Sharon Keogan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment. I have raised concerns with the House about this Bill’s draconian implications, which are just as worrying as the hate speech Bill in terms of their impact on civil liberties. I am glad to cosign these amendments with Senator Mullen because they at least go some distance in making this Bill less restrictive. Each amendment draws attention to a particular deficiency within the current legislation that needs to be recognised by the public and reflected upon. However, I must emphasise that I still disagree with the principle of this Bill, which is not being introduced to curb harassment, which is already a crime under existing public order law, but rather to target and smear a particular ethical and moral viewpoint.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 are interrelated. They seek to ensure freedom of speech in higher education institutions. It is of concern to me that in the current wording, a college dispensary would be considered a valid safe access zone. As a zone affects any entryway into a designated premises, this could mean that potentially several 100 m zones could be created along entrances into college campuses. Since any efforts to influence someone’s decision to have an abortion is criminalised under this law, it would be hard to argue that a pro-life speaker in a debate would not essentially be urging their listeners to reconsider their position on abortion. This would, at the very least, create a chilling effect. Therefore, these amendments at least attempt to guarantee freedom of speech in higher education institutions, which should be a bastion for free expression and debate.