Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 7, amendments Nos. 8 to 23, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 34, 64 and 75 are related and may be discussed together.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will speak to my amendments and Deputy Howlin's and we can respond to each other. I am pleased to bring the amended Bill back before the Dáil. The Bill completed all Stages in the Seanad last week and I wish to report back to the Dáil the amendments agreed in the Seanad. As Deputies are aware, the Bill originally had two objectives: to update and modernise our existing incitement to hatred laws and to introduce hate crime provisions for the first time in the State. Regrettably, while there was a strong consensus in this House for the incitement to violence or hatred provisions, including proposals from the Opposition to expand the law further, that consensus was lost. I proposed a series of Committee Stage amendments in the Seanad last week to remove the parts of the Bill dealing with the incitement to violence or hatred and to proceed only with the elements dealing with hate crime. These amendments were all agreed.

The amended Bill will deliver on the programme for Government commitment to introduce hate crime legislation for the first time in Ireland. It creates specific offences based on an aggravated offence model to ensure those who target victims because of their association with particular identity characteristics are identified as perpetrators of hate crime. The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 will remain in force. Incitement to hatred is not being dealt with in the amended Bill, as agreed by Government last month. About half of the amendments proposed in the Seanad were to give effect to the decision to remove the incitement to violence or hatred provisions from the Bill. These have been grouped as outlined by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, and 21 to 23, inclusive, remove references to incitement to violence or hatred from the Bill. This includes amendments to the Long Title and the Short Title, as provided for in section 1. The Short Title will become the "Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024". Amendments Nos. 10 to 20, inclusive, 64 and 75 involve the deletion of sections 6 to 16, inclusive, which make up Part 2 of the Bill, and of references elsewhere to incitement to violence or hatred and to the EU framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 will no longer be repeated, so section 4, which provides for that repeal, will be deleted through amendment No. 9.

Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are technical amendments that result from the removal of the incitement to violence or hatred provisions. I note Deputy Howlin has submitted an amendment. I look forward to his input to this discussion. As I will outline when we come to it, I will unfortunately be unable to support the amendment for two reasons. The first relates to how it is currently worded, for legal and technical reasons, and the second is because I believe we need to update and address the 1989 Act. The decision I have taken is that would be dealt with separately and we would focus here solely on the hate crime element of the legislation. It would not be appropriate to take some elements and amend part of the 1989 Act. We need to come back to it and address it and it needs to be part of the next government's objectives.

There is a further set of technical and consequential amendments I will discuss when I come to the relevant Part of the Bill. Those arise because of the enactment of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023, which amended certain provisions that are also being amended by this Bill. The newly amended and titled Bill will create new aggravated forms of certain existing criminal offences or hate crimes, where those offences are motivated by hatred of a protected characteristic or where such hatred was demonstrated at the time of committing the offence. Definitions have not been changed, nor have the protected characteristics underpinning the new legislation.

I remind the House that these protected characteristics are race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origin, descent, sexual orientation, sex characteristics, gender including gender expression or gender identity, and disability. The Bill will provide for aggravated offences, which carry an enhanced penalty unless the penalty is already set at the maximum possible.

There is also a safeguard built into all of the offences whereby a perpetrator may be convicted of the ordinary form of the offence if the hatred is not proven to the satisfaction of the court. A person will be guilty of a hate aggravated offence on the basis of a motivation test or a demonstration test of proof. It is this demonstration of hatred that we know from our consultation causes the additional harm to victims in comparison to other types of crimes.

It will still need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law that a person committed a hate crime. It will not be the case that an assertion from a victim or an affected party that an offender demonstrated hatred in the commission of an offence will be enough to categorise someone as a hate crime offender. Creating these new hate offences will mean a crime can be investigated by gardaí from the very beginning as a potential hate crime, and evidence of their hate element can be presented and challenged in court.

The Bill also contains an aggravating sentencing provision whereby if, in the trial of any other offence, there is evidence of a hate crime element based on the protected characteristics, the judge shall hand down a higher sentence than if the hate element had not been present. The hate element will also be formally recorded with regard to the offence. It is very important that we record this and have a clear picture of what is happening.

It is a key duty of every Government to ensure that people are protected from crime, particularly where those crimes are targeted against them on account of their very existence. Although there were mixed views on the incitement to hatred provisions, the hate crime element of the legislation has been broadly welcomed and has received cross-party support. I believe it is very welcome to the general public. In all-island research conducted by the University of Limerick and Queens University last year, more than two thirds of those surveyed were in favour of hate crime legislation. This is because perpetrators of hate crime send a message to our minorities and our most vulnerable communities that they are not safe, that they do not have a right to be who they are and that they do not belong in Irish society. Through enactment of the Bill I believe we will send the counter-message that hate motivated attacks will not be tolerated, perpetrators will be punished and marginalised, and targeted communities will be protected. I thank Deputies for their vital support on the final Stages of the Bill.

To discuss Deputy Howlin's amendment, while I very much understand its objective and the intention behind it, and I believe the motivation has absolute merit, I cannot support it. In its current form the amendment seeks to apply the definition of "hatred" used in the Bill to the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. While it would appear the objective is to broaden the protections that would be provided in the 1989 Act to cover the additional vulnerable groups covered in the hate offences Bill, unfortunately there are legal and technical issues with the proposal as it is set out. I believe we could always work through them but the overall objective here is to make sure we enact the hate crime legislation and make sure we return to the incitement to hatred and violence element which, unfortunately, has been taken out. I regret this is the decision I took but I believe we need greater consensus on it. Looking at the next Dáil we have an opportunity to make sure we can do this. I thank Deputies for their support and I look forward to engaging with them on this.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. We support the position she has just outlined. We also regret that the Bill has been substantially changed since it was passed by this House. We understand the reasons for it. The amendment I propose is to deal with this sudden change in the Seanad. The position was that when the Bill was debated on Second Stage in the Seanad, having passed this House, it was proposed to repeal and replace in its entirety the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. This meant the question of seeking to amend the interpretation provisions of the 1989 Act could not arise because the entire Bill was being repealed. It was only when the Minister made the decision she did and submitted Committee Stage amendments in the Seanad that it became clear the 1989 Act was not to be repealed or even amended. In fact, it was to remain on the Statute Book in its entirety.

It was only then that it became clear to us that the 1989 Act and the Bill would, therefore, both sit side-by-side on the Statute Book, a point the Minister has just reiterated, but with key differences in their interpretation provisions. This means the protected characteristics under the Bill would not align with the groups protected under the 1989 Act. Specifically, section 1 of the 1989 Act refers to hatred on account of race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origin, membership of the Traveller community, or sexual orientation. The protection characteristics under the Bill are set out in section 3 are race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, or disability.

