Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that No. 7 should not be brought to a conclusion at 5.15 p.m. by the putting of a question but should instead be adjourned. There is a strong tradition of opposing the guillotine in this House. It would be disgraceful for the Government to push for a guillotine on any legislation, but especially the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, when one considers the fine advocacy of my colleagues in the House, including Senators McDowell and Craughwell, pointing to flaws in the Bill and introducing amendments. It would be appalling to propose a guillotine on this matter. I ask that the Leader consider my proposed amendment and accept it.

It seems to me that the usual insider groups have belatedly started lobbying Senators on the ill-advised Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022. I find remarkable the response of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, which wants the Bill pushed through using language like how it attempts to criminalise extreme forms of hate speech and suggesting it is an urgent problem. This is a pussycat response. I say “pussycat” because cats are on my mind. Previously, the ICCL had very sensible amendments to offer on this legislation. I am fairly certain that most of them were not accepted, but all of them were important. It is remarkable now that the cat seems to have got the ICCL’s tongue because what we are now getting are expressions of support for the introduction of this legislation without any further delay. I do not know if this is because the ICCL has been captured by other elements within the Coalition Against Hate Crime Ireland or, as it makes a plea for a follow-up action plan against hate, it might have a budget in mind that might be helped along by the Government to prepare and deliver such a programme on foot of the legislation being passed. That would be disappointing, given that the ICCL said, and others and I have been making this point repeatedly, that hate speech should only be outlawed in the most extreme cases, such as incitement to violence. This was the ICCL’s recommendation, yet there is no reference to "extreme" in the Bill. The ICCL stated that hate speech should be treated in separate legislation than hate crime so as to avoid confusion. That is not happening. It stated that criminal law should only be used as a matter of last resort. That is certainly not happening. The Minister is reaching for the most extreme element of social sanction without even supplying a definition of “hatred”. The ICCL recommended and supplied such a definition, but the fact it is not included in the Bill does not seem to bother the ICCL one bit. It is amazing that an NGO that has freedom of expression as a central plank of its ethos could abandon its defence of free speech so cravenly. Is this a case of capture by the Government or a hope of funding from the Government? Does it have to do with the ICCL’s connection with international organisations like the Open Society Foundations? Whatever it is, the ICCL is not serving the public. Now more than ever, we need people to defend freedom of expression, which is a core element of our democracy.