Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is welcome and I congratulate her on her return to work. Before I start, Senator Keogan and I would like to thank Free Speech Ireland for all of the work they have done over the past two years on this Bill. Their efforts have not gone unnoticed, especially those of Alex Sheridan and Sarah Hardiman.

I will deal primarily with two points, the definition of hate and the issue of gender. Many have discussed at length the problem of not having a clear definition of hate and some, in their contributions in the House, said things to the effect we all know what hate is. Do we really? I do not want to spend my time going back over anything others have said but I want to pay close attention to how the Minister's comments over recent days illustrate the problem.

The Minister has sought to reassure us but, based on her speeches and media appearances since the previous debate, I am far from reassured. Instead, I am more fearful now than I ever was and not at all confident that the Minister for Justice truly understands the public concerns on this Bill that she is hoping to pass through this House. This is especially so when, within this Chamber and on the national airwaves, she keeps claiming that certain things are covered in the Bill that are not in the Bill. There has been a tendency on the Minister’s part to discuss points that nobody is making against the Bill, such as saying it will not result in a right not to be offended. Nobody has said that the Bill will create a right not to be offended. If we turn to section 15, to be convicted of an offence, gardaí can search your house and you can be arrested. You do not even have to intend to spread the hate material you have. Gardaí just need to suspect that you might. This endangers press freedoms and any group that might have an opinion that dissents from the mainstream, or what the mainstream believes at any given time. What is considered a status quoview today might be considered hate speech tomorrow.

While I know these transcripts will be looked at by those who are interpreting the law, clarity is needed on the wording of the Bill. The approach of the Government seems to be never mind what anyone says, bang on, keep going and ignore the lot. Let us ignore the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ignore The Bar Review, ignore one of the leading barristers in the country, Baroness Nuala O’Loan, and ignore the United Nations. Let us just push full steam ahead and label all those with concerns, such as have been stated here by the Opposition and in the thousands of emails we are getting, as spreading disinformation, even as we say things that are not easily refutable.

Many national newspapers are carrying headlines that J.K. Rowling would not be prosecuted under Irish law. The Minister spoke on the Gavan Reilly show on Newstalk without having the full knowledge of everything J.K. Rowling posted on Twitter or what she might say in the future. At the moment, the Bill is putting a new definition on gender that is not accounted for anywhere else in Irish law. The definition of gender in this Bill also, very oddly, equates biological sex with gender when these two terms are often understood to mean two separate things. In the view of many people, J.K. Rowling has said things that are hateful while others think she is protecting sex-based rights. Which one is it? That would depend on the subjective views of whoever you ask. Similarly, what about those who denounce J.K. Rowling and call her a TERF, a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, or use that term? Is it, or could it be considered, a form of hate speech?

Assuming these comments are made in Ireland, the decision as to whether she would be prosecuted would depend on individuals in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or in the Judiciary at the time. Whatever a person's opinion on the transgender issue, he or she is liable to be prosecuted without a definition of hate and is subject to the whims and individual thoughts of those in the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Judiciary. We know well that people's views or opinions sway from time to time. On the national airwaves, the Minister said that hate is not a mild feeling but we are not legislating for people's feelings. We are legislating for what can be construed as hate without any definition. How can we do that? What does the term "hate" mean?

This is very dangerous and the Minister has failed to soothe these legitimate concerns. On Newstalk at the weekend, she said, "However, where people intentionally set out to do something knowing that they are going to pit one group of people against another, that is where we're saying a line has been crossed." This is not in the Bill but it could apply to just about anyone, any political campaign or any issue we care to think about. Any group, such as the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, could find itself subject to prosecution based on the definition the Minister gave, and this also happens not to be in the Bill. It is doublespeak. Contrary to what the Minister has said, what is considered hate is not clear. That is why Senator McDowell said the United Nations advises countries to have a clear definition of what hate is. Both in this Chamber and on the airwaves, the Minister keeps making contradictory statements, such as saying this is not about policing people's thoughts. However, this is about people's right to freedom of expression and there is no getting away from that. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Judiciary will be able to decide what hate is and that will be the key to determining whether a person can be convicted.

The Minister has said her intention is to increase the number of convictions. The arbitrary enforcement of this new law will create a chilling effect that will endanger protest groups and legal professionals because of the Bill’s failure to account for legal privilege and even journalists who may be covering the activities of groups disseminating hate material. As this debate progresses, I ask that the Minister and her colleagues do not keep discussing acts that are already illegal, and which almost everyone condemns, as a reason to pass this Bill. That is just a smokescreen to smuggle through flawed hate speech legislation. I hope that, going forward, we can have a robust debate concerning what is in this Bill and not what the Minister thinks is in the Bill. So far, there has been too much discussion from the Minister about things that are not in the Bill and a contemptuous attitude by the Government to addressing many of the legitimate concerns expressed by legal experts in the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Baroness O’Loan and trained barristers in our own Chamber.

I have been subjected to hate speech and I think most people in this House have at one stage or another, but I have never in nine years in this establishment had so many emails and heard so many concerns. No matter how much I would like to try, I cannot define all of those who have contacted me as being from lunatic right-wing organisations. There are decent people contacting us every day who have huge concerns about this Bill. I ask the Minister to do what Senator McDowell asked her to do and to step back. Let us have six months to discuss this in-house, let us sit around tables and thrash out the issues that are a problem for members of the public, and let us see if we can make a hate Bill that will really work so we will not find a situation where it is contested every time it is spoken about in public.

In its present form, I can say today that I will have no alternative but to vote against it. Believe me, that is more of a problem for me than the Minister can imagine because I despise those who use hate and hate speech to attack those of us who are in the public eye. I ask the Minister to step back from it. Let us get it right the first time. Let us not finish up by passing flawed legislation.