I fully understand it was never the Minister's intention, nor that of anybody else, that we would have different interpretations of hatred in different Bills operated by the State and enacted by these Houses. We will have two different sets of people impacted by the protections in each of these Acts and this is not an acceptable position. The Minister will understand this. We saw in the Seanad that this misalignment would happen and Labour Party Senators sought to amend it but since the Minister's amendment in the Seanad was merely a deletion of sections we could not amend the deletion by inserting a substitution. It is only now we can point out the fact there will be a misalignment in the categories of people protected under these two important Acts. This is not a good position for the Houses to be in.

I do not understand, and perhaps the Minister might explain to me, what are the technical reasons it is not possible simply to replace the definition section of the 1989 Act with a broadened section under section 3 of the Bill that has been presented that the House. I understand this was the Minister's intention originally. Even without going into the sections that are being deleted in their entirety - and we can have a discussion about them and why but no doubt they will be matters discussed and decided by the next Oireachtas - in the interim surely it makes good sense when we are protecting vulnerable categories of individuals that the same categories in a comprehensive sense would be protected by the 1989 Act and this particular legislative provision.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What exactly were the legal and technical issues with Deputy Howlin's amendment? With regard to the 1989 Act, was introducing the concept of recklessness to broaden it out somewhat ever considered? Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, delete reference to the EU framework. With regard to the definitions of "hate" and "hatred", we moved a number of amendments on the definition of "hatred" as the Bill was going through various Stages. Our amendments proposed that the definition of "hate" would include bias, prejudiced content, hostility and bigotry. We also included other definitions for "hatred" to mean a state of mind characterised as an intense and irrational emotion of enmity or detestation against a person or a group of persons. These definitions were advised to us and had been raised by a number of bodies, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. The Government's definition of "hate" defines it quite simply as hatred. It is a circular definition. One of the main concerns expressed as the Bill has been going through both Houses has been the lack of definition of "hate" and "hatred". The Government's amendments still read that "hate" is hatred, when there are multiple well-researched internationally accepted definitions that would have been more acceptable.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Socialists stand in complete solidarity with those who are victims of hate crimes and hate speech. We salute campaigners in groups such as the Coalition Against Hate Crime Ireland for highlighting the impact of hate crime and hate speech and pushing for action to be taken. Hate crimes and hate speech have a real impact on people's lives and the lives of oppressed groups. Being the victim of these types of crime is difficult and shocking. It has a corrosive impact beyond the individual victim by telling people belonging to oppressed groups that they cannot be themselves in public and thereby reinforcing oppression.

Since the legislation passed in the Dáil, it has been subject to campaigning activity by the far right. These groups' real objections to the Bill stem from the fact that it is for hate crime and hate speech, areas where the far right would like fewer legal protections for those they are targeting with their hatred. They have, however, cynically highlighted some of the genuine civil liberties issues with the Bill. These are civil liberties that these far-right groups have no concern for or record of defending in reality. It is correct and just that hate crimes and hate speech are criminalised. It is also right that people who are the subject of hate would seek to have legal tools and mechanisms they can call upon to get justice. The Socialist Party is in favour of hate speech and hate crime legislation. I did not, however, support this Bill due to serious concerns about its contents. We would have supported amendments to the Bill that would have dealt with these serious issues concerning civil liberties.

Some concerns we have raised are being deleted by these proposed amendments. These include section 10, where the preparation or possession of material, rather than just its publication or sharing, was criminalised, and section 15, which deals with search warrants that give extensive powers to the Garda and the courts. These changes, however, have nearly come about by accident. They are not the result of the Government reviewing the Bill with an eye to improving it from the perspective of civil liberties. They are a product of the Government bending to far-right pressure and just deleting Part 2 of the Bill dealing with incitement to violence or hatred.

Meanwhile, other problematic parts will remain after these amendments pass. These include the maintenance of the demonstration test. A garda will just have to say that an accused person was heard using hate speech while committing another offence. This could be taken as evidence and used to convict. It could also be used to stigmatise political movements and activists. We have seen how those campaigning against the actions of the Israeli state, for example, in its oppression of the Palestinian people have been labelled as anti-Semitic. Hate convictions like these could be used to damage and stigmatise campaigners or social movements. A poor definition of "hate", not rooted in a human rights definition, also remains.

We support the calls for the proper funding and roll out of the national action plan against racism. This would be a progressive measure, but we need to go further. We need to tackle hate at its roots. These roots lie in a capitalist system that rests on inequality and systematically plunging people into poverty and precarity. It rests on an ideology of division to justify its rule. An active movement involving the oppressed that challenges racist prejudices and fights for an end to the housing crisis and a decent life for all can be the most effective way to push back and challenge racism, division and bigotry in all its forms.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposed amendments. There has been a lot of play-acting, for want of a better term, and misrepresenting of various positions in respect of this legislation, which has undergone quite an amount of debate in this House and publicly. I wish to state very clearly that there is a distinction to be drawn here. I refer to those who rightly recognise that there is a requirement for legislation in the area of hate crime to be updated. It is possible to believe this and to also believe this Bill is bad legislation being rushed through the Oireachtas in the dying days of a bad Government.

I wish to be clear regarding Sinn Féin's perspective concerning hate speech, in particular. This is a small but significant subset of hate crimes and the area where regulation was always going to be the most difficult issue to tackle. This is because we must be careful in regard to the ability of this legislation to be misused by any government, now or in future, as a vehicle to censor. As a party, we in Sinn Féin have officially been censored in the past. Our members have seen harassment, violence and persecution meted out to them. On the one hand, we know that vulnerable sections of our community must be respected while on the other hand, we demand that democratic freedoms, particularly those related to speech, are protected and respected.

From the very beginning of the process surrounding this Bill, Sinn Féin set out to strike the right balance between all these needs and the need to protect free speech and address the underlying causes of hatred. We submitted major amendments, to which we hope the Minister would accede. We also supported amendments from other parties to try to get this legislation right. The amendments we submitted covered items such as providing simple and clear definitions of "hate" and "gender" and the removal of disproportionate and overreaching powers that could be used to impede the fundamental right to freedom of expression or the right to protest. Other amendments we supported sought to remove highly controversial sections of the Bill, including one that creates a new offence of the possession of material that could be hateful regardless of whether a person intended to distribute it. The then Minister and now Taoiseach, Deputy Simon Harris, assured our party and others at the time that changes would be made.

