Mattie McGrath Criticises Hate Crime Bill's Gender Definitions

The criminal justice incitement to violence or hatred and hate crime bill 2022 proposes to legislate for hate crimes by creating new aggravated forms of certain existing criminal offences where such offences are motivated by prejudice against a predicted characteristic. The bill also proposes to amend the provision of incitement to hatred act 1989, including by making provision for online and hateful content. While I appreciate we must deal with issues of online content, I don't know if this is the right way about it, the bill also includes provision on the burden of proof by adding a demonstration test in addition to the motivation test as set out in the general scheme of the bill. The demonstration test will only require that the person committing the offence demonstrates hatred at the time the offence was committed, while the motivation test requires proof of a person's subjective motivation for committing a hate crime. The bill also seeks to create clearer and similar offences of incitement to hatred than those contained in the existing legislation, setting the threshold for criminal incitement to hatred as intent or recklessness, while also providing safeguards for freedom of expression. The ten protected characteristics contain the bill are race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic and national origins, sexual characteristics, sexual orientation, gender including gender expression and identity and disability. For instance, section 32 of the 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 gender other than those of male or female. Confusing? Confusing? I think so. A clear, certainly not clear, Minister. If this section of the bill is meant to give a definition of gender, it completely falls far short and there is no coherent attempt to define a term X can indicate X and a proposed definition. But if it is not meant to define gender, but if it is not meant to define gender, that leaves us with another problem since gender appears to be defined nowhere else in the bill. Warning and unclear sections in the bill, from my point of view, for example section 32 appears to pick out three items to give a determination to gender. They include if it is a hen, a person's gender, if it is a doe, a person's expressed preferred gender and if it is a tree, a person's identified gender. However, in the case of all three, we appear to be told that gender can include a transgender or a gender other than a male or female. Nonetheless, the bill does not provide a definitive explanation for what gender is. What transgender is, and what a gender other than a male or female might be, or how many of them there might be. I have heard a colleague of yours recently express that there might be up to nine, from your own constituency actually, or used to be. And how many of the three listed gender terms differ from or relate to one another. For example, could a person have three gender types simultaneously? This is a legitimate question. A minister should provide clarity before this bill proceeds. And clarity is needed in many aspects, but it is definitely needed here, minister. Because, you know, it is not clear. Any shape, make it a form. And also, if a person prepares or possesses such a person with intent to include violence or hatred against such a person or group of peasants, on account of these characteristics, or any of those characteristics, or being reckless, as to whether such violence is hatred is thereby incited. Subsection 10.4 goes on to state that a person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, a on summary of a conviction to a class C fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both, or b on conviction on indictment to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. Minister, I am very concerned about this, because there are so many areas in your department, and I raised one of you yesterday, about a lot of pressure that we had for years, with the lack of Gardaí and everything else that we brought in an electronic tagging system for prisons on release. And in reply to your question from your good self, a parliamentary question, you told me the practice had been discontinued due to the high costs associated with it. And it further revealed that only 161, 151, sorry, persons, persons had been electronically tagged during the period from 2007 or something to 2020 to date, or until maybe 17 or 18 when it was stopped. And you've been the Minister for Justice, and I wish you well. But this, and that's only one area, and you went on to talk about the Gardaí, but you didn't answer the question in Toronto yesterday. So, I mean, I'm just making my illustration last time, in case you think I'm straying. I'm not, I'm just making the point that there's so many pieces of legislation like that piece, that's not been enacted. And, yes, yeah, but I'm just saying that it was quietly packed up, and I'm not worried about it. And we had huge public consultation and huge effort, but it's, that's only one area, but this erupt us to try and get that done. And we're all happy when it's done and dusted. And maybe that's why we should have a review of all legislation, because it's literally not, not, not, not working, because of the expense. What are we doing here making these laws? And then we don't, do we have any idea in this piece of legislation, Minister, as to the, the, the cost benefit analysis, the cost to the state, and above all, who's going to police it? I mean, you, you have a deputy who have been telling you that, in so many areas, in your constituency, this year there's no detection of crime at all. See, it's a very safe place, or else you'll know Gardaí to do the job. And the latter, I would presume, is the case. And we are in a bad situation