Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1988

Vol. 121 No. 9

Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Bill, 1988: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 12, to delete "whether or not in conjunction with" and substitute "or by".

We are dealing with the interpretations in section 1. A quick look back over old legislation will indicate that very often we are overtaken by technological development. One of the great difficulties for any legislator, no matter how wise, anticipatory or forward-thinking he is, is to devise a form of words which will cater for and deal with technological development in the future. According to the interpretation section "broadcast" means the transmission, relaying or distribution by wireless telegraphy, whether or not in conjunction with any other means of communications. It covers a wide range.

I have taken some advice from experts in the area and I have asked them where cable television would stand. I have been advised by the leading technological people that cable television is not covered by that interpretation. In other words, the interpretation of "broadcast" does not cover cable television. I am not sure about fibre optics, which I believe are also being used to develop various types of communication systems. I understand it does not cover closed circuit television, which is not really television at all but movement by cable. Therefore there are certainly two types of broadcast which would not be covered by the interpretation. I am proposing to the Minister that this part of section 1 (1) should state "relaying or distribution by wireless telegraphy or any other means" rather than "whether or not in conjunction with any other means". That would cover all the areas that I refer to.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Collins)

I thank Senator O'Toole for raising this point. I recognise the reasons for it because we too had the same difficulty in dealing with this matter when drafting the Bill.

The definition of the word "broadcast" in section 1 is to be read with section 3 of the Bill. I would draw the attention of Senators to the very wide ambit of section 2 of the Bill, covering as it does the publishing or distribution of written material, the use of words or displays in public places and the distribution, showing or playing of visual images or sounds. The intention was that this very general section would cover types of activity which might result in incitement to racial hatred. However, in view of its importance as a medium of communication, it was decided that we should have one specific section in the Bill, section 3, dealing with broadcasting as it is commonly understood, that is to say, broadcasting by radio or television or by associated techniques. The phrase "whether or not in conjunction with any other means" was included in the definition of "broadcast" to cover cases where material is transmitted by radio or by television and is relayed by wire or by some other means which would not be covered by the term "wireless telegraphy". The effect of the amendment in the name of Senator O'Toole would be, I am afraid, to broaden the term "broadcast" to such an extent that its meaning might very well be uncertain.

Section 3 of the Bill is drafted to deal with broadcasting as the term is commonly understood. For example, there is reference in subsection (2) to persons producing or directing broadcast items. The effect of the amendment before us now would be to introduce a large degree of uncertainly as to the meaning of parts of section 3, an uncertainty which is unacceptable in a penal provision in relation to which the greatest possible degree of precision is required by the courts.

Another effect of this amendment would be to create an overlap between section 2 and section 3. For example, the amendment would make it an offence under section 3 to distribute sounds or visual images by any means, for example, by recordings. This, however, is already covered by section 2.

I would again point out that section 2 of the Bill already covers in a very general way the distribution, the showing or playing of material, whether written material or recordings, and it is therefore unnecessary to enlarge the scope of section 3 by extending the meaning of the term "broadcast" as proposed.

I would like to assure Senator O'Toole that the points which he made were points on which we had specific discussion with the draftsman to satisfy ourselves that we were covering exactly what Senator O'Toole wants us to cover and the draftsman has given that assurance. These same points did occupy our minds and cause us concern. With developments moving at such a pace in this area of technology, we must have a catch-all phrase to cover developments in the future.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I listened very closely to what the Minister had to say. I understand and accept the points he is making on section 2 and section 3. It is difficult to make my major point without getting into semantics. My Greek is not what it might be but since ‘tele' means distance, telegraphy would mean to throw or write something at a distance. The same definition would apply to "broadcast". We can do it in two ways: we can do it wireless or by wire. Wireless is very carefully covered and anything that goes through wireless is covered. Substitute the word "cable" for wire and you get cable television, which would be quite the opposite to wireless television. Cable broadcasting would be quite the opposite to wireless broadcasting.

I agree with what the Minister says about section 2 and section 3 in terms of the people who would be covered. He has attempted to deal with the material in section 2 and with the people responsible in section 3. Section 1 actually determines the media. The Minister said that in section 3 he deals with the term "broadcast" as we understand it. I have no doubt that is quite true. My initial point was that "broadcast" as we understand it might not be "broadcast" as it will be understood in five or ten years' time. Certainly the whole area of cable television is developing apace. There is a plan afoot to bring 70 per cent of the households in the UK into the cable television area.

Certain types of cable television which are used to broadcast something that had been shown on television earlier might be covered by this Bill but it does not cover the area where something is sent purely by cable television. I will give one example. The Minister could say that cable television uses very regularly stuff which is used in normal television stations and that it is simply an additional part of it. I would accept immediately, where it is just additional, that it is covered. There is a growing development of which we see a start in Aertel on RTE but which is also occurring in the cable systems where people sell advertising. It just goes from the wire in the studio right through the wire all the way to the home. If that is used to broadcast advertisements, for instance, which would come under the terms of this Bill, you could not apply section 2 and section 3. Whereas the content might be as described in section 2, whereas the people responsible might be as described in section 3, the actual medium used the cable television, would not be covered under section 1. The case could not be sustained. I am not nit-picking about this. I am making a substantial point about the way this can develop.

