We take the point on amendment No. 1 in the context of the case law that establishes what hatred means. To explain what we are doing in amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, we are saying that someone would be guilty of an offence if they communicated material to the public or behaved in a public place in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or group of persons. Clearly, we agree that it should be an offence to behave in such a manner that one is likely to incite violence against a person. How…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 8, line 13, to delete “or hatred” and substitute “or intimidation, hostility or discrimination”.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 8, line 15, to delete “or hatred” and substitute “or intimidation, hostility or discrimination”.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, line 17, to delete “or hatred” and substitute “or intimidation, hostility or discrimination”.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, line 28, to delete “religious”. The purpose of this amendment is to remove as a defence for hate speech material that something is a reasonable and genuine contribution to religious discourse. Many very positive messages of solidarity, support and charity stem from religious discourse. Many other messages are issued - theological points and so on - under the guise of religious discourse. All that of course is absolutely fine and the State should protect all of that religious speec…

I have made the points I wished to raise on amendment No. 5. The points made by the Minister of State on the high bar that is needed are arguments not to have the religious defence. As there is a high bar, regular religious discourse will not fall into the realm of hate speech. It would do so only if it crosses a very high bar and is hateful. That is the context. That is the only circumstance where such a potential defence would come into play and, therefore, I argue that such a defence is not needed. It is not app…

That was freedom of expression in operation. Freedom of expression is the freedom not to agree. Does the Minister of State accept there is a risk here, that we are engaged in a sensitive and risky area that touches on the right to freedom of expression and that although it is appropriate that hate speech and hate crime are dealt with, it is very important that the right to freedom of expression is defended? Ironically, it is kind of related to the fact that we are attempting to get rid of a specific defence of reli…

I move amendment No. 6: In page 11, to delete lines 1 to 30. This amendment and the later amendment relating to the demonstration test are the two most significant issues for us and where we have the greatest problem. Section 10 is very problematic. I read the transcript of the Committee Stage debate and the Minister did not fundamentally deal with this issue. Section 10 creates the possibility of a person being criminalised purely for having material that is hateful, without that material being communicated to the…

The Minister of State's answer does get to the heart of the problem. He says that people should be held responsible for their actions, even if the authorities intervene before they do anything. How can we hold people responsible for actions that they have not taken? That goes against the main thrust of our criminal law, which relates to actual crimes that take place, not bad thoughts that people have, that they write down. That is a problem. I agree with the point the Minister of State made about the preparation of…

It gets to the fundamental issue again. We are just going around in circles. This is material that is likely to incite violence or hatred, but the material can simply be sitting on a person's computer and no hatred has been incited. The Minister of State is saying the Garda will intervene before it is done, but the onus is then placed on the individual to prove that he or she was not intending to distribute the material and therefore actually to incite hatred. This is a serious enough infringement of civil libertie…

I move amendment No. 7: In page 11, line 35, after “characteristic” to insert “, in this respect, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb”.

Yes.

I move amendment No.9: In page 16, to delete lines 3 to 10. The three amendments remove what is known as the demonstration test to demonstrate that these are hate crimes and therefore the crime itself becomes aggravated by hatred. This is very unusual in criminal law that one is not relying on motivation but instead seeking to rely simply on demonstration to establish that a particular offence was aggravated by hatred. We think this is a significant problem. It heightens the risk of abuse of this section. It means …

I am not convinced by the Minister of State's response. Towards its conclusion, he outlined the consequences of being convicted of a hate crime, including a higher sentence and being labelled as a hate criminal. It is a serious offence. Would it not make sense, therefore, to try to ensure people who are convicted of a hate crime will be people who have committed crimes actually motivated by hatred? That is explicitly not what the legislation seeks to do by using a demonstration test. If there were instead to be a m…

I might make a short, general point in response. We are in favour of having good hate crime legislation. The work done by those in the Coalition Against Hate Crime Ireland has been excellent. Many of the groups it comprises are ones with which we organise, such as Le Chéile, Ireland for All and so on. Having said that, section 10, the thought crime section and the failure to insert an explicit reference to the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights mean tha…

I move amendment No. 10: In page 17, to delete lines 20 to 27.

Vótáil.

Vótáil.

They are not agreed. It has been six days since The Ditch website published very serious allegations about the Minister of State, Deputy Niall Collins. He finally responded to them yesterday, after we wrote to the Business Committee requesting that there would be a statement from the Minister of State, as well as a question-and-answer session. He did not dispute a single allegation set out on The Ditch website. He did not dispute that his wife contacted Limerick County Council when he was a councillor seeking to bu…

Accountability.