Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that there have been a lot of contributions, not just today but last week as well. I also appreciate the views that have been shared and recognise that these are complex, varied and different. I will set out some clear facts and try to respond to many of the comments and statements made and questions posed over the past week.

What we are proposing here is not radical. It is not new. It is the norm in many EU member states. What we are introducing is new legislation for hate crime but we already have legislation around hate speech. It is important to stress at the outset that this is not new or radical. Hate speech and hate crime exist in our society and very few people would reject that statement, although I know there would be some that do.

Many Senators argued that the legislation has been rushed, that it potentially came from nowhere and that enough time has not been allowed for the debate on it. The legislation is long overdue. It has been in development for four years since the initial consultation in 2019. The general scheme was approved by Government in April 2021 - more than two years ago. It was then another year before pre-legislative scrutiny was concluded last April and after a period of what was intense drafting, a Bill was published in October and then spent six months passing through the House. This has not been rushed - far from it. I cannot stress that enough. There has been ample time for discussion, debate, engagement and consultation. It has not been rushed. I commit to colleagues that this will not be rushed again. I am not going to rush this through the Houses.

While hate crime offences are new, I again remind Senators that hate speech offences are not new despite a narrative to the contrary that continues to dominate a lot of what I am seeing. Hate speech is currently an offence under section 2 of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. That is the law that is in place right now and that we must all adhere to. I have yet to hear anyone state that the 1989 Act does not need to be updated. In simple terms, that is what we are doing here. Regarding much of what is being discussed and many of the comments and issues raised by Senators, it is already dealt with in legislation and we have not had an avalanche of people being prosecuted or put in prison. Again, far from it.

I will use my time to address the points made by Senators. A number of Senators raised concerns around what they see as a possible chilling effect. Senator Chambers raised that matter, as did many others. As I have tried to explain or been at pains to stress that people can continue to say what they want but not if it incites hatred and not if it incites violence against others. People can still say awful things to each other. I was asked why I am talking about offending. This has been raised. People can still offend other people. That is happening now irrespective of whether this legislation is in place. People are not being put in prison. They are not being prosecuted. People will continue to say horrible and hateful things regardless of whether this legislation is in place. It is not our intention to stifle debate or shut down criticism. There are very clear and very explicit safeguards in this legislation to make sure we protect freedom of expression and that there are robust defences people can avail of.

In line with the Constitution, an explicit protection is included such that you can discuss or criticise a protected characteristic and there is a very clear defences for what was outlined by Senator Malcolm Byrne - reasonable, genuine contributions be they in literary, artistic, political, scientific form or academic discourse. Religion obviously is a protected characteristic and that was mentioned in the article referred to by both Senators but not just that. This is not just about an individual member of An Garda Síochána deciding to press charges. There has to be clear evidence of what the intent was here and there has to be a decision by the DPP that this evidence is there. It is then up to a jury of the person's peers to decide whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, a crime has been committed. I cannot stress enough that it is not the case that somebody will say something, not mean it and suddenly find themselves prosecuted or that they would say something they genuinely believe but with which a lot of people disagree and suddenly find themselves prosecuted. That is very clear in this legislation because we have an explicit protection contained around freedom of speech and the ability to discuss and criticise protected characteristics - the defences that are there for all the reasons I have outlined. This is in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides that a communication will not be taken to incite violence or hatred solely on the basis that it contains information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.

People still have an absolute right to say offensive things. Free speech will remain a cornerstone of our democracy. It is enshrined in Article 40.6.1 of our Constitution. However, as many Senators have pointed out, this is not an absolute. Nobody has the right to incite hatred or violence against others through their actions or words on account of their hatred of that person's identity. To paraphrase Senator Ward's remarks, this Bill is not about stifling debate. It is about taking hatred out of the debate, and there is a lot of hatred in discussion, content and engagement online or outside the online space.

Senator Mullen mentioned that one of the primary aims of this Bill is to simplify the hate speech and incitement offences provided for in the 1989 Act. That is why the broadly understood legal term of "incite" has replace "stir up". We are not confusing language or saying one piece is not connected to the other. It was agreed that this is a more appropriate use of modern legislation, although the meanings are exactly the same. "Incite" is a word that is used more appropriately in this day and age.

Senators should also be aware that they and everyone else in the State will be able to retain the freedom to offend whomever they want even in the discussion of protected characteristics as long as they do not cross a clear line into incitement to violence or hatred. It is only the extreme forms of speech that deliberately and recklessly incite acts of hostility or violence and cause harm to persons with a protected characteristic that will be criminalised.

I will refer to some of the other points that were made.I believe Senator Mullen referred to a comment that men cannot breastfeed. That is not hate speech. That is not what we are talking about here. That is a statement that might be somebody's belief but it is not a person setting out to incite violence or hatred against men, women or transgender people.