and racism. As usual, the Senator's contribution was insightful. It is important to remember that the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 already prohibits threatening, abusive or insulting conduct that is intended or likely to stir up hatred against a group or persons on account of, inter alia, their religion. The Department of Justice and Equality is carrying out a review of the 1989 Act to identify how it can be improved and made more effective in a modern democracy. As part of this review, a public consultation process will open up shortly to gather views on how our legislation on criminal hate speech can be updated to ensure it works effectively. The issues to be examined in the consultation will include the limits it is appropriate to place on freedom of expression when it comes to hate speech; the forms of hate speech that are serious enough that they should be criminal offences; whether the list of protected characteristics included in the legislation should be changed; whether the existing legislation is adequate to deal with online communications; and whether the requirement to prove intent to stir up or a likelihood of stirring up hatred should be altered. In addition, under the Criminal Law Act 1997, any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender.

Separately, the Department is also undertaking research into hate crime and examining approaches taken in other jurisdictions. The research results are expected at the end of this year and will also help to ensure that hate crimes are addressed effectively in this jurisdiction. I thank the Senator for his interest in this issue and for raising it.

The Defamation Act was mentioned on a few occasions in the debate. The particular Bill before us proposes the repeal of the two sections of the Defamation Act 2009 that provide for an offence of blasphemy. Those sections were expressly excluded, from the beginning, from the statutory review of the Defamation Act, which was mentioned in the debate also, because they deal only with the offence of blasphemy and the Government had already committed to holding a referendum on the constitutional reference to that offence.

The Department of Justice and Equality is completing the review of the Defamation Act. I understand the review has undergone some delay due to other urgent legislative reforms and a number of important judgments of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Human Rights, which had to be taken into account. However, extensive work has been done and the review is being finalised. The Minister, Deputy Flanagan, has indicated its completion as a priority for him and for the Department. He expects a draft report with options for reform to be submitted to him in the coming weeks with a view to his bringing forward proposals for legislative change to Government in early course. The review is addressing all the issues raised in submissions made to it, including the role of juries in High Court cases and the level of awards made.

The objective set for the Defamation Act review from the outset is to ensure that our defamation law strikes the right balance between protecting an individual’s good name and privacy and protecting the right to freedom of expression, taking account of the vital role in our democracy played by a free and independent press. I am sure Senators will agree these are important issues in a complex area of law, and the review will also draw on experiences of reform in other jurisdictions.

I listened to what Senator Bacik said about diversity in the workplace. I visited a number of workplaces recently and I am glad to say many businesses and companies recognise the importance of diversity in the workplace in all its aspects. They go so far as to say it not only makes for a better and happier workplace where people can be themselves and where they are recognised for their different abilities but it also impacts positively on the bottom line for companies. They recognise that and an increasing number of companies have diversity committees and subgroups extolling, championing and recognising diversity. That is to be welcomed.

I listened very carefully to the point made by Senator McDowell. I thank him for his thoughtful contribution to the debate, which is important, but I believe we can agree that current blasphemy law is not working. It has not proved in practice to be a proportionate or a satisfactory response to the concerns the Senator raised, so I am glad he is supporting the legislation.

I refer to the importance of calling out racism and hatred for what they are when we come across them. Part of my role concerns asylum seekers, refugees and all that space. There are tens of millions of people displaced across the world. We are doing our bit here as best we can to support people who come here looking for protection and to support refugees also.We should be doing more and we can debate that on another occasion. I would be very concerned if people were to use religion as an excuse for not supporting people who come here for protection or were to make statements such as "This is a Catholic country for Catholic people" or "This is a white country for white people."