Mr. Collins

I fully appreciate that Senator O'Toole is not nit-picking. We raised that point specifically with the draftsman because we wanted to cater for it. A signal is emitted by radio and then it is relayed or picked up by other means, whether it be wire or relaying. That is all covered by the phrase" in conjunction with any other means." It has to start by being emitted from a radio. Then it is picked up by means of wires, fibre-optics or whatever. We want to stop any broadcast that is in conflict with the Bill. We are satisfied beyond all doubt that the wording as it is here is sufficient and ample to cater for the concern expressed by Senator O'Toole, but bearing in mind what the Senator has said, I would be prepared to have another look at it. I will bring his viewpoint to the attention of the parliamentary draftsman who is more technically qualified than I am — I am modest enough to say that — to see if there is need to tighten it. I am prepared to make sure that we all achieve what we want to achieve in this regard.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I understand the Minister's point. I accept the example he gave of something being emitted from a radio and being either relayed or repeated through a repeater unit on top of a mast or a relay unit. It could be done completely by cable. We are looking at a television monitor in the Chamber and I could go and shove my Order Paper, an advertisement or anything on that desk over there. It is not wireless; it is wire and cable all the way. The other things the Minister talked about are certainly wireless, whether they are deflected, rebroadcast, relayed or repeated. In any of those circumstances I accept the point. If the Minister, having taken it back to the technological people, finds that it is not covered, will he make a change in the legislation?

Mr. Collins

I certainly will.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. B. Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, between lines 18 and 19, to insert:

"‘ethnic origins' means origins which have resulted in a group having common social, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics".

This is an attempt on the one hand to clarify the Bill and on the other hand to establish clearly the breadth of its application. Under section 2 — perhaps I may be permitted to refer to section 2 since the definition refers to a phrase in it — hatred is defined as "hatred against a group of persons in the State on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion or ethnic or national origins". It appears to me that race, colour, nationality, religion and national origins are fairly well established terms whereas "ethnic" is a relatively new term to come into common usage. It is not a term that is used with any great frequency.

I had a look at a few dictionaries and it is barely mentioned in the 1902 Webster's dictionary in the Library. The way in which it is, I think, intended here is referred to in a supplement to a more modern dictionary as a very modern form of phraseology. Consequently it is our job to make sure that a new word like that is defined in legislation in a way which makes it clear. If you look through a dictionary there are a number of alternative meanings, some referring simply to minorities in certain circumstances, other referring to the entire racial characteristics. My amendment does not claim to be a dictionary definition but is simply an attempt to identify a meaning which is consistent with the objectives of the Bill. I propose that in section 1 among the interpretations be added the phrase that ethnic origins means "origins which have resulted in agroup having common, social, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics". That covers the general area of minority groups by and large which have a sense of being in common.

Perhaps the best way to define minority groups or groups with a sense of a common ethnic origin is by listening to them. In our society the most clearly identified group who have a sense of common ethnic origin would be the members of the travelling community. They would see themselves as having a common social origin, characteristics, having common cultural characteristics and, indeed, common linguistic characteristics. I believe that that is what the word "ethnic" intends to mean but it would not be confined exclusively to the travelling people. It would involve, for instance, Muintir na Gaeltachta, who have a sense of having common linguistic origins, for instance. In order to ensure that this word does not flounder around in a kind of miasma of misunderstanding it ought to be defined. If the Minister is interested in suggesting an alternative definition in the interpretation section, I would be very prepared to listen to it. It is important, when a word like this which is relatively new in the usage of the English language is inserted in legislation, that we give some guidance. I am endeavouring to put in a definition which encompasses a kind of an elaboration on the objectives of the Bill because it simply defines the groups we are concerned about.

This Bill is a most worthwhile attempt to deal with a problem that has been allowed to go on for far too long. The Minister is to be complimented on bringing in the legislation but if we are going to do it we ought to make sure that the intent of the Bill is clearly stated and phrases that are of uncertain or relatively new usage or of a variety of usages ought to be defined in a way which makes their meaning clear. As I have said, all the other phrases — national, racial, cultural, religious and linguistic — are easily defined but the question of ethnic origin needs further elaboration.

Mr. Norris

I should like to add my voice very briefly to what Senator Ryan has said and to indicate that similar legislation was brought before the Tweede Karmer, the Dutch Parliament, in 1983 in which the intention was parallel to this, as I understand it, in certain ways in that part of the motivation was to bring the domestic legislation of the country into line with certain international protocols and treaties. The Netherlands Government included, for precisely the reasons that Senator Ryan has adduced, the phrase "or other status" because the Netherlands Government realised at that stage that there was a difficulty of defining precisely the categories and groups of people and we could easily get ourselves into a difficult situation if it was felt necessary to specify every single group by name and by itemisation whom we felt might be threatened. I simply would like to recommend to the Minister's attention the fact the the Dutch Government in their Constitution now include this phrase "or other status" which I am sure may bring grief to the mind of a lawyer because of course it is broad and lawyers like to tie things down as clearly as possible. It seems to me that this is an argument from an international context in support of Senator Ryan's amendment.

Mr. Collins

I want to thank Senator Ryan for the way in which he proposed his amendment and, indeed, Senator Norris for the assistance he gave him. In prohibiting incitement to racial hatred this Bill seeks to implement a provision in Article 20 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the term "ethnic origins" does not occure in that Article — I am sure the Senator is as well aware of that as I am. In the Bill, the term "ethnic origins" is included in the definition of hatred because the Bill is intended to cover also the corresponding provision of Article 4 of the UN Convention Against Racial Discrimination. So, it is included there because, as I have said, the Convention Against Racial Discrimination uses the term "ethnic origins" but does not define it. The implementing legislation in ratifying states does not appear to have defined the term, and we had quite a search to establish this fact. For example, it is not in the statutory provisions of Northern Ireland, UK, France, the Netherlands, or, indeed, West Germany. It has been left in all these countries, as we propose to do, to the courts of the ratifying states to define the precise meaning of this term in case law.