for Gardaí, and it's awfully worrying to see Uní Féhaí, Díne, in Timpermore, in the college. And applications, not, we had promises, and, and, and this is very relevant to the bill about enforcement, Les Cancola, I mean, it's very worrying. We're not getting people to, like we used to have, thousands. A taxi man picked me up here one night last week, week for last, and he tried six times in the noughties to get into the Gardaí, Chicana. And now we can't fill the places. Something radically wrong. And we're not supporting our Gardaí in the way we should. We're not supporting when numbers are in remuneration, and it's not being attractive a job anymore. And we know it's gone horrible, and dangerous, and nasty, and pernicious in many ways. And I support the Gardaí 100% always. And have. But we keep piling on this legislation, and no one, nobody has implemented. Looks good, it's great. I think it's a, it's a total distraction from reality. Total. And I have huge concern about the bill, and I won't be supporting the bill. And some of my group won't either. I haven't, we haven't made a group decision on it. We're independent, as you know, but I certainly won't be. And I have concerns about it. Because, as I said, you know, there are many areas that are unclear, and it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, and I listened intently to Dr O'Callaghan, because he is a legal brain, and legal, a man of the law, and he understands legal legalities and technicalities a lot better than I do. As far as I'm concerned, anyway. So, therefore, as I said, after the fine, or the imprisonment, or term, not exceeding two years, or both, so the denies are full. Daddy tell me they're being prisoners, to, to, to different prisoners from Clonmel courts in Tiberi, and they sent home again that evening. So, what are we doing? Like, we, we, we need huge reforms in the justice system. Huge reforms. It's so frustrating for Caldersey to get convictions, and go to, to get charges and convictions, and then get convictions, and escort them to prison, and they're home before them. That is a fuss. And that's going on under your watch. And then, um, you have legislation like this coming in here, which is half-baked and half-cooked, and not, and not, uh, it's not the, like, total lack of clarity. Lovely out there. Pandas to a certain path of society. But, I think a lot of society have gone tired of all this legislation now, because it doesn't put bread and butter on the tables, number one. And it doesn't, um, help anyone to get jobs or pay their ESP bills. So, therefore, the intention, as, just going back to the sentences, um, here could potentially lead to someone facing, a jail sentence of up to two years for having in their possession material, a book or a magazine that, that contains material, which is subjectively, subjectively, by the state, uh, intended to incite, uh, hate against another person. And that's very, very, very loose, very broad, and it's subjectively, as we said, to the, any member of N'Guardia Chacon, or any member of the public to, to make a complaint or, or whatever. So, that's, that's, that's a dangerous place to go. Very dangerous place to go. And I don't think the people want that. I certainly don't think the people want that. I don't want it. I, I think many of the people I represent don't want it. I mean, we had, recently, a ferrari of a sermon given by Paisley Kerry, uh, quoting scripture. So, would he, would he fall into this? Would he be hauled off for the courts and faced up? This is a legit, a legitimate question. I'm not saying anything but the rights and the wrongs he was quoting from scripture, which is around that longer than any of us. Do members of Dalian want to give their support to such a far-reaching provision, which is, uh, which is, uh, anything but clear? For example, will this lead to someone who is carrying a book, as I said, by leading academics, such as Jordan Peterson, to facing a period in prison? Could it? I think it could. Uh, would, would, um, would they face, simply because of the book and, and, and the contents of the book, they might be, as I said, in somebody's mind's, uh, subjective provisions, uh, this legislation might be, uh, they might come out, fall under this remit of this, uh, legislation that you're, uh, approaching too yesterday. Quite, listen to me, it could. It could. Or any other material. And, uh, I have made no apology ever for campaigning on pro-life issues. And, uh, a campaign to keep, to, to keep the, the Eighth Amendment. So, I mean, we, we're all in danger, and we see the Ferrari and the, and the hassle about people protesting. People protest in good faith, and we must have the right to protest, uh, obviously within, within, with respect for everybody, but we can never take that away from the people. So, I think your advice, my advice to you would be make haste slowly, make haste slowly hear, uh, on Tara. Uh, will it lead to someone, as I said, carrying the book? Uh, so what publications and material would be on the bandwidth? Uh, and who's going to, uh, decide? And, you know, will it lead to Salman Rushdie, and places like that? And, will it be, the value of the squinting windows? And, will it be, will it be driving underground? People that, rightly, have, have opinions, and have, and have, um, um, values that they want to espouse, and they want to bring up the family in. Are they going to be? We already have overreach into the pattern of education, total overreach into the education system. Uh, with the resistance to home schooling, with the tourist involvement there, bringing, uh, parents before, and guardians before the courts. Total overreach. People want to do the right for their children, and we all do. But, I mean, we can't, you can't police families and families in their