By the time the Bill had moved to the Seanad, however, it was clear these concerns were not going to be addressed. It was at that point Sinn Féin called on the Government to withdraw and redraft the Bill. This call came after we had supported a motion in the Seanad to do likewise. This was to ensure that the legislation would be legally sound but would not undermine the right to free speech or the right to protest and would equally ensure that vulnerable persons and groups would be protected from those who might seek to incite violence against them.

What we have now is a situation where the Government has backed down temporarily to a limited degree. The Minister was, essentially, forced to gut the hate speech section of the Bill. She continues, however, to assert that the Government parties intend to reintroduce these aspects later, if the Government is re-elected. This is not acceptable.

What should have happened, of course, is that the amendments from Sinn Féin and other parties should have been accepted. We should have had a proper consensus in this House. This would have entailed a definition of "hate". "Hate" is currently defined as being "hatred". It is circular and I do not believe it is an acceptable way of doing legislation.

This reminds me of the suggestion from the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, regarding the term "durable relationships", which we know caused so much confusion in our society because nobody knew precisely what it meant. Now, we have the Minister, Deputy McEntee, trying to introduce a new definition of "gender", despite there being no consensus as to what this means. The definition in this Bill reads:

“gender” means the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.

Most people do not understand what this means precisely.

Sinn Féin and other parties had put forward a common-sense approach. This was what was included in our amendment. It would have simply and clearly restated the long-standing definition of gender set out in the Equal Status Act 2000. Nobody from the Government has explained why there is a need for different criteria in this legislation. It points to legislators not taking their job seriously, because there is a need in legislation to provide legal and definitional certainty, while being inclusive enough to cover all cases. It again appears that the Minister would prefer to see this issue being ultimately decided by the courts.

We also called for sections 4 to 16, inclusive, to be scrapped. This is, essentially, what the Minister has declared she will now do but only temporarily. She intends to revisit this matter if she is re-elected. As previous speakers said, we must be cognisant of the reality here.

In other jurisdictions, hate speech laws have been used to remove legitimate symbols of expression. We know in some places the display of the Palestinian national flag has been banned as a result of such laws. It is important to record that Scotland enacted hate speech legislation earlier this year and during the first week alone, Scotland's police force was overwhelmed with more than 7,000 complaints. When the Minister and the Government have been responsible for decimating Garda numbers and morale and for closing Garda stations across the State, and when we are dealing with shrinking Garda numbers, it appears they want to tie up those gardaí who remain, investigating instances of people claiming they have been offended rather than carrying out core police duties and keeping our communities and streets safe.

We in Sinn Féin know what it is like to be censored and we oppose disproportionate and overreaching powers that could be used to impede the fundamental right to freedom of expression or the right to protest. We oppose the public order sections in the Bill in their entirety. The Public Order Act contains significant powers. It gives sweeping powers to the Garda, which of course it largely exercises correctly. Further powers in this respect are not necessary. Rights are fundamental and we must treat these matters with the utmost scrutiny on all Stages. Unfortunately, the Government has chosen instead to proceeded with a Frankenstein of a Bill that does not even do the things it was intended to do. That is not the way to do business. The legislation should be parked and we should await the outcome of a general election, which we know is imminent. For now, Sinn Féin will absolutely oppose this Bill.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I could not agree more with the previous speaker that this legislation should be parked and left for another Government, if at all. I too, and all right-thinking people, am fundamentally opposed to any hate speech - any hatred, divisions or people bring portrayed, and being attacked and undermined because of their religion, race, colour creed or whatever.

This Bill is a shambles and it seems to be a vanity project of the Minister's. It has been very interesting this evening. I could be corrected on this but when this Bill was on Second Stage in this House, it was only Deputy Tóibín and mé féin who opposed it. I recall four or five Sinn Féin speakers welcomed it; all sides of the House welcomed it. It is amazing how people can change and everybody, of course, is entitled to change. It is a bad day when we do not learn something and listen and appreciate change.

I will not repeat them but I salute Seanadóir Sharon Keogan for reading the 72 definitions of "gender" the Minister wants to have into the Official Report of Dáil Éireann and I will not bore the House with that, but it is patent nonsense as far as I am concerned, and nothing short of it. There is a half-baked Bill coming out, which is worse. The Minister is withdrawing some elements of it and, as Deputy Howlin stated, this legislation if passed will run concurrent with the 1989 Act and will lead to confusion all round. The Minister stated that the duty of any government is to protect the citizens of the state. My God, what a statement from a lame duck Minister for Justice that nobody is safe in their home. I heard a report on "Morning Ireland" that all the shopkeepers of Dublin are crying out for protection. Their staff are terrified and if they do apprehend anybody who is committing a crime in their shop, they have to wait for 15 to 20 minutes for a garda to arrive. This is on the main thoroughfare of our capital city. It is because the gardaí are not there, full stop. Total trust in gardaí has been diminished under the Minister's watch because they are being pulled from all over the country to deal with the situation in Dublin and we are left without any gardaí. We never saw anything like the lack of gardaí that we are suffering in our rural areas, towns and villages. It is unbelievable.

It beggars belief and this is the type of nonsense the Minister wants to come into this House with again tonight. I am glad that Members have concerns and issues about this Bill because they got a fair fáilte when it was introduced on Second Stage. The totally subjective nature of the Bill, where dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi, or dúirt fear liom go ndúirt dear léi or I said that you said something that might be construed as hate speech is very dangerous territory. Unlike most legislation, where any of us is presumed innocent until proven guilty, under this legislation somebody can make a complaint that he or she heard someone else say something that constituted a hate crime, or what he or she thought was a hate crime, and it is up to a Garda sergeant to then to bring a conviction on that basis without any evidence. Indeed, we debated a case on Second Stage where two people could be involved in a fracas in a public place. They might not be summonsed at all for the fracas but they could be summonsed if one muttered a so-called hate crime to the other. It is just nonsense, to me anyway. It it total, patent nonsense and nothing short of it.

The Bill must be withdrawn as far as I am concerned and left. The Minister also stated she took out parts of the Bill and would leave it to the next government, whatever shape that might be. I hope it will not be her as Minister for Justice. It is nothing personal but I am referring to her manner of supporting the gardaí and the Garda Commissioner not having the faith of gardaí. It is s serious situation that 98.7% of them do not have faith in their boss. The Minister has faith in him and she has set out how safe the streets of Dublin are. Very few streets of any town are safe. The Minister can walk down the city of Dublin, flanked by senior gardaí, saying how safe it is. We see what the retailers, other people, and the Taoiseach's famous report and aspirations of what to do to make Dublin safe. The Minister does not have the numbers of gardaí and the numbers do not have the confidence in their leader, let alone in the Minister. I think she even refused to go to one of their conferences.

