Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber and congratulate her. I want to support the Bill. I think it is necessary to address the challenges of hate crime and incitement to hatred in Ireland. There are some concerns, however, and they have been reflected by colleagues already. Senator Clonan spoke about some of them. Second Stage is the opportunity during the legislative process to talk about the general principles of the legislation and its objectives, what we think is important in the general principles, and where we can improve the Bill in order that we can better the lot of all our citizens.

In many ways this Bill represents one of the most fundamental challenges of our age: how we balance two competing sets of rights. On the one hand, we have the right to freedom of expression, the right to free speech and, as Senator Clonan said, the right to challenge and the right to hold controversial opinions. On the other hand, we have the right of the individual not to be targeted because of his or her identity or perceived identity.

In many ways it is sad we have to have this kind of debate and that hate crime and hate speech are very much real things that exist in Ireland. I would much prefer we were talking as a society about how we can look at including people to a far greater extent and how we can recognise them. While love is the opposite of hate and while it is impossible to promote love speech, it is very important within our society that we do much more to recognise those who promote tolerance and inclusivity in our communities and our country. It would do us much better to look at how we as legislators can seek to break down some of those barriers and perceived barriers. If anything, our experience with regard to the North of Ireland and those barriers teach us more than ever before why that is important. I know colleagues said earlier in the debate that we cannot legislate for kindness, but I read all the debate for last week and followed most of the contributions and it is unusual and interesting that the word "love" has not been used in a single contribution. If we are to have legislation to promote kindness, there are those Christian tenets, "Love one another as I have loved you" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I sometimes get concerned that we do not focus enough on promoting positive behaviours.

That said, we obviously need to tackle what this legislation seeks to achieve. Why do we need to do so? I have just come from a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media, of which I am a member, where we had a discussion about inclusion in sport. We heard from different groups about how even in the sporting field they are subject to racist, homophobic and targeted abuse. That is not just in the form of verbal abuse but also in the form of signs displayed at sporting grounds, and more invidious in many ways is the campaign of online abuse that tends to follow. The Oireachtas Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media, as the House may know, published a report, one of the recommendations of which was that where national governing bodies do not promote positive codes of behaviour and where some of this abuse in sport is not tackled, there would be implications for the funding of those sporting bodies. I am glad to say all the national governing bodies are on board on that. I will use the specific example of Lee Chin, who is an outstanding Wexford sportsman, but not just that. He is a role model within communities. He has suffered horrific abuse and continues to suffer it. We saw it only recently at a charity match, of all things, when Wexford played Tipperary. I was glad the GAA - not the State, but the GAA - took strong action against those who perpetrated that abuse because it is not just about the impact it had on Lee Chin. There is also the impact it had on those from minorities who want to play sport. When they see that, it is highly impactful.

I have personally experienced homophobic abuse. I have witnessed homophobic and racist abuse against friends of mine. I have had friends who have been physically attacked because of their sexuality or their race or, indeed, their perceived sexuality. They know it because of the language that is used when they are attacked. The reality is this is happening on the ground. The question is how much we should tolerate before we as a State decide we have to step back. I advocate very strongly for freedom of expression, but questions need to be asked as to where we look to draw the line.

Many people here talk about general speech in the media and so on but, apart from journalists, I want to talk about artists. Artists, by their nature, need to be controversial and challenging, they sometimes can even be offensive, and they have a right to be offensive. Often that abuse is in the religious sphere. I will use an example, and this is where we might think about how this legislation would come out in practice. For something to be an offence, it is not just that the act is created but there has to be the intention behind it. I think of, for instance, the time when Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine in France, decided to post particular cartoons about the prophet Muhammad, which the House will remember. That was deemed to be deeply offensive to those of the Muslim faith. The following questions then arise. Is it the case that the intention of those cartoonists was to engage in what might be classified as hate speech? Could they then be prosecuted on the basis for publishing that? How would we determine their intention in those circumstances? People remember the horrific attacks and the murders that took place of those cartoonists and those journalists. Would it be considered an aggravating factor in the prosecutions of those who carried out those murders that they carried them out on that basis? I am not certain I have the answers, but we need to be very clear in legislation as to what the answer is and what the purpose is. I take the same view, by the way, when we come to those of Christian beliefs, because many people would take grave offence to, for instance, an artist's depiction of Christ in a particular manner. In those circumstances, if Christians are being discriminated against, we have to know for certain the motivation behind that. Is the motivation purely that of an artist expressing something or is it hatred of religion and of Christians, and in what circumstances would we then proceed to prosecute?

One important thing, and something we all use, is language. We have to understand language and the use of words, and the use of words and language changes over time and in cultural contexts. I speak as a gay man. The word "queer" was traditionally used as a pejorative term, whereas in many cases now the gay community has taken ownership of the word "queer". The N-word, which I will not use in this House, is predominantly used as a negative term against people of colour, yet many people of colour who are musicians and others have taken control of that word and used it. The circumstances in which language is used, therefore, also needs to be considered. Interestingly - I will use the word because I read Senator Flynn's speech because of the dispute about the word "knacker" and the word "knackered" - I have an Australian friend who was here in Leinster House and who could not understand the fuss. It is used in slang in Australia regularly. Most of those phrases came originally from Ireland, but they do not have the same context there, so the question will also have to be the context in which particular language is used. That will, I believe, need to be understood. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right for us, as individuals. Senator Clonan mentioned the large volume of correspondence on this issue. I keep track of when we get correspondence from the same individuals. I find it ironic that some of the individuals who are arguing most strongly and loudly calling for freedom of expression with regard to this legislation are also calling at times for certain books to be banned in some of our schools and libraries. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be looking for freedom of expression, on the one hand, and seeking that books be banned because they express a view with which you do not agree, on the other. There has to be consistency.