In England, the House of Lords, in the 1983 case of Mandla versus Lee said that the term “ethnic” in section 3 of the Race Relations Act, 1976, was to be construed relatively widely in a broad cultural and historic sense. The judgment said that for a group to constitute an ethnic group for the purposes of that Act two characteristics were essential: first, the group had to have a long shared history and second, it had to have a cultural tradition of its own. The judgment went on to say that other characteristics could be relevant in deciding whether a group could be regarded as an ethnic group and these other characteristics included (a) a common geographical origin, (b) a common language, (c) a common literature, (d) a common religion and (e) the characteristic of being a minority in a larger community. It should be clear from this that in deciding in a particular case whether a group is an ethnic group or has common ethnic origins for the purposes of legislation of this kind, many factors have to be taken into account. Because of this it would not be appropriate to attempt to tie the hands of the court by adopting a rigid statutory definition of the term.

Senator Ryan has suggested that we should define "ethnic origins" as meaning origins which have resulted in a group having certain common characteristics and it could well be argued that in most cases such common characteristics would result not merely from the origins of the group but from all the influences which were brought to bear on the group from the time when it could be said they had a common origin. Accordingly, the proposed definition could possibly serve to restrict the meaning of the term "ethnic origins" and might well have the result of excluding from the scope of the Bill some groups which would otherwise be covered. That is a fear that we have, if we accept Senator Ryan's amendment.

In my opinion, it would be best to leave it to the courts to work out the case law the precise ambit of the term "ethnic origins." If, as has happened in Britain, the term is construed widely by the courts in a broad cultural and historic sense, then we can be confident of a liberal interpretation of this term. We can also be confident that it will be interpreted with precision by the courts in the light of developing knowledge of the history and the background of any groups in our society who could be said to be ethnically separate from the majority community.

Mr. B. Ryan

The Minister has made a reasonable case — although I will not say he has persuaded me — that there needs to be room for intrepretation. I would not have thought that a wording which says "origins which have resulted in a group having common social, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics" is so rigid. It does not mean that they all have to have all the same type of characteristics. It does not mean that all of these characteristics must apply to all of them. It must mean there is a feeling of having a certain common heritage and this will show up, as I said, in their social practice, in the sense of their own culture, and it is only a community itself that can define its own culture. It can never be defined by outsiders looking in. It can only be defined by the people themselves looking out at how they see themselves.

It is obviously simple to determine religious or linguistic characteristics. The difficulty I have with the Minister's position is that in order for this to be teased out in the courts, people will have to be prosecuted and I would wonder how either a garda who is attempting to put together a case or the DPP could make a decision. Section 8 makes it clear that, proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 2,3 or 4 may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That means that it would be a matter for the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether the word "ethnic" will ever be tested in the courts. Since the other words race, colour, nationality, religion or national origins are so much easier to define, I would argue that there is a plausible case that the Director of Public Prosecutions will rely on the reference to ethnic origins, which does as the Minister says, reach out to the possibility of minority groups in our society being covered, but instead will use the straightforward phrases "race" and "colour", for instance, or "nationality" and "religion", which are easy. A person's nationality is defined by himself by the passport he is entitled to. The phrase "ethnic origins" is the one which holds out the possibility of this Bill having a very broad scope, and to refuse to offer guidance and interpretation to those whose duty in the first place it is to enforce the law will result or could result, to paraphrase the Minister, in those whose duty it is to enforce the law being either unable or unwilling to enforce the law in so far as it applies to incitement to hatred, hatred against persons on account of their ethnic origins.

We owe a duty to those whose job it would be to enforce this law to give them some guidelines and I would put it again that my amendment does no more than offer broad guidelines, but ultimately the extent of those common cultural characteristics, whether it would have to be 10 per cent or 70 per cent would be a matter for the courts. I am not saying that every characteristic they have must be the same. No ethnic group has everything in common. They do not have an identifiable language which all of them speak. There are black people, for instance, who do not speak a common language. There are Irish people who speak Irish and are not Roman Catholics but are clearly Irish in terms of any definition of ethnic origins.

Mr. Norris

Is ceart é sin.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am not suggesting that these must be overwhelmingly present. It is a matter for the courts to interpret the extent to which these characteristics are present but those who have to enforce this law are entitled to some direction at least in the way in which it develops. I am still not happy that the Minister is right that we could leave it to the courts. It might never get to the courts.

Mr. Collins

In reply to Senator Ryan, I want to say that the courts decide the meaning of the term "ethnic origins", and the amendment that Senator Ryan has put down says that "ethnic origins' means origins which have resulted in a group having ..." so on and so on. It is not the origins that determine their characteristics but all that has happened in between and therefore the new definition that Senator Ryan is asking us to put into the Bill would restrict the meaning and this would not suit anybody. None of us would want that.

We have, as I say, most comprehensive case law guidelines which have been worked out by the House of Lords and our courts would certainly have regard to what is there. Of course, they are far too extensive to incorporate in our statute but I am quite sure that our courts would have regard to these guidelines, which are considered quite liberal, as I have already said. I feel that the point that we both want to achieve will be achieved in the way that I suggest. I can say to Senator Ryan, because there is no difference between us other than the method, that I will have consultations with the parliamentary draftsman, bearing in mind what Senator Ryan has suggested and the argument he made in support of his amendment. I will bring those arguments to the attention of the parliamentary draftsman to make sure that what we both want to achieve is achieved at the end of the day. I believe I am doing it, and I am quite sure Senator Ryan has the same conviction about his amendment, and his reasons indicate that he believes he has, but I will put it beyond any doubt between now and the time I go to the other House with this legislation.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am not sure that the Minister and I are as much at one — as we are on the principle of this Bill — on this issue. I am concerned to ensure that this Bill is not in some sort of artificial way prevented from being used to defend groups that exist within our own society, exclusively Irish minorities who are not identified by virtue of their religion, or by the colour of their skin or the passport they hold. I am thinking, in particular, about members of the travelling community and it is a sign of how far the travelling community have to go, that we still have to argue the case they hold so dearly that they are an ethnic minority or a cultural minority.

