I have already made the case for the acceptance of this amendment by the Minister. Section 6 (1) refers to "a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned". My amendment proposes that this very vague provision should be substituted by the words "the commission of a criminal offence". The Minister's amendment No. 23 proposes to delete the word "whereby" in section 6 (1) and to insert the words "being reckless as to whether". I question the use of this language in a section which proposes to make the use of insulting words or behaviour, even in terms of the distribution of leaflets or posters, a criminal offence. Yesterday we voted on an amendment which proposed to replace the word "insulting" with the word "intimidating".
I do not see any reason for the inclusion of vague terms such as "or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned" in this section. If one carries a poster with an insulting slogan with intent to breach the peace I suppose some penalty should be applied. However, if a breach of the peace is occasioned by carrying a poster with an insulting slogan then we are getting very close to the situation where the right to free speech is criminalised. I object very strongly to the language used in this section. I have made the case for these reasonable amendments and I heard the Minister's reply.
In view of the fact that my amendments which proposed to substitute "intimidating" for "insulting" were not accepted by the Minister — I was very surprised that she did not accept them — I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment which proposes to delete the section. I am sorry that the co-operation extended by the Opposition to the Minister, and which has been made by her in many ways, is not being extended by her to these sections. We are digging our heels in, so to speak, on this provision which is not desirable, cannot be defended and will not deal in any way with the crime problem as we know it. I do not knw why this provision is included in the Bill if there is no demand for it. During all my years as a public representative I never once heard calls for the carrying of insulting posters or the issuing of insulting leaflets to be made a criminal offence. If they were intimidating or threatening, that is another matter but this is not a priority and since the Minister has not found it possible to accept my earlier amendment and has indicated she cannot accept these, Deputy Gilmore's amendment to delete the section should be supported by the House.
We have made much progress on this Bill and I am saddened that in these sections, which give rise to concern by the law abiding majority, the House has been unable to agree on these amendments. I do not understand why the Minister wants to equip the Garda and the Judiciary with this power when there is no demand for it. It is not needed, it will not in any way reduce the level of crime and yet we are inserting it here. It is being included for the optics and it is regrettable that it will be used in these very vague ways against law abiding people, particularly law abiding youths living in areas where people might not be as knowledgable about their rights.
I am sorry these amendments are not being accepted and I hope this is not an indication that as we proceed to other sections of the Bill there will be a hardening of attitudes because there are a number of items in the Bill which are of grave concern. These sections, as they are being passed here, give rise to grave concern for civil liberties and will put no obstacle in the way of the criminal fraternity. It is unnecessary to include them in the Bill and they are an intrusion on the rights of people who are not breaking the law. People have the right to speak their mind. We have seen this morning how people are being controlled in this House; now we are attempting to control people outside this House. Fortunately, outside this House we have the courts to defend people because I seriously suspect that these sections are unconstitutional and will be set aside at the first challenge.