The section on search warrants gives wide, sweeping powers to An Garda Síochána. I have been a supporter of An Garda Síochána all of my life and I want more support for it. Indeed I have condemned out of hand in this House and other forums attacks of An Garda Síochána. Our own very wonderful local garda, Garda John Walsh, is still out with serious injuries from being attacked and likewise Garda Philly Ryan in the next area to me. That is reprehensible in the extreme and shocking that gardaí are on their own and do not have backup or anybody to try to help them.

This is cobbled up legislation. It is a last-ditch effort by the Minister to save face and have this introduced. AI could be used to imitate a person's voice. These are not my words; these are the words of very eminent professors and other people. A person's voice could be used and recorded and the fake voice of a citizen, politician or anybody else could be used then to deem them having committed a hate offence. In that case, a citizen would be dependent on his or her laptop, records or computer or whatever to prove it was nothing to do with it him or her but this is how farcical and how dangerous this is with the evolution of AI, and what is going on and what can be done. We have seen it all over the world. Tim Morthost, director of artificial intelligence and automation at Ernst and Young Ireland said in The Irish Times:

While deep fakes have long been considered to just be fake video material, it is important to realise that this is now also spreading to both voice and text-based media. [That is what I am talking about.]

While in early days deepfakes mostly damaged people’s reputations, globally they are now used to impersonate people to commit crimes such as financial fraud and examples of people calling parents with imitations of their children’s voices to ask for money have for example been observed.

That is what happening and can happen. This legislation should be taken back and left to a more considered time.

The fact is that we only have a limited amount of time for it here tonight. Why the rush? Rushed legislation is often or nearly always bad legislation. The Minister's desire is to have it under her belt, so to speak, and have this passed. I do not think she will get kudos from any source for it.

Dublin City University, DCU, professor of computing, Professor Alan Smeaton, who is also a member of the Government's artificial intelligence, AI, advisory council, stated:

Text scams and phone scams only started a few years ago. They are now part of society and part of what it is like to live in 2024. The same will apply to deepfakes. You need to have your wits about you.

As artificial intelligence technology has become more powerful, it has also become easier to use. The latest version of Daft.ieis built into ChatGPT and Bing, while Google is offering its own tools free to users. This whole area is open to widespread abuse and misinterpretation but there is no mention of it in the Minister's legislation. Her statement that the Government's duty is to protect its citizens rings hollow. The Minister has failed utterly in that regard. She is pushing through this legislation to try to tie people up in knots and intimidate ordinary citizens so as not to have their voices heard. The Government does not like the voice of the people. This has been the most anti-ordinary people Administration I have seen in my time here under four governments. I do not know why it has such a dislike of ordinary people. The games it is playing with them and the legislation it has passed are not ag cabhradh leis na daoine. The Government is not helping the people. It is all the time becoming more aggressive. Pardon the saying, but this beats Banagher out of it completely. I and my colleagues in the Rural Independent Group are totally opposed to the Bill.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agat. The next three speakers are Deputies Tóibín, Danny Healy-Rae and Catherine Murphy.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Anois, an Teachta Danny Healy-Rae. I point out for the record and generally for the House that we are speaking on amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 7, amendments Nos. 8 to 23, inclusive, amendment No. 34, amendment No. 64 and amendment No. 75. Somebody might surprise me.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to get the opportunity to talk again on this Bill that does not make any sense. The people who fought for our country back in 1916, over 100 years ago, were glad that one of the things they fought for was freedom of speech and the freedom to express an opinion.

There seems to be a different emphasis now rather than having a focus on those two vital aspects of having commonsense laws and of being fair and just to the people we represent.

The last time this Bill came before the House, our group was against it. There was only a handful of us at that point. It was not until the public got to know what was happening and there was a vote here that things changed. Only six or seven of us voted against it. That is the truth. Maybe six or more months ago I happened to come in late some night and I got mad when I saw Senator Lisa Chambers boasting about what the Seanad had done to change the Bill. The Senator was more or less blaming the TDs in the Dáil, but her own party members voted for the Bill as it was presented at that time. They were part of the Government. They and many Members on my right here were in favour of it at that time. It was not until they looked deeper into it that they saw they had been mistaken. It was not until the calls kept coming in to my office, to my brother's office and to all the other Members' offices that people began to understand. Those making the calls were vicious about what was happening. They let it be known to the Government as well.

People do not trust the Government in relation to this matter. I get calls about it practically every week. Even though things may have cooled down for a bit, I still get calls. I received several texts, even in recent times, asking me not to support this Bill. As I said, people do not trust the Government now. Whatever wording the Minister has changed, they do not believe that the Government will stick to that.

There have been calls before I got up to speak to the effect that we should park this Bill until the new Government comes in. If I get re-elected, I will be opposed to it.

We have had a democratic State for the past 100 years or more. What was wrong with it? Why is the Government trying to change it? Why is it trying to shut people up? Why is the Government trying to deny them the right to talk?

No one knows exactly who the Bill's provisions will extend to until it is enacted. I am sure then the Garda will have to do what it is asked to do and either challenge people in the courts or take them to the court. The last place in the world the people I represent want to go is to court.

All the parties seem to be for this. Changing this small bit I am talking about does not satisfy me. It does not satisfy the people in Kerry who I represent. I will not be voting for this Bill because there is suspicion hanging over the Government as to what it is trying to do. It does not seem as if it will help the ordinary people to retain their democratic right to freedom of speech or to express their opinions. I do not see why the Government is trying to muzzle the people in this way or to put them down. There is no need in the world for it. I will be voting against it again this time because the people simply do not trust the Government. I do not trust the Government either.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae purports to speak for the people who went out and fought in 1916. My grandparents fought in 1916. My grandfather was interned. I do not think he would take the same view as the Deputy in respect of a lot of things.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank them for that.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy does not have to. I am just saying that a variety of people were involved and that it was in a different time and a different era. I do not believe the Deputy speaks for everyone who went out and fought in 1916. He should ponder that a little.

When I started looking at this Bill and preparing for the debate this evening, I asked myself what was the point of doing so. The Bill has been absolutely gutted. I am not saying that it did not require to be amended or improved. However, the consequences of deleting whole sections, those we are talking about, is the primary reason we are here tonight. Would it not have been better to have a process in place to deal with this comprehensively?