An Cathaoirleach

We are on amendment No. 2. Is the Senator moving on to the group of amendments from No. 4?

Mr. B. Ryan

No, I am not. I wish to achieve the same objectives as the other amendments, but have chosen a different way of doing it. Everything the Minister has said I cannot disagree with, but the word "ethnic" is an uncertain word. It is a relatively new phrase and what I would be worried about would be the willingness to prosecute on the basis of incitement or hatred on the grounds of people's ethnic origins for groups that would not be clearly seen as being of a particular race, colour, nationality, religion or national origin — groups like the travellers who do not belong to a separate race, or have a separate colour, nationality or religion. The only way in which one could argue that the rights of travelling people not to have people incited against them would be under the phrase "ethnic".

I assume that the word "ethnic" is meant to cover the sort of groups the Minister discussed in his reply to my amendment. He has elaborated helpfully on the large body of case law that now exists on the matter. If it does apply and if the intent of the Bill should apply to those groups he identified in his reply, we need to help those whose duty it is to enforce the law to make sure that they understand to whom it applies. That is why it is important that this amendment should go in. It is not in order to make sure that the courts will interpret it, but to make sure that our intent — if the Minister and I are at one on this — is clear; in other words, that we are talking about groups to whom the other definitions do not apply, such as the travellers. I would like to make sure that that is what the Minister and I are at one about. Does the Minister think that in the view of the parliamentary draftsman that the term "ethnic origins" would cover a group like the travelling community?

Mr. Collins

I am satisfied that the Bill covers all ethnic minorities. If the travelling community are an ethnic group — this would be a matter for the courts to decide — then they will be covered as well. In regard to any protection that would be needed for these minorities, the Senator knows that the Director of Public Prosecutions will decide on prosecution here. Having regard to the definitions arrived at in other countries with regard to the interpretation of the law including the United Kingdom where a liberal interpretation has been established, I feel quite satisfied that the protection for the travelling people which Senator Ryan is seeking is there in the Bill.

Mr. B. Ryan

In the light of the fact that some of the issues I have raised will be discussed later on, at this stage I withdraw the amendment and may introduce it again on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Fennell

I am a little bit concerned about the definition of the word "hatred". I know it does not come in under the definitions in the first section, but perhaps the Minister could give me some idea as to whether any consideration has been given to the word in other legislation elsewhere. I can think of very strong feelings that groups may have against a group or individual that may not be hatred, which is a very strong emotive term meaning very strong reactions. Could it be shown that some action would represent dislike, resentment or opposition or something that would be on the lighter side of hatred, and perhaps the Minister would comment on this.

Mrs. Bulbulia

At the outset I would like to say how disappointed I was that I did not have an opportunity to contribute on Second Stage. I have a fairly intimate knowledge of the subject in question and I would like to have made a contribution on Second Stage. Nevertheless, I would like to ask about one or two points. There are further amendments that deal with the travelling people, but arising out of the reference to ethnic grouping, I find it very strange that Irish legislation, albeit on foot of our necessity to ratify a covenant, omits specifically by name reference to what we all know to be our own minority group. It is a great pity that specifically and by name the travelling people are not mentioned.

I welcome the legislation but I regard it as a fairly minimal exercise. We have waited 12 years for it but it seems to me to be something of a cop-out.

An Cathaoirleach

There are amendments that deal with that later one.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I would like to make reference to what Senator Fennell has raised — the absence of a specific definition of hatred — because racism can take all forms, many of them extremely subtle and very hurtful and hostile, but not necessarily covered by this legislation. I would also like the Minister to elaborate on the reference to a public meeting and a public place. In my experience it has happened that a religious minority has wished to rent a parish hall which has been paid for out of public subscription and parish collection in an area, but because the religious minority who requested the hall were not of the parish——

An Cathaoirleach

Are you making a Second Stage speech?

Mrs. Bulbulia

No. I am asking a question about a public meeting and a public place and I am giving a specific example to the Minister in the hope that he can concretely and specifically answer the point I raise. If a situation arises where a member of a minority grouping who wishes to rent or use a facility which is paid for out of parish funds, for instance a parish hall, and the use is denied to them because they do not share the religion of the parish which has built and subscribed to the hall, does that kind of refusal or negative action on the part of the parish community come under the ambit of this Bill in relation to the references to public meetings and public places?

Mr. Collins

First, I appreciate what Senator Bulbulia has said. In the debate on section 2 I will be able to cover in detail the points raised by Senator Bulbulia. With regard to the contribution made by Senator Nuala Fennell, where she has suggested in the course of her Second Stage speech and today that the word "hatred" be defined, I would suggest that line 35 in section 2 of the Bill defines it:

"hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion or ethnic or national origins;"

I would point out that hatred is a subjective emotion and can be dealt with in a legal instrument only in so far as it manifests itself in concrete form such as abusive words or behaviour. No national legislation implementing the covenant attempts to define hatred nor does the covenant itself do so. It must be left to the courts to decide if hatred is likely to be stirred up within the meaning of the Bill in individual cases. I propose to proceed in that way.

Mr. J. O'Toole

The points that were raised by Senator Bulbulia on public places and public meetings will be dealt with in section 2. What I was attempting to achieve in my amendment some time back concerning the interpretation of "broadcast" could be achieved by the deletion of the word "wireless" from the phrase "wireless telegraphy".

In the meantime I looked at the dictionary explanation of the word "telegraphy". It means transmitting messages to a distance. Therefore, by taking out the word "wireless""telegraphy" covers all kinds of communications. It would encompass exactly both the point I made and the point the Minister made. The complicated amendment that I had put down would not have been necessary had I adverted to that earlier.

