Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome to the Chamber. It has been a very interesting debate so far. It shows the breadth of views in this House. I believe that all views, for the most part, have been expressed reasonably and fairly, and are to be respected across all sides. There are many things that will not be said in the Chamber because cancel culture is real, as pointed out by Senator Mullen. There are many topics that many of us are afraid to speak on publicly or speak about in the Chamber, but we say it outside and we say it in the hallways, and people say it to us. The issues raised around this are real and genuine. They are not from crazy people and not from the far left or the far right. There are many ordinary, middle-ground people who are not quite sure what we are legislating for, if it is needed, if it is reasonable and if we are doing what we are required to do or going further than that. These are reasonable questions. It does not make someone a bad person and it does not make them a hateful person. It does not mean that such a person wants to restrict the rights of any other persons or prevent them from being safe to walk the streets in our country.

Most people here are absolutely united in wanting to see hate crime legislation. It is the hate speech element that is causing most difficulty because there is an element of vagueness around it. This is just a fact. There is also a lack of a definition for "hate". I can understand why this is problematic for people. I take on board the Attorney General's advice and I understand the rationale for why "hate" has not been defined. It does, however, present a level of subjectivity that makes people nervous. This is understandable. It does not make someone a bad person. These are reasonable issues for legislators to raise in this House. In the absence of a definition, I put it to the Minister that a definition would be helpful. These debates might be referred to in the courts when looking to the legislators' intent and what we wanted to enact. It is important that we would discuss it. I have the briefing note but it is not on the record of the House. I would welcome if the Minister could elaborate a little bit further, not just on the Attorney General's advice but also on the fact that there is a kind of definition but not really. It is what people generally understand it to be. The Minister has spoken about the current legislation, which is quite old. The law we are going to pass, which probably will pass, will be on the Statute Book for a very long time. What we reasonably understand "hate" to mean today could be different in ten, 20 or 30 years time. We need to legislate to make sure the legislation can stand the test of time. This is what is being debated here.

I will speak also on the issue of gender. I will be very limited in what I say on this because it is a space where, no matter what one says, one will upset somebody. It is so controversial and divisive. Regardless of what one thinks it should or should not be, it simply is. It has happened across in the UK and it is coming in here. There are different views. A lot of issues have been conflated and bundled in together. When taken individually, they are reasonable issues to raise. They are often taken to mean a hatred of one group when it is not that at all. I have said as much as I will say on that front. Again, we should be able to discuss these issues openly but we cannot actually do so. Unless one has a particular viewpoint, one cannot say what one actually thinks. I am very concerned that we are going towards a situation where we are telling people how to think and how they should think. It seems that if you do not think how I think, there is something wrong with you. I believe I would be considered on the liberal side of things in my own party. That is evidenced by my position on marriage equality and on the eighth amendment. I am coming from a particular place but I am always very conscious that the views I hold today were not acceptable 40 years ago.

I have been contacted by number of people, including a particular group called Not All Gays Ireland, and people who have campaigned for progressive change in this country, who have raised genuine concerns that I believe we should air and address in this Chamber. As they have said to me, if those restrictions were in place would I have been able to advocate and change the minds of people who had a different view from me and bring about the change that means I have better protections today? It was a really interesting point and it was a different angle. I had not come across it and it was from a young man in my constituency. I spoke to him and took it at face value that it was a genuinely held view. The idea that all of the LGBTQ+ community think the same on this is not correct. I want to put this on the record.I take on board the defences in this legislation, but I ask the Minister to elaborate. Section 7 is the section on incitement to violence or hatred section. It talks about the lowering of the test, in that it is no longer just intent but is recklessness. That is a significant change in what is required to prove the offence. I understand why the Minister is doing so, that is, because the current legislation makes it difficult to prosecute. I understand all of that. I just wonder how that marries with section 11, on protection of freedom of expression, because, in fairness to the Minister and the Government, there has been a genuine attempt to put in black and white in the legislation that for the purposes of the Act:

any material or behaviour is not taken to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics solely on the basis that that material or behaviour includes or involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a [person's] protected characteristic.

As the Minister has said, it is okay to be offensive. We cannot force people to be kind or decent. We should not legislate for that either because, as one person pointed out, I would rather know how they think and be given an opportunity to change their mind. Maybe people will never change their mind, but I would rather know.

I agree with the point has been made that this legislation will have a chilling effect. Maybe we are okay with that. It is yet to be decided, but it certainly will prompt some people to err on the side of caution, because they cannot be sure of what they say. Even though it may be offensive and we may think it is disgraceful, disgusting or whatever one wants to call it, all it takes - I am open to correction on this point - is for one person to act on the basis of that and do something that is criminal. With regard to offensive language we deem inappropriate as part of a debate and may not like, what happens if one of the speaker's followers, a fanatic, or somebody who is not reasonable acts on it? How does the defence come into play in that situation? I have been asked the question. As I cannot answer it, I ask the Minister to answer it.

I made a couple of notes as I was listening. I am conscious in listening to the debate so far and I know there will be other contributions, that everyone should be allowed to make their point in this House. They should not be denigrated or judged for making those points. Assumptions should not be made either, as to where a person stands on a particular issue or aspect of the legislation. It should be taken at face value for what they have said. There is certainly a minority of voices in this Chamber that represents many views outside the Chamber. That is not always acknowledged. I am in the fortunate position of often being on the side of the popular view, whatever that might be, but that might change. When I am of pension age, the views may be different. We wish to make sure that all views can be expressed at all times because it protects all of us. It was what we needed 30 or 40 years ago when we wished to try to stop the eighth amendment to the Constitution. People could not walk the streets in this country, because their view was unpopular and we do not want the same to happen to people who hold views we do not like today.

I ask the Minister to elaborate further on why we will not define "hate" and the challenges that might ensue. Will she give her views on the potential chilling effect, which is a reasonable point to make? Will the Minister put on the record what is required of us from the European Union with regard to the Council framework decision? We have all got the briefing documents but it is important that it is on the record. What is required of us from the European Union? Are we doing just enough or are we going further? We all know the answer to that, because we are privy to many briefing documents and are well resourced, which is good for us. We are protected in the legislation, because we can speak in this House and it is considered political activity. We are protected in what we say but will the general public receive the same protections?

Will the Minister confirm the public consultation was in the context of the hate crime and hate speech element, or was it just the hate crime element? The consultation was good, extensive and went on for quite a period. We make a virtue of the fact we consulted widely. I wish to make sure the consultation cover all aspects of the legislation. Was it just an element of the legislation? I hope genuine consideration will be given to Seanad amendments brought with good intent and that they will be given time and opportunity; I will not be asked to expedite the legislation through this House and Members will be given ample time to discuss all aspects of the legislation and table as many amendments as they so wish.