The provisions of Part 2 were intended to address most of our outstanding obligations to fully transpose the Council of Europe decision of November 2008. We are told this will be done separately in due course. We do not know how it will be done. It will be a matter for the next Government. References to the framework decision in section 2 are to be removed. I went through this and discovered that whole sections are being removed. That is what we are talking about. I always intended to be brief on this because there is not an awful lot to say, particularly as so much has been removed.

I am surprised that we have 90 minutes to do debate the amendments tonight, to be perfectly honest. Why are we even here? This should have been done differently. It should have been done comprehensively and there should have been a process in place to have an inclusive way forward in order to get to satisfactory legislation.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for their comments and views. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked what is the point and why are we here. We are here because I fundamentally believe that we need to have hate crime legislation on the Statute Book. As I stated at the outset, we do not have such legislation at present. It is not that I have been forced or pushed into taking a particular route.

I believed that we had a consensus in this House. There was a strong consensus in favour of the legislation in its previous form. We lost that consensus and instead of not enacting any element of the legislation, I wanted to ensure that the provisions relating to hate crime would be put on the Statute Book for the first time. We are the final country in Europe to not have it.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Then do it.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe that we need to have it.

We are here to make sure that we have hate crime legislation on the Statute Book for the first time, but I believe we need to do more to update, amend and improve the 1989 Act. That Act will still exist. It will still be there. We will still have incitement legislation. Many points of the points raised by people here and in the Seanad during the debate last summer -people thought it would be the end of the world - related to aspects that had been contemplated in law since 1989. I accept that there are different ways that this could have been done. However, I fundamentally believe that we need to have hate crime legislation on the Statute Book. That is why we are here. That is why I am progressing this. That is why I hope, at a later stage, we will be able to address the incitement to hatred and violence elements that have been removed.

In response to Deputy Howlin's point and to the question around the technicalities, the point is that I believe we need to keep the incitement to hatred and violence elements together and to progress them together at a later stage. Obviously, that will be a matter for the next Dáil. On the technical element of how the amendment is drafted, the proposal relates to the definition of hatred, as currently drafted in the Bill, that is

"hatred" means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics;

However, because the term "protected characteristics" does not appear in the 1989 Act, applying this definition of hatred to the constructed term that is in the Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act 1989 would not have the legal effect without also defining the protected characteristics themselves. There is a technical element to it. Overall, I genuinely believe that we need to progress that piece and as a whole. I do not like the fact that we might have two separate definitions or characteristics for both pieces of legislation. That is why we need to make sure that, for the next Government and the next Dáil, we have a structure in place to make sure that we can update the legislation.

Deputy Daly referred to the concept of recklessness. This was included in the incitement to hatred provisions that have already been removed. In general, there was broad support for those aspects of the Bill anyway.

Deputy Barry spoke about the demonstration tests and people who are demonstrating in general. It is really important to point out that we are talking about where a crime has already been committed. If somebody is at a protest for whatever reason, if he or she is not protesting peacefully and is committing a crime, he or she already is committing a crime. We are talking about making sure that where there is an aggravating factor of hate, it is taken into consideration as well. There was discussion about possession of material again. That is something that is already in the 1989 Act and provided for in law.

I will speak to the two areas people have referenced quite significantly, that is, the definitions of hatred and gender. I note Deputy Carthy did not table amendments to either of these. I outlined this to the Seanad but it is important to outline it here again. One of the key criticisms is that hatred has not been defined in this Bill. I want to explain to the House why this is the case. When drafting new legislation, a comparative exercise is undertaken to examine how other jurisdictions have legislated for a particular topic. This exercise was undertaken in developing this Bill at great length, I would add, given that we are one of the last countries in the western world to provide for hate crime laws, as I have mentioned. There is therefore a great body of comparative legislation available worldwide and I can say that no other jurisdictions have defined hatred. Similar legislation from many different jurisdictions around the world have been examined and hatred is not defined in any of them. Some jurisdictions use synonyms for hatred such as hostility, ill-will or malice, such as is the case in England and Scotland, but again these terms are not defined. In addition, the framework decision of 2008 on combating racism and xenophobia that Ireland is required to transpose and to which I referred earlier does not define hatred. It states that hatred should be understood as referring to hatred based on race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Again there was a suggestion that we use the definition of gender in the Equal Status Act. There is no definition of gender in the Equal Status Act. This is exactly in line with the approach we are taking in this Bill. The definitions of hatred proposed by Deputies and indeed by Senators previously are based on those used for policy and advocacy purposes through the ECRI. They are not intended for legislation. To be clear, my officials and I expressly contacted the ECRI, which confirmed it was never intended for inclusion in criminal legislation. On the contrary, it has made it very clear that this definition is only intended to inform policy and to offer guidance. I have been strongly advised also by the Attorney General against the use of the ECRI definition on the basis that attaching different words to the definition with the aim of explaining hatred would then require an explanation for each of these constituent words. Deputy Carthy stated we need simple and clear definitions. What was proposed were the terms "opprobrium", "enmity" or "detestation". As far as I am concerned, these are not commonly understood concepts in the same way that hatred is. They do not provide any additional position. They could leave the legislation vulnerable to constitutional challenge on the basis that the offences become excessively broad, vague, uncertain and inconsistent with the rule of law. Most of them are certainly not words that I would use on a daily basis. The Attorney General also advised that it is not possible or appropriate to provide exhaustive definitions of every term in the legislation. Additionally, if these type of amendments were accepted, each one of the proposed terms would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order for a court to secure a conviction. This would mean that on top of providing that the person committed the offence, the DPP would have to prove that the individual concerned demonstrated opprobrium, enmity, or detestation, was biased, prejudiced, held contempt, was hostile and was a bigot. This would place an almost impossible burden on the prosecution. We want to make sure we are enacting legislation that can be workable.

In essence, I believe that for the purpose of this legislation, many of the terms proposed to define hatred are simply more obscure words that are more likely to confuse a jury in the course of a criminal prosecution than the widely understood term of hatred. This is a view that is also shared by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The definition of hatred as currently set out in the Bill represents the word's ordinary and everyday meaning and I think we can all understand what it means. The person who attacks a person leaving a gay club for no other reason other than he or she hates gay people can be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and labelled the hate criminal he or she is. The person who attacks a person simply because of the colour of that person's skin and who clearly demonstrates that can be labelled the hate criminal that he or she is. There will be no legal uncertainty as to what constitutes a hate offence as hatred will have its ordinary and everyday meaning. This reflects the rules of statutory interpretation, which the Supreme Court has also consistently upheld. It is for those reasons that we have not changed it. I believe this is the correct approach.