Mr. Collins

I will take the point raised by Senator O'Toole in conjunction with his earlier arguments in making the case for his amendment. It is something that we can look at.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following paragraph:

"(d) (i)it shall also be an offence for a person to organise or be a member of any organisation, association or group which it is proven had as an objective to incite racial hatred; or

(ii) at a meeting of any party covered by subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, to use words or behave or to display written material which threatens, abuses or insults with the intention of stirring up hatred or which in all likelihood, having regard to all the circumstances will stir up hatred."

This refers back to the point that Senator Bulbulia has just made. I am not pretending for a minute that this is a very elegant way of dealing with the problem. I had in mind a number of issues here; one was to do with a sort of secret society. I was confused about the terms "public meeting,""public place", "public access" and so on. Let us take a secret society such as a fascist society or a neo-Nazi society where their whole raison d'être is to instil hatred of a race or group of people. If they meet behind closed doors, which they inevitably do, it is behind closed doors that they get their people together and get them psyched up to go out and manifest their hatred in a physical or recognisable way. What the Minister has been trying to do through the Bill, quite correctly, is to get at the instigators and the initiators of this, but if we have a situation where the meeting is being held behind closed doors in a secret society atmosphere and where speakers are invited to address these large groups of people to incite hatred, let them be a military society or otherwise, whether it be to try to get people to go out and kill other people or to injure people or to burn their property it seems that as the Bill is written at the moment, although it would not be fair to say it is silent on the matter, it does not seem to address that point. Let us take an example of a society which has an objective to clear the country of Jews, or black people, or to shoot every Unionist in the country——

An Cathaoirleach

Or Independent Senators.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Or Independent Senators. They make this operate by calling large meetings, not in public places but behind closed doors, in their committee rooms or club rooms.

Mr. Collins

By invitation.

Mr. J. O'Toole

By invitation. Where the State was worried about this and through its own detective agencies or by police investigation had somebody to investigate this and had somebody invited into that meeting who listened to a speech which was calculated to incite hatred, to lead people to violence against some of the groups that we have mentioned here, how can that be dealt with in the Bill? I have read through the Bill but I believe that this is not dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. Collins

In relation to Senator O'Toole's amendment, I would point out that Article 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination requires that states which are party to the convention: "Shall declare illegal and prohibit organisations and also organised and all other propaganda activities which promote and incite racial discrimination and shall recognise participation in such organisations or activities as an offence punishable by law".

The interdepartmental committee which was chaired from the Attorney General's Office and which has already reported on the legislation necessary to enable ratification of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights is now looking at the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination. While I do not anticipate or wish to anticipate the committee's report on the convention it has been noted that many countries including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden have maintained that their existing legislation regarding illegal organisations is sufficient for the purpose of this provision in the convention and have not introduced any specific statutory provisions in relation to it. Activities of an organisation, such as are referred to in the amendment, would almost certainly constitute offences under sections 2, 3 or 4 of the Bill. I would point out that section 18 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, declares that any organisation which engages in, promotes, encourages or advocates the commission of any criminal offence shall be an unlawful organisation within the meaning and for the purpose of that particular Act. Although this has been considered more fully in the context of the racial discrimination convention, it appears that separate statutory provision will not be necessary in this Bill to combat organisations of the kind referred to. Accordingly, I feel that the amendment is not necessary.

Mr. J. O'Toole

That does not meet my point. The reference to the Offences Against the State Act is very clear and refers to organisations. That seems to be quite clear. Perhaps the Minister could deal with my point by referring to the place in sections 2, 3 and 4 under which a person could be prosecuted in the example I gave where somebody addressed a meeting to incite people to hatred? Under which part of the Bill could we move against him, knowing that it was in a private group, that the people were there by invitation, there was no public access or public record, but we were able to prove beyond yea or nay that this in fact took place? I do not see how we can move against him. It is clear that: "to publish or distribute written material" is one offence. The other offence is "to use words, behave or display written material et cetera” but that is in a public place or a public meeting. In other words, section 2(1) (b) is strictly referring to a public place or a public meeting, and paragraph (c) “to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds”. Why is it simply restricted to a public meeting? Further down in the section a public meeting is described as a meeting at which the public are entitled to be present. Why is it restricted to that? This means that if we restrict it to invitation only we can make everybody a member of a club, make the whole country a member of a club or a whole community a member of a club and invite them all along to a meeting? We could then do everything that is outlawed under this Bill in a public meeting. The public meeting would just be changed to a private meeting but the same people would be there. How do we get around this? I believe we are creating a technicality.

Mr. Collins

I see the situation that the Senator is bringing to our attention and it is a difficult one. First, if there are a group of people meeting totally in private — a family group — we cannot legislate for that and I do not think any of us would want to. Big brother would be everywhere and he is big enough as it is, virtually too big. But, if there are organisations devoted to incitement of racial hatred or if it is the objective of any organisation to be involved in such activities that would be an illegal organisation and would be open to be dealt with under the Offences Against the State Act. If an organisation were involved in any racial hatred incitement there is sufficient provision in the law to deal with it. Is Senator O'Toole happy with that?

Mr. J. O'Toole

I understand what the Minister is saying. He is saying that under section 18 of the Offences Against the State Act it should be an offence to incite anybody to break the law and that here today we are producing a new law, namely, incitement to hatred, and that by putting both pieces of legislation together, if an organisation incites people to hate another group, they will come under the ambit of section 18 of the Offences Against the State Act and that, therefore, they would be an illegal organisation. Maybe the organisation can be dealt with but in what sense can it be dealt with? The Minister states here how we can deal with the actual offence of incitement to hatred but if we were to proceed then under the Offences Against the State Act, the offence would be of membership of an illegal organisation and would not be an offence of incitement to hatred because it would not be covered by the Bill.

The Bill can be used so that new organisations can be taken in under section 18 of the Offences Against the State Act. I accept that but it does not allow one — as the Minister pointed out — to proceed against people on the charge of incitement to hatred. That is the point we are discussing here.

