Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)

I welcome the amendments that have deleted the censorship elements of the Bill. I have no doubt they are being ditched because of the groundswell of opposition against the Bill in its former state. I have no doubt that Simon Harris is better at reading opinion polls than Leo Varadkar. That is probably one of the reasons we have seen this significant change in recent times.

In truth, this Bill has been a fiasco. Whatever way you look at it, it is a mess of the Minister's making. I have never seen a Minister come into this House waving the white flag of surrender in a manner such as this. I have never seen a Minister amend, against her will, a Bill she has already passed in this House and say at the same time that she regrets the deletion of aspects of that Bill.

Aontú was the only political party to oppose all the elements of this Bill. Many in the other Opposition parties have tried to cut stripes off us and pigeonhole us for voicing what we did at the start of the debate. It is important that we remember what a democracy looks like. A democracy does not mean that every political party follows the latest intellectual fashion like sheep. A democracy is about challenging, questioning and pushing a Government on all aspects of its programme to make sure it is fit for purpose with regard to the State.

I want to report a crime here today, though. I woke up this morning and there was not a stitch left in my wardrobe, the reason being that I think Sinn Féin is robbing all my clothes at the moment. It is incredible that I welcome Deputy Carthy's speech here today, for sure. It is just a pity that Sinn Féin could not give that speech when the Bill went through the Dáil in its first iteration. Deputy Carthy also mentioned the confused definitions of durable relationships in the referendums gone by, but he forgot to indicate that Sinn Fein also supported those particular referendums.

A democracy is about the engine of challenge. The way to get to the truth is when ideas compete and the best ideas percolate to the top. Citizens can then see what the best ideas are. That is how we achieve progress. The problem with this Bill in its first iteration was that it sought to create a chilling effect in democratic debate. That would have the effect of creating large pendulum swings of ideology within democracy, and that is dangerous for a society.

The Government asked us at the time to accept its bona fides in terms of this Bill. Legislation is not just for particular governments; it is for all governments from there on out. The truth of the matter is that governments are not always benign. That is why it is important that we have legislation that stands the test in terms of what potential future governments will do in our society.

There is hate and tremendous harm being done in our society and we need to tackle that tooth and nail right through society. We need to do that through education and by bringing up our children with respect. We should use the full vigour of the law as it stands to challenge the hate and damage that results in society. There is a little bit of virtue signalling going on with this Bill. What I mean by that is that the Government said it wants to protect citizens with this Bill. At the same time, it will not invest in the Garda to protect citizens. I was asked, for example, after the “RTE Investigates” programme on the horrendous crimes that took place outside the Crown Paints factory in Coolock whether that would be an argument for the hate speech Bill. I was dumbfounded because at that time there were so many actual crimes happening that were against the actual law and the actual Garda force was not implementing the law at the time. If the Minister is not going to fund and resource the Garda and reform the confused mismanagement at the upper tiers of the Garda, she is not going to get to the heart of protecting the people. it is incredible that the head of the Garda, Commissioner Drew Harris, stated that there will be a full investigation into what happened in the Dublin riots, as did the Minister. I have not yet seen any report with regard to that investigation or any recommendations made or implemented. I bet my bottom dollar that we will not see a report or recommendations. It is meaningless to create these virtue-signalling Bills if the Minister does not mean business in providing the resourcing the Garda needs to implement the law.

There is a problem with the definitions in these Bills. That is the truth of the matter. If the Minister is going to criminalise individuals, she should have the common decency to let people know exactly why she is criminalising them, in other words, she should be able to create a definition. That was sorely missing from the Bill and is missing still, as the Bill stands. If I asked a child what an apple is and the child said to me that an apple is an apple, I would accept a circular argument with regard to that definition. However, I will not accept a Minister for Justice seeking to criminalise an individual with exactly the same circular-type argument. It is just not acceptable. It is not good enough by half. That goes to the heart of this.

In terms of the definition of gender, that definition is not good enough. The Minister cannot protect people if she cannot define what gender they are. With regard to the Gender Recognition Act 2015, I said very clearly that if male-born sex offenders are put into women's prisons, it will damage the rights of women inside those prisons, including women who are working in those prisons. The limits of the human rights of one citizen are where they infringe on the human rights of another citizen. If the Minister cannot define who those citizens are, it is a recipe for disaster. There is a court case at the moment as a result of a decision of this Government to place a male-born sex offender into a women's prison. We have to legislate on the basis of science and evidence. We cannot legislate on the basis of ideology, especially when most European countries are now reversing from that ideology.

See this speech in context