Separately, in terms of the definition of gender, again so many people are missing the point here. This is not about somebody's legal definition. If somebody is being attacked, they are not being asked if they have a gender certificate. They are not being asked if this is their gender or what their gender is. They are being attacked because of who they are. People are missing the point here. To be clear, it does not affect the Gender Recognition Act, the Civil Registration Act or any other Act on the Statute Book. I want to be clear and ensure that everyone understands this. The definition of gender provided for in this Bill is for the specific purposes of this Bill, that is, to protect our citizens from hate crime. We can have different definitions. We had legislation previously where we had three different definitions for children in the one item of legislation. It is not to say that this immediately impacts on others. We know that members of our LGBTQI communities in particular experience disproportionate levels of harassment, abuse and violence. We know that members are targeted for the way they look, the way they dress, the way they identify and of course the people they love. We know that it is precisely the people who do not fit into conventional ideas of gender and sexuality who are most vulnerable to this kind of victimisation. This legislation is vital and it is long overdue. Statistics on hate crime and hate-related incidents have shown rises year on year across Europe. Harassment and violence against LGBTQI people is increasing. The Council of Europe has noted a marked increase in hate speech and hate crime targeting people and organisations based on sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. This has also been documented by the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency. In 2024, a survey of more than 100,000 LGBTQI people across Europe provided a snapshot of the scale of discrimination, bullying, harassment and violence that members of this community face. More than half of surveyed respondents were victims of hate-motivated harassment. Ireland is no different. Over half of the respondents in the EU survey say that prejudice and intolerance in Ireland have increased while two in three say that violence in Ireland has increased. In the year before the EU survey, more than half of those surveyed had been harassed and one in 20 had been attacked. These numbers illustrate the scale of the problem but they do not adequately convey the impact of these incidents on the victims themselves and on the broader LGBTQI community. They send a message to these people that they are unsafe simply because of who they are. This is not about legal status; this is about who they are as people.

The psychological impact of hate crime is much deeper than regular crime as well. Hate crimes dehumanise people. It goes to the heart of a person's identity. It damages their dignity and forces people to change their behaviours and hide who they are. This is not a vanity project. This is people's lives that we are talking about here. The objective of the legislation is to provide protection to victims of hate crime on the basis of personal identity characteristics. These include gender and sex characteristics and sexual orientation. The approach we have taken here is deliberately inclusive to ensure we are adequately capturing the individuals and communities we know are targeted by these crimes. Inclusion of this broader meaning was on foot of recommendations from the civil society organisations, particularly those representing vulnerable and minority groups. The broad definition of gender ensures protection for transgender persons, as well as for non-binary persons and other people who do not identify with any of the terms expressly included in the legislation.

It is important to outline a couple of cases that we are talking about here. We are not talking about it in the abstract. We are talking about very real people. This is the anti-gender and anti-sexual orientation crime report from An Garda Síochána. To outline some of the cases here, first we have a robbery from an individual. The injured party was with a group of friends when a group of three to five individuals began intimidating the person in question. This was a transgender person. The person attempted to evade these individuals, was pursued, was punched three times to the face and pushed to the ground. Their runners and hoodie were taken. At least two youths, one male and one female, were involved. Once gardaí arrived, the person in question had a cut lip, loose lower front teeth and visible grazes to the left arm. This was a hate crime. This was motivated by a person's hatred because they were anti-transgender. They did not single out any other individual in the group, just the person who was transgender. I have a second case to outline. A female was on the way to the market with two friends and was attacked by a man physically who threw his body at her with all of his strength. The person asked him what he was doing. He said that she was nothing more than a man. Again, he repeated several times, saying she was nothing more than a trans. These are real incidents, these are real people. These are people who are being targeted simply because of who they are. This is not a discussion about gender or somebody's legal status.

These are facts. These are people who are already impacted by hate crimes, and it is not about just gender. It is about individuals who are being attacked and targeted because of the colour of their skin, because they might have a disability or because they come from a different country from where we were born. There are many reasons people are being targeted. We know that targeting somebody simply because of who they are as a person has a greater impact on them. That is why this law is being passed.

It is important to be clear here because there is an objective, whether intentional or otherwise, to misconstrue facts to suggest we are still changing the hate speech legislation. To be clear, for any social media clips people want to put out, we are not amending the 1989 Act. I have been clear that that is being progressed at a later stage. We are talking about hate crime and making sure that where a crime that has been committed is motivated by hatred of a particular person and their characteristics, that is, who they are as a person, there will be an increased sentence and penalty because we know that has a greater impact on those individuals. As a country and society, we need to be clear that that is not something we are going to tolerate.

I firmly believe this legislation needs to be enacted this evening. I absolutely believe we need to come back to the hate speech element of it. I stress I made that decision to ensure this element of the Bill would be enacted but we need to come together, as an Oireachtas and Dáil, however many of us come back after the election, to make sure we can update the 1989 legislation. Let us send a very clear message to those who are vulnerable in our communities at the moment that we will not tolerate any form of violence, intimidation or crime against them simply because of who they are. That is all we are doing here this evening. We are sending a very clear message that if you target someone because of who they are, you will face a stronger penalty, and we need to send out that message this evening.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with virtually every word the Minister just uttered, yet the suite of amendments we are discussing is to eviscerate the very protections this House passed. It is just taking them out because of pressure, and that is a simple fact. The Minister's powerful words are right. This is to protect vulnerable minorities that are fully part of our society, and to prevent people from redefining Irishness is in some narrow context or excluding people. All of us have come across individuals in our communities, in our families, friends and constituents, who have been vulnerable, such as gay people who are afraid to walk in certain areas, to hold hands or to show affection for fear of being attacked, or people of colour who would not canvass because they are afraid of the reaction on the door. These are real, vulnerable people we must protect, and we must not allow anybody to redefine, in 1916 terms, what Irishness is or to exclude anybody from it. I hear some arguing from both sides, that is, arguing fully that they want to protect but saying this is fundamentally flawed, for some reason, and trying to find a word or reason preventing us from going ahead now. It is disappointing that all these deletions are happening on this Bill, but so be it. Let us progress with what we have and have an opportunity to visit this again.