home. And this is what, I see this is happening. I mean, the, the, the, the, the, the, um, we have, uh, the show being particular about, and I've heard it from inspect, from teachers, one tour school, uh, Anna, and they've said the same thing to me. They're, they're, they're, they're shocked, with the contents. And you open a maths book, page 11, and a maths book, and you have, this is sexual material in there, uh, about, uh, sexuality. In a maths program, for, for, for, uh, for a, for a, for a national school children. Something gone really wrong. And this push, push, push, push, push, push, push, it's just, um, gone away too far. As I said, already, there, there's ten areas of legislation I could bring to you, that are needed, uh, in, in, in your department, to be dealt with, and to be, and to be, and to be, and to be, and have manpower followed up, and have reviewed, as to their impact analysis. But, this one is, seems to be the preferred option to get it through. As I said, uh, a similar condition will apply, a similar consideration will apply to, to the bill under the terms of hatred. The bill before, um, states that hatred means hatred against a person, or group, or persons, uh, in the state of, in the state, or elsewhere, on account of their protected, uh, characteristics, or any one of those characteristics. Again, is, is this meant as a definition? It fails miserably, if it is. It fails miserably. It doesn't meet any, any bear. But if this is not the only, if this, if this, if this is the only, it's not the only definition of hatred, uh, it didn't tell you, Minister, please inform the Dáil, and us here, as to where, um, is clear a definition of the hatred is to be found in, on Bill O'Shaw. I can't find it, we can't find it, my researcher can't find it, and it's not clear. So, the bill, there's large areas of the bill that's not clear, and words are put in there, and intentions, but just, kind of just left in, and wished to walk away, and give cat blanche to certain people to decide certain things. Um, section 10 of the bill deals with the area of creating new offences for preparing or, or, or processing a material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons. What, what, I mean, what, what kind of, what, who, who's thinking isn't this? It's totally subjective again, as to what do people think. I'll read it again. As I said, it deals with the area of creating new offences for preparing, or, or processing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons. I mean, where's this going to stop? It's subjective, and no clear definitions. An offence under section 10 shall be, um, committed where, a, a person prepares or possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against persons. Or a person, or a group of persons, on account of their protected characteristics, or any of the three, or any of those characteristics with a view to material being communicated to the public, or a section of the public, um, whether by himself or herself, or another person. So, Minister, it's, um, a lot of issues, this bill, that are totally unclear, totally unclear, and a lot of, a lot of issues. And, meanwhile, and I, every person in this state deserves a protection of the law, and all our newcomers, and all our, um, our new guests that come here, and we try and do the best for them we can, should be protected. The ones that come legally, not the, not the numbers I got from my PQ to yourself as well, recently of the people that come in with no paperwork from many countries. We have to have a different way of dealing with it, with that situation. They have a paperwork on the point of, of, uh, getting on planes, and no paperwork, no paperwork. They arrived in Dublin. So, our people, above all, then, deserve protection in their homes, and in the streets, and in our businesses. And, you and your government are failing miserably to provide that. Failing miserably. And, quote numbers to me, and you made the deputation with that man, and they laid it out bare for you. And they also, I think, told you, of their fears that someone will be seriously harmed, or worse. And that is a, that is a, this was a situation in 2022. And, you've been in government for so long, and you admit to protect the people, but you're not protecting the people. Not protecting the people. And neither is the commissioner of a garage in corner. I guess I've had this issue with him. But, there is, so, and I don't want to, um, I salute the members of a garage in the garage, but I don't want to explicitly say how, how scarce and how perilous the situation is, because I don't know any given information to people that want, might use it for something else. You know about this. And you're camouflaging it. And this is a total camouflage, and just a total diversion. Instead of doing the duties that you, you as a public representative for, your constituency, and a more important minister appointed by this house, and by the, sorry, by the teacher, claimed by this house, to do to protect the people in a very important department. Instead of churning out legislation like this. And I'm opposed to it. And I will be voting, going to vote against it as well. And go back and deal with legislation. To look after our people that served us well and serve us well. And not having frightened and cowering frightened in their home. My colleague Deputy Cahill Ate told us of a woman in her house in, sorry, Turles, sleeping in the barn, because she'd been so violently assaulted and robbed. I'm afraid they'd come back again. I mean, do we want that in a modern society? I mean, why we turn out all this legislation here that looks good and sounds good. It's not even properly framed or proper definition put to it. So I'm fundamentally opposed to it. Go to mark us. Thank you. Let's go. Thank you.