Mr. Collins

I accept the main thrust of the Senator's point but, as I have already said, we have examined the progress made with regard to ratifying this covenant in a number of countries, for example, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Australia and Canada and they all maintain that their existing legislation regarding illegal organisations is sufficient for the purposes of the provisions of the convention. They have not introduced any specific statutory provision in relation to it. Activities of an organisation such as are referred to in the amendment would almost certainly constitute offences under section 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill. I am satisfied that section 18 of the Offences Against the State Act which declares that any organisation which engages in, promotes, encourages or advocates the commission of any criminal offence shall be an unlawful organisation within the meaning of the Act, is sufficient to deal with any situation that might arise.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I accept the Minister's argument and the line of logic he has just given us. In that situation you can only move against a person under the Offence Against the State Act. The only charge you can bring about is membership of an illegal organisation or associated charges. You cannot charge people under section 2 and 3. You can use that by saying that such a person was at a meeting inciting people to hate other people and to show their hatred for others and that is in breach of the law and therefore the organisation is illegal. That could be said but I am absolutely certain, unless somebody proves otherwise, that you could not proceed with the charge of incitement to hatred. In the circumstances outlined you could not proceed with this charge; you could only proceed with the charge of membership of an illegal organisation.

Mr. Collins

I accept the Senator's point. We are both right. I know I am right in saying that we could proceed in a situation, such as he described, under the Offences Against the State Act but I am sure that we could not proceed and charge along the lines that Senator O'Toole is suggesting. We had to have concern for Article 40 of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of association. This is something that I would be prepared to discuss with the Attorney General to see if there are any constitutional difficulties. I accept the Senator's point, which is a good one. It is because of the doubts which we have to have in bearing in mind an infringement of the constitutional rights of the individual that we proceeded as we did. If the Senator would be kind enough to let me consult with the Attorney General on it and if the Attorney General clears the way for me I will, even before I report to the Dáil on it, see if I can do something to try to make it more definite, as the Senator and everybody else would like it to be.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I cannot ask for more than that. That is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed. I will do that. I thank the Minister for his commitment to examine it and, if necessary, change it. I can ask for no more than that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are alternatives and amendments Nos. 7 to 12 are consequential on these respectively; all may be discussed together.

Mr. Norris

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, subsection (3), line 36, after "origins" to add "or their status as members of the travelling community or sexual orientation".

I am glad that the Minister is in a mood to take on board the very serious reservations that some of us have about this Bill although, of course, the intention behind it is an honourable and welcome one. I regret that I did not have the opportunity to expatiate a little more on that but I will limit myself, of course, within the scope of this evening's debate.

I am concerned because the House will be aware that there is a phrase used sometimes in American politics that a particular party, interest or politician has been "economical with the truth". I would not charge the Minister with that. I would, however, worry that if the legislation passes in its present form it lays the Parliament open to an accusation that we are parsimonious with democracy and a little niggardly with justice. I am particularly concerned because of the Title of the Bill. It is a Bill for the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred and it excludes certain areas. In view of the history of this legislation and of the debate that was held on the video situation in which an attempt was made in very much the same way to introduce a similar clause — a sexually orientated clause for example — into a section of the Bill that dealt with incitement to hatred, I supplied information about the widespread acceptance in the domestic law of a growing number of countries. In view of that, that section was entirely withdrawn and we then were very pleased to have this legislation in front of us. In view of the fact that this legislation now appears without any such clause, it seems to me that we are in danger of having a situation in which half a loaf is a great deal worse than no bread. I have no doubt whatever that certain dangerous interests inside this country will take this Bill as an open incitement to hatred. I speak with some feeling because I receive regularly, through the post, documentation which will not be covered by this legislation unless the Minister is prepared to consider the amendments I have put down in the same careful, balanced and judicious way as he has considered the amendments put down by other Senators during the afternoon.

I have not had the opportunity to acquaint the Minister directly with all of this information but I would like to read for the information of the House and the Minister, a piece of literature recently received by me. It is headed "National Socialist Party: Smash AIDS Blitzkrieg":

In Ireland, AIDS is being spread amongst all normal people by the Gay AIDS spreaders and the Junkies. The Government is afraid to tell you the truth. Thousands in Ireland are infected — hundreds of AIDS deaths have been covered up and the number dying will double every six months.

Thanks to Queers, Junkies and Negroes visiting here, all of you are now at risk from the AIDS Black Death, right down to the pregnant women ... and a baby can be born with AIDS!!! Horrific. AIDS is as deadly as nuclear radiation. Help us in the National Socialist Party to break the conspiracy of silence among the knee-jerk liberals in Government. Join us. Act Now. Only we will tell you the truth. Only we will save you and your family from this Scourge of God.

Our "Smash AIDS Blitzkrieg" proposes: 1. Enforce the Law — ten years for homosexuals; 2. Enforce stringent AIDS-testing on all immigrants; 3. Intern all junkies, pushers etc., as Enemies of the People; 4. Daily testing of the Blood Bank for the AIDS virus; 5. Suspect Discos, Gay Bars, clubs, etc., to be burned down; 6. Execution of deliberate AIDS spreaders.

We were (and are) the first to commence a smash AIDS blitz. We will shortly issue a Guide on AIDS — the Real truth, not politicians' lies! We will tell you how to protect yourself, family, friends. For this, the National Socialist Party requires volunteers, funds, help!

Contact immediately — most urgent — SAE to:

Michael J. McGrath, Chief Lieutenant, National Socialist Party, 18 Dominic Street, Kilkenny City.

