Regina Doherty (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Bill is absolutely necessary. While we might argue about the definition, we can all agree that the rise of hatred and ill-behaviour by some people in this country towards others has grown exponentially. I do not know whether that is to do with the advent of social media over the past ten years that we have more of a platform for people to show their hatred. Society itself is changing. People always had platforms and they always had pens and paper. We definitely need to do something to recognise that there are those who are incredibly vulnerable and who need protection from people who are incredibly nasty minded and who just want to spread hatred.

I have some concerns. I listened to the Minister's contribution last week and to all of the interviews she has done since. I also listened to Senator McDowell over the past week and read some of his writings. The Minister might explain why we were reluctant to define hatred. Why are we leaving the definition of what constitutes hatred in the mind of the person who is doing the activity or, far more concerning for me, in the mind of the person carrying out the arrest? While I am not criticising any rank-and-file gardaí, they certainly do not all hold the same definition of what constitutes hatred. It is even more concerning in the case of civil or citizen arrests and it is the person carrying out the arrest who has a view as to how hatred is defined.

I am clear in my mind that in order for us to do something that is meaningful, there should not be any ambiguity and this Bill is full of ambiguity. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we should have a definition of hatred in order that everybody is clear where the line is. My line, Senator McGahon's line and Senator Gallagher's line might be slightly different. I am concerned that for the people carrying out the arrests, their knowledge of where the line begins and ends should be clearly defined. They should know exactly what constitutes an act of hatred and probably just as importantly what constitutes an act of incitement.

I have been around this House and the Lower House for many years. Other than in the context of the mother and baby homes, I do not think I have received as many emails about a particular piece of legislation as I have in respect of this one. That does not mean all of those people are wrong, but it absolutely means all of those people have concerns which have not been addressed. In order for this Bill to be successful, we need clear definitions of what hatred is and what incitement is. In order for it to be accepted, we absolutely need to address the concerns of the hundreds if not thousands of people who are emailing all of the Senators and presumably emailed all of our colleagues beforehand.

We have been at pains to say that freedom of expression is absolutely protected not only in this Bill but also in various other Bills and, indeed, our Constitution. Section 9 is very misleading because now a person can be convicted of incitement to hatred even though there was no incitement.Somebody can be convicted of or charged with a crime when there was no outcome to their actions. Either I have or do not have freedom of expression to be able to say that I agree or do not agree with something, or even just not like something, and I do not need to have an explanation for it. That is my freedom of expression. Now, however, what this Bill is proposing, I think, and I am open to correction, is that I do not even need to incite hatred to be charged. I just need to express my view and even though nobody else agrees with my view, there can still be a charge on account of this. I hope I am wrong and I am looking for clarity on it.

We definitely have to do something but I am just not sure that the ambiguity in this Bill is going to bring people with us or have the desired effect. I think it is going to have the unintended consequence that some of my colleagues in the House have raised, and, probably more importantly, some of the very malign groups we have in society today will use it to their advantage. It will not have the desired outcome we all want, which is a safer, kinder, more accepting society, not just of minorities but of everybody and each other's views, and that we are more tolerant. That is my contribution. I am just looking for some answers.