Friday, 18 December 2020
Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill 2017: Committee and Remaining Stages
I am sorry to be picky but I understand from the Minister of State's response is that it is not appropriate to this section of this Bill because we did not define "private". But it probably is appropriate to this section of this Bill. If all that was wrong was a definition of "private", that could have been easily fixed or it could easily be stated now that if we bring back a definition of "private" in the context of something that is entirely different - say, me giving my information to SIPO with consent for it to publish because I have no choice, or my giving my information freely to anyone else to publish - to someone manipulatively using private information of mine for the purposes of controlling me or for controlling other groups to come and harass me directly. It is entirely different. Will the Minister of State clarify that he did not mean that it was not appropriate in this section per sebut that it was not appropriate because the definition of "private" was not included? I am just curious.