That is just one example. Similar material over the years has been sent to my employers. I speak, as I indicated to the House, with some feeling because some five or six years ago the principles outlined in this inflammatory document were, in fact, acted upon. The morning before I gave evidence to the Commission on Penal Reform, chaired by the late Sean MacBride, I was in the Hirschfeld centre when I noticed sparks through a plexiglas dome on the roof. I went onto the roof with fire fighting equipment of an electrical kind because I thought that some of the sophisticated monitoring equipment we put on the roof to protect it against fire and burglary had short circuited. When I got onto the roof I found that the whole flat roof, which was made of tarmacadam and asphalt, had been covered with a thin film of petrol, and there was a full sized drum of petrol and two churns full of explosives on the roof. The people initiating this incendiary attack had got down to the ground again and thrown up firelighters. The entire roof was beginning to blaze. The intention, quite clearly, was to ignite the roof, cause the two kegs to explode, blow the roof off and send the contents of the oil barrel down the building. Within 20 minutes from the moment at which I spotted this incident there would have been 200 people attending a discotheque. Two hundred people could have been literally incinerated to death.

This material constitutes a clear and explicit incitement. It could not possibly be clearer. Item No. 5 on their agenda is "suspect discos, gay bars, clubs etc. to be burned down". I am sure this is not the Minister's wish or intention in any way. I would not wish it to be thought for a second that I did feel that the Minister would want to be associated with or allow this kind of sentiment abroad. But it is perfectly clear that the absence of a specific clear provision on sexual orientation will render this legislation absolutely impotent in dealing with this material. I am somewhat surprised, in view of the fact that it comes as a consequence of certain international obligations, that this amendment was not immediately accepted. I can give certain instances of countries in which this legislation or something very like it has been accepted.

I will, in my first submission, limit myself a little because I have, as you can perhaps see, a very considerable amount of documentation which has been supplied to me. I can cite, as I already have done, statutes enacted by the Tweede Kamer, the Dutch House of Parliament, the fact that they have very specifically and for the reason I have annotated, included protection for gay people in the Dutch Constitution. I wish — I am sure the Minister will share this wish with me — that the Easter Proclamation of 1916 had been incorporated into the Constitution of this country, that we would have very clearly on the record the noble declaration of Padraig Pearse, that this country would cherish all the children of the nation equally. This legislation, I regret to have to tell Minister, will not do so.

In Denmark, since 1987, an anti-discrimination clause, clause 266 of the penal code, has been accepted by the Folketinget regarding sexual orientation. It is included now in terms of incitement to hatred legislation. In the Netherlands the first clause of the Dutch Constitution protects homosexual men and women against discrimination. In 1986, the Dutch Government published a report entitled "Homosexuality and Government Policy", with proposals for, among other things, prevention of aggression against homosexual women and men and integration of homosexuality into the educational system. In a civil proceeding in 1987 an Orthodox religious married couple were ordered to pay a sum of 6,000 Dutch guilders every time they repeated their claim that homosexuals had caused AIDS.

In Norway since 1981, a law has been enforced which prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians. Section 135(a) makes it illegal to publicly threaten, insult or bear hatred towards, persecute or hold in contempt a person or a group on the grounds of homosexual orientation or way of life. In Sweden, there was a parliamentary commission from 1978 to 1986 on homosexuality which recommended a political agenda to eliminate all remaining discriminations against homosexuals. As a consequence, in 1987, two important laws were passed.

First, commercial organisations are forbidden to discriminate on grounds of homosexuality and secondly, — this is the bit that is directly relevant to this evening — it is, in Sweden now as a result of that legislation, a criminal offence to make derogatory remarks about a person's homosexuality, on a par with race, colour, national or ethnic origin and religious belief. At present, it is not my intention to be completely tedious or too academic but the Minister, I am sure, will accept my bona fides. I have similar material from the United States of America for domestic state legislation. I have similar material from Canada. I have similar legislation from Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania. There is an overwhelming burden of evidence that this is now normal practice in many countries and there is a recognition that items — such as the very offensive material I have quoted this evening — are not covered by the kind of legislation that is proposed.

I must draw the attention of the House and the Minister through the Chair to the fact that in Ireland we are, basically, a decent, civilised and tolerant people when it comes down to it. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that the great phrase of his party in the thirties and forties about the plain people of Ireland — very often they have a reasonable judgement and I do not think they are at all as intolerant as they are made out to be. I would like to point out that in pursuance of this knowledge and understanding the former Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry, within the last couple of months, issued a directive which covers the entire Civil Service in which it is outlawed to discriminate against people on the basis of being HIV positive, having full-blown AIDS unless there is a medically threatening condition involved or on the grounds of sexual orientation.

I am not suggesting anything that is terribly adventurous in this. I am not suggesting anything that has caused a senior Cabinet Minister to lose a night's sleep. I am very hopeful in anticipation of a very positive, considered and judicious reply from the Minister. I know the Minister has had quite a long time to mull this over in his mind because I remember a good friend and colleague of mine in many political arenas — Noel Browne — in the Dáil — asking the Minister in 1976 or 1977 questions in an area very directly related to this and the Minister then, as now Minister Collins, said he was considering it. Ten years is quite a long time and I am sure that we will have the emergence of a very mature and balanced view at this point. Certainly the Minister will not claim, as happened on the video Bill, that the inclusion of such a clause would be unusual or irrelevant in any way at all to the Bill. I look forward to a very positive response, although I was a little troubled that the Minister so consistently referred to the Bill as a racial hatred Bill. I know that was a form of shorthand, at least I am sure it is, and I am quite sure that it is the Minister's intention in the most civilised way to broaden the scope of the Bill.