I am one of the people who was around the Dáil in 1989, when the original Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act was passed. I invite some of the people who are criticising the proposals here to read that Act, because the bulk of the prohibitions and protections were very broadly welcomed by Members of these Houses 35 years ago. I have always believed, and I am in my last couple of years in this House, that there has been a natural progression in my lifetime. I came in here in the year these Houses passed the eighth amendment to the Constitution. We now have a greater empathy with people and a greater tolerance of a lack of uniformity, and we are a better place because of it. Let us not go backwards. Let us not allow anybody to misinterpret what has been done in all the progress we have made to make Ireland a better, more inclusive and more tolerant place, but we have a lot to do still. Let us not be bullied off track. Those of us who see ourselves as progressives have tried to map a future where everybody is welcomed, tolerated, protected, included and intrinsically a member of our community or society. Some of the stuff online is depressing, but it is what it is. That is the new way of communication. I think the Minister believes from her heart every one of the words she powerfully argued, but they are not reflected in the actions of the amendments we are debating. I understand why, but I have to make the point.

On the specific amendment I put forward, the Minister told me the reason it is not being accepted is that, under section 3, “protected characteristic” is referenced and it is not referenced in the 1989 Act. The most fundamental point, however, is that there is always a technical reason something cannot be done, but some categories that are protected under the Bill the Minister is going to push tonight are not protected in the 1989 Act. It was fine when the 1989 Act was being repealed in its totality, but the Government is going to maintain the 1989 Act, for however long it takes the next Oireachtas and Government to amend it, if they do amend it. Until that time, there will be two different categories of protected people, under the 1989 Act and under this Bill. I would have thought it was possible to fix that, if the Minister had wanted to fix it, rather than to have the anomaly of two separate definitions, as I said. For clarity, there are going to be two different categories side by side, namely, the one set out in section 3 of this Bill, comprising race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, gender, sexual characteristics, sexual orientation or disability, and in the 1989 Act, race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the Travelling community or sexual orientation. Those two definitions should be aligned. I think the Minister would accept that, and I do not think it is beyond the wit of her officials to have found a way of aligning them if there are an objectionable two words therein that we could have amended as well.

There will be a great deal of misinformation about a lot of the progressive things we do into the future now in a way that probably was not the case even in 1989. We were much a more conservative place, I thought, at that stage, but maybe not. The voices of blurring reality and misinterpreting what is intended are stronger now, and that is why those of us who want to protect vulnerable minorities and to continue on the path of inclusion and not exclusion, separation or demeaning have to be clearer. We have to be even stronger in our determination, to be clear and not to be put off, because if people feel that a campaign has made the Government retreat on this, they will feel there will be another issue on which it will retreat, and the people who will lose out from that are the more marginal members of a society, who have in recent times felt Ireland is a welcoming, comfortable place for them to be in. We should be determined that that progress will continue to be made.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remember being struck by a group of foreign students who came in to the audiovisual room to give their experiences of the level of violence that is inflicted on them.

The attacks and the violence inflicted upon them was shameful. The main benefit of the hate crime element of this Bill is that it sends a strong statement about attacks against those foreign students or people who are LGBT or anything like that. It makes a strong statement that this behaviour is unacceptable. I do, however, as I have said before, caution against extending this into minor public order offences. I was glad to hear the Rural Independents referring to a concern I had regarding a type of case that could come before the courts arising out of the public order Act. I have heard the criticism. I would love to say that some of the amendments that were brought forward by the Rural Independents were useless, toothless and fruitless but of course I cannot because they did not bring any amendments and neither did they attend the justice committee to express any concerns about the way this Bill was going through the Dáil. I was interested to hear them talking about a democratic State but I do not remember them or any of the parties in which they were previously involved criticising section 31 when that was on the Statute Book.

To finish, I will quote a great Kilgarvan man, Michael Quill, the great union leader in New York who stated: "If we, black and white, Catholic and non-Catholic, Jew and gentile, are good enough to slave and sweat together, then we are good enough to unite and fight together". I have heard over the last year or so people who are foreign who may be seeking asylum being blamed for almost every ill - particularly in health - and almost every problem in this country apart from maybe the lack of a Killarney bypass. It is as another great politician once said, if you do not have a programme, a bogeyman will do.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I simply will not take any lectures from Sinn Féin. For the record, I always opposed section 31. Probably at the very outset, it might have been needed but it kept going on and on and it was impossible. The problem we had the last number of years, until lately when Sinn Féin was found out, is that we could not get its members off the airwaves.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will check the Deputy's voting record on section 31.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please do.

We could not get them off the radio and the television. They were the darlings of the media but it was a case of empty vessels. There was nothing behind it and they have been found out now. It is banana skins and no policies, just diktats from Belfast. I always listen to Deputy Howlin. I respect his long service and his always very well thought-out words but certainly on the 1989 Act, he himself has expressed concerns that it is not amalgamated into this new proposed legislation to stop confusion. I was not here in 1989 or a long time after it but the 1989 Act is there and it will be confusing. It is confusing. I did not hear the Minister saying anything, even though Deputy Howlin was delighted with all the lovely words said. Words are great but people in Ireland - our own people, and I am not anti anybody - are afraid of their lives in their homes day in, day out. If the Minister spent a little more time being concerned about them, having the rule of law and a Commissioner the gardaí can support, we might see some hope at the end of the line. This is a vanity project. Of course it is. It is half-baked now. I commend the esteemed Senators who threw out the threads because when the Bill came to this House on Second Stage, as Deputy Tóibín said, there was nobody to speak against it, only himself and myself. All the Sinn Féin Deputies that day spoke glowingly about how the Bill was ten years too late and how it was welcome. However, now they get the backlash from the people they have flip-flopped again. They have more flip-flops done than Ryan Tubridy had in RTÉ for the show. Flip-flopping all the way, they keep flip-flopping until they find out. The Minister is also neglecting people. I put a question to her earlier and she did not even respond to it. There is nothing to stop somebody on a mission to destroy somebody's reputation from using artificial intelligence to clone a person's voice and use it to create a 100% convincing audio file that would easily fall under this proposed hate speech legislation. They could post it onto social media, have the person arrested, charged and convicted of hate speech crime, perhaps jailed depending on what was said on the cloned audio file. The Minister ignored my request. These are not my concerns.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I answered the Deputy's question.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister did not answer the question on this. Under current legislation, there are safeguards in place that would prevent this from happening but under this proposed legislation there is nothing to safeguard a person's reputation and liberty if they fall victim to such a cloning scam. It is very possible, as the Minister knows. How would it be possibly proven in a court of law that a person did not make these hate speech statements when AI can do that? Of course it can do it. Will the absence of any trace of audio file on the person's phone, laptop or computer be enough to convince a judge that he or she did not utter these hate speech statements? This legislation is leaving it wide open for that to happen.

