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

I am trying to gather my thoughts. Again I need to go back to what we are trying to achieve. What is the objective of the legislation? This is not a gender recognition Bill. The pages and pages Senator Keogan read from whoever sent them to her could perhaps be kept for a gender recognition (amendment) Bill. It has no relevance to what we are talking about. I will never apologise for wanting to make sure that in our law people who are a minority, are victimised or are most vulnerable are protected, recognised and acknowledged, and if they are victims of a criminal act, that is recognised too. This is not, as Senator McDowell said, tinkering around the edges for effect. That is a huge insult to anybody who has been victim of a hate crime or physically assaulted because of the colour of their skin, who they identity as, where they come from or what religion they are. It is an insult to say we are tinkering around the edges for the sake of it. We are saying clearly that if a person commits a crime against another person simply because of who they are, we will acknowledge it and make sure the person who perpetrates it faces a harsher sentence. We are the only country across Europe and the western world that does not have this law.

In terms of the definition, it is not that we are sheep and following everybody. There is a reason nobody else defines the word "hate". In the UK, it is "hatred"; it is the ordinary meaning. In Northern Ireland law, it is "hatred"; it is the ordinary meaning. In German law, it is "hatred"; it is the ordinary meaning. In Spanish law, it is "hatred"; it is the ordinary meaning. In our existing law from 1989, it is "hatred"; it is the ordinary meaning. In EU law, it is "hatred"; it is the ordinary meaning. If we introduce a law, we need to make sure it is effective. Can anybody tell me "opprobrium", "enmity" or "detestation" is easier to explain or prove in a court of law than "hatred"? We all know what "hatred" means. It is the examples I gave earlier. A gang of males threatened to assault a gay man, made homophobic slurs and threatened to kill him. Gardaí attended the location but the suspects were gone on arrival. That is hatred of a person because of who they are. A female was on the way to a market with two friends and was physically attacked by a man who threw his body at her with all his strength. The female asked what was happening and he began insulting her, saying she was nothing more than a trans. He repeated several times that she was nothing more than a man. On 8 August 2023, a transgender person was with a group of friends when a group of three to five individuals began intimidating that person. The person attempted to evade them and was pursued, punched three times in the face and pushed to the ground. I challenge anybody to say that is not hatred. It is understood by our courts, our gardaí and the DPP. It is how it is currently in law and that is why we are keeping the definition as it currently stands.

In terms of gender, this is not a back door into anything. This is specific to this legislation. It has been made clear that the LGBTQI community in Ireland and across the world is more at risk of harm. I will speak to a 2024 report. Being LGBTQI+ in Ireland is a research project involving over 2,800 LGBTQI+ people, aimed at examining the mental health and well-being of those people in the Republic of Ireland and investigating public attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people. It was carried out by a group of researchers led by Professor Agnes Higgins of Trinity College in collaboration with Belong To. Key findings of the study indicate mental health and well-being have declined among the population since 2016, with significant challenges experienced by younger age groups and transgender and gender non-conforming communities. We do not need to define that: "gender non-conforming communities". The study finds LGBTQI+ people in Ireland continue to face high levels of self-harm and suicidality, with increased levels of depression, anxiety and stress. It is particularly upsetting concerning two cohorts: under-25s and trans individuals. They face more stigma, isolation and discrimination in society than other cohorts. As a result, they have worse mental health outcomes than peers. It finds they face higher levels of harassment and violence. These are people; this is not an ideology or a theoretical debate or discussion. These are people in our country who are feeling vulnerable. The legislation is being put in place to recognise that and say that if you are targeted because you do not conform to what other people think you should conform to, we will protect you insofar as is possible and we will recognise that crime. We are not trying to change anything else. The definition as it refers to the various Criminal Law Acts is specific to the hate crime Act.

For those saying they support transgender people or those who are non-conforming and have shown such support - yes, Senators Mullen and Keogan have tabled amendments Nos. 100, 106, 113, 114 and 132, and they refer to gender expression and identity, but they also include a number of other elements that will never be accepted: health, communications difficulties, political ideologies. They put such references in those amendments, knowing they will never be accepted. Ever other amendment they or Senator McDowell have tabled either removes gender completely, leaving no protection for somebody who is transgender, non-binary or non-conforming, or else clearly removes the protection they say they have for people. I have not heard them say a single thing in relation to transgender, non-binary or non-gender-conforming people that shows they support or protect them. Instead, they talk about child protection issues and protecting women.