Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister has described her concern that amendment No. 93 would have too wide an application but, as worded as the moment, the language has that potentially very wide application. There is no indication in terms of what will be determined as reasonably causing harm or offence. Would harm include harm to interests? Would a documentary that exposes bad practice by a particular actor or corporation and affects it financially be harm to interests? Is that reasonably-caused harm? It is not clear. In terms of offence, is it offence against a person's views? We know that there are those who are very offended by other people's weddings. We heard much of that during the marriage equality referendum. It is still very widely framed. I understand how the Minister believes it might be interpreted but it is an extremely wide and interpretable phase which needs clarity.

If the concern is the reference to the charter, I have sought to be constructive in the amendment with regard to mirroring the language. This is not a replication because section 46J(1)(d) specifically relates to incitement to hatred or violence. The other provision relates to harm or offence. It is not replication but I sought to mirror that language. Would it be appropriate to use the language in respect of our equality grounds? Can we put in provisos with regard to being reasonably interpreted as causing harm or offence? There is a danger that we come to a point, even though we are trying as a society to move ourselves forward towards more equality and human rights, at which this legislation sets in place an absolute reification of existing power structures whereby anything that might offend or harm existing powers or interests could effectively be challenged.

We have seen the weaponisation of poorly-drafted measures that were meant to be used for equality but have actually been used and targeted against minority groups. That is why we need to be very clear. The language is very wide. The Minister may not wish to accept my amendments but I hope she will listen to the point that this is extremely widely interpretable at present. I am not assured as to where "reasonably considered" comes in. It may be just a fact that it causes offence, harm to interests or harm in another form but it is almost a necessity or proportionality test. Is it a disproportionate harm or offence that is caused that is disproportionate to the public good?