Rushing this Bill through the House at breakneck speed ahead of an election without an opportunity to tease out its consequences may well have dire consequences down the road that could result in innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit. That is my very real worry. The Minister said earlier that it was the duty of Government to ensure people were protected from crime. Every hour of every day people are afraid. I just got two WhatsApp messages since we started this debatel about a strange van circulating in my own parish at the moment. People are terrified. Tonight, in my area from Araglen to Boherlahan and from Clonmel, Fethard, Carrick-on-Suir and the whole vast area of Cashel, there might not be two gardaí on duty. It is disgraceful that the Minister would treat the gardaí like that first of all, putting their lives in danger, but it is a bigger disgrace that there is nobody to protect the citizens. We are all here and we want it to be a lovely welcoming place for everybody but we cannot protect our own citizens let alone the citizens coming in. Then when we have situations like the siege of Dundrum in Tipperary, where the superintendent who was there that morning gave instructions that it came down from the Minister for Justice and the Minister for integration that these bus loads were going to be pushed in there. Peaceful people and many members of the Minister's own party were there. These are decent people who did not lift a finger to anyone. There was plenty of intelligence in An Garda Síochána to know there was not going to be any trouble in Dundrum. It is an excellent place with excellent people and they brought a force of 200 gardaí, including the dog squad, into a peaceful village to force a bus load of people in. When it turned out that one of the unfortunate ladies was 39 weeks pregnant, had been whisked out of her place here in Dublin and brought down there with no records and no scans from hospitals, the people who were at the gates - Andrea Crowe for one, and others such as my own daughter - pushed and got her back to Dublin. They organised Gianna Care and others to look after the woman.

That is what I would expect from the people of Dundrum. They wanted to look after those people. However, the Government abused them by moving them around the country at short notice. The children were in school here and they had uniforms bought for them and everything else. These unfortunate people were treated like cattle. They got 12 hours' notice they were going and were not told where they were going. Is that the modern Ireland the Minister is talking about and with that kind of a force of gardaí? It shows contempt for the people of Tipperary who support An Garda Síochána day in, day out. At the same time there was a robbery in the village of Cullen, a rural area, and they had to wait three hours for a garda. There were 300 of them around with vans, paddy wagons and tow-trucks in a massive operation that cost over €30,000 that day. There was no bother finding money for that. This was a show of strength for the Minister and her Commissioner who will not support the gardaí. I will repeat what I said earlier that 98.9% have no faith in the Garda Commissioner. The Minister chose to side with the Commissioner rather than the gardaí.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy, I am very reluctant to interfere with any Member but it is not fair to make criticisms of the Commissioner who is not here to defend himself.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that. I am just quoting-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know what you are quoting but you are a fair person and you should not make charges which the man is not here to defend himself against.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Well I did it in the meeting with the man and he would not answer my questions some years ago. He has had plenty of time to do that, and plenty of spin. He walked down the main thoroughfare of our capital city flanked by several other gardaí for a show of, contempt for the people actually, because they know themselves that people are terrified.

They are not my words but those of his own members, almost 99% of whom have no faith in him. What in God’s name is wrong? These are the people who defend us every day and mind us all over the country. The Minister's county is the same. In the last recruitment drive for Templemore, the Minister got nine in her constituency and we did not get éinne in Tipperary, not one. Carrick-on-Suir is a town that used to have 14 gardaí and four sergeants and it now has three gardaí and one sergeant. There is fear in the people. There are roving gangs going around tonight, lamping, spotting and terrorising people. People are in fear in their homes and we are here discussing a vanity project of the Minister and the Government colleague beside her.

The Irish people are fair and respectful, by and large, as Deputy Howlin pointed out. The same Commissioner has said more than once that he has enough legislation to deal with hate crime, and I can quote him on that. What are we at here, in the dying days, when the curtains are coming down on top of this Government, buíochas le Dia? Whenever the Government decides, it will allow the people to vote and they will give a fairly convincing verdict on its behaviour. There are laws for this and laws for that and no support for the ordinary people. What it did in Dundrum, Country Tipperary, in Roscrea and in many other areas was shocking. There are buildings without fire certification and unfortunate people from all over the world who came here looking for protection are in those unsafe buildings. We are told an audit will be done on safety. There was a fire certificate there ten years ago but there was a bad fire in the place since then. This is what the Government does with people. The double standards and hypocrisy are astonishing. There are double standards from Sinn Féin too but we have got used to that now. Every one of its Members who spoke on Second Stage spoke in favour of this Bill, saying it was years late and giving it glowing references. What has changed since?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill that passed in 1989 passed because it was explained thoroughly what the Members of the House were voting for and it was done in the right way. This Bill before us is putting in no limits or restrictions and what things the Government is hinting at. It is an open book. The people of Ireland do not trust those in the Government enough to give them an open book, and that is what it is asking for in this debate. It is not explaining fully what the Bill will mean for all of the different areas and it is limiting it to certain things. The Minister said she would not put in wording that would cover everything. That is wrong. The Government should put before the people what it is at because they do not trust what the Government is at, and we do not trust it either. I cannot vote for this Bill because I do not trust the Government and the people of Ireland do not trust it.

I will say it again: people are entitled to free speech and to express their opinions.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No matter how hateful it is.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not mention hatred. I did not interrupt Deputy Murphy.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not interrupt the Deputy. I just said, “No matter how hateful it is.”

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

None of us condone hatred of any creed or description. It can be interpreted differently when the laws are being enforced due to the Government not explaining thoroughly what it is actually hitting at. It is covering everything with this. We do not know what we cannot say or what we can do, but the Government will find a way to cover it. Then, a fellow will pay the piper if the tune does not suit.

I cannot see how the Government expects to ram this through tonight or how it can be fair. Those in the Government are at the end of their tether. We will debate it under the next Government, if we are here. It is not being fair to the people. You tried to ram it through here, the whole lot of you, except for our few Independents.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am now required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil: "That Seanad amendments not disposed of are hereby agreed to in Committee and agreement to the amendments is accordingly reported to the House." On that question, a division has been challenged. We have a rather unusual situation in that I heard the Rural Independents call a vote and I understand Sinn Féin also called a vote but I did not hear it. That being the case, I am appointing three tellers on the Níl side. The tellers for the Government side are the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, and Deputy Cormac Devlin, while the tellers for Níl side are Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, Deputy Pa Daly and Deputy Mattie McGrath.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.