Most of that has been on the question of sexual orientation. However, it is also important that we should, very clearly, place on the record, the necessity for extending this protection and dignity to members of the travelling community. The Minister expressed some reservations during discussion of earlier amendments by Senator Brendan Ryan and indicated in a way that I found a little bit puzzling that perhaps the acceptance of an earlier amendment by Senator Ryan would be limiting in some way. I do not think that the acceptance of these two categories could at all be described as limiting the Bill. I have illustrated more than amply that the absence of these clauses in the Bill limits it to such a point that it can constitute itself an incitement to hatred and I will certainly have to vote against it. There is no doubt about that. I will have to have it on record. If people in this country will not vote to protect me against the imminent threat, which I have personally encountered, of death by bombing, then by goodness, I want that on the record and I want to know who it is in this Parliament who will not so protect me. I feel the same about the travelling people.

I also feel — I am sure the Minister will be sensitive to this — that one of the most important things for the group who feel themselves to be disadvantaged or disposessed is the act of recognition. I know the Minister is an educationalist and it is something which we perhaps both understand as teachers, in addition to the fact that the Minister is now suffering from my loquacity — one of the things, of course as good teachers we have to learn is how to listen creatively. One of the things that the travellers have expressed so often is the requirement that they should be allowed the dignity of recognition, to be listened to and to be named. They have had various names as the Minister is aware. At one stage they were called tinkers. To me in the context of historicity, this was an honourable name which at the time they enjoyed because it was a profession. They were making tin cans and they were a valuable part of the community. There was then a well-meaning attempt to ameliorate this and call them itinerants, which is just a Latin derived word, meaning traveller but they did not like it. They have, after all, the right to name themselves and to name themselves the travelling people of Ireland, the travellers. It is important to recognise this right, give them this dignity and show it by naming them. The act of naming them in this legislative proposal will be at least some effective measure of protection to a group who historically have been discriminated against, a group who, if I understand my social history correctly, derive at least in part from the great national tragedy and catastrophe of the famine that affected this country sporadically through the 19th century. So I very much hope that the Minister will be able to deal with my proposals in a positive light and I look forward to hearing his comments on the matter.

Mrs. Fennell

I would like to speak on the amendment in my name and deal with similar areas to those which Senator Norris has just addressed himself. I support his claim in both areas. This legislation should name and protect the rights of people regardless of their sexual orientation. My colleague has very eloquently stated the case for homosexuals in our society and I stress very strongly that I support him particularly so at the present time because there will be increasing unease and perhaps a sense of distrust and ignorance about the incidence of AIDS. The leaflet that he passed to us and read into the record is indeed chilling evidence of this.

I would like to address myself specifically to the travelling people and to ask the Minister to take into account the very strong feelings of most people who will debate this legislation, certainly on this side of the House. I do not believe the Minister has given us an indication that the travelling community can be protected under this legislation. They should be named. A section should be put in to ensure without any doubt that this legislation will cover them. I do not think that there is any good reason why they cannot be included. The reality is that they are the group most likely to suffer from incitement to hatred and organised hatred. They are a forgotten group. They are a group that can be marginalised and passed over. I regret very much that there were no representatives of the travelling community who could have made submissions to the Minister before this legislation was brought before the House. That is really where it should have come from but because their organisation is not as good as it could be, this was not possible.

We have an obligation or a responsibility to speak for them. The travellers, as they are called in this country, are subjected to all kinds of discrimination and outrage by a number of people and institutions in Ireland such as local communities, business houses, shops, post offices and even county council authorities. Unless there is a legal tool that they can use to prevent this abuse, it will continue and get worse.

No one wants to perpetuate the problems. I am sure that the Minister and people in Fianna Fáil would like to see some positive action taken to ensure that the kind of awful outrages that we have seen in the past, in all our constituencies, can no longer happen. In Dublin County Council we had, very recently, quite outrageous organisation against the planning and the building of sites to enable the settlement of travellers in Dublin county where most of them have congregated over recent years. Two and a half years ago the Fianna Fáil members of Dublin County Council very cynically voted down an agreed plan for settlement and brought in their own plan. This was brought in regardless of consultation or discussion. At the time an indication was given by the present Minister to the Chairman of the County Council that all the sites would be approved because they would all be on land belonging to religious institutions. That plan has fallen by the wayside. It has fallen by the wayside because once any community or group in any area got wind of the word that there was going to be a site in their area, they began organising meetings, writing letters, planning protests, getting on to TD's and county councillors. Therefore, nothing has happened. It is working in the most unfair and heinous way against the settlement of travellers. They are not going to be able to solve their problems. They will continue to be what many people would see as an anti-social force in society if their real needs are not addressed and if they are not protected in their own homeland.

This problem has existed in other countries. Notably, I know most about it in Holland, where they had similar problems of community hostility to the settlement of travellers but they dealt with it. They realised that the problem would not go away. They regulated how the travellers would be settled and changed the attitudes of people to them. Now they have a very worthwhile plan. They have a generation of young people growing up who are being educated and being integrated into employment. We would not need this legislation if we were a truly civilised Christian community. There is a long tradition there. We certainly do need the legislation.

I would hope that the Minister, in his reply, would not tell me that this legislation is not a feature of other countries. In either area, whether the travellers or the homosexual community, I do not care what other countries have done. We need the legislation to be extended to both these groups. I would hope that the Minister will make a concession and, understanding the reasons for it, I hope he will assure us that the two groups will be included in this legislation.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I wish to refer to a few of the issues that have been raised. My amendment deals with the travelling community. I want to say immediately that I totally support the case being put forward by Senator Norris. I would certainly be prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of one of the others that deal with both the travelling community and the gay community.

I try to be as objective as possible on this issue. In listening to the case that Senator Norris put forward, explaining and outlining what it has been like for him and for the gay community in general, I think that if we do not include the gay community in this Bill, we will create another technicality that people can use to get around the Bill. We will create a group of people who will not be protected by the law. It is something that we would regret for a long number of years.

We have reached a stage in the development of Irish society where people are prepared to accept as necessary this type of legislation to cover all aspects and groups within the community. I do not at all agree with Senator Norris that we have a tolerant society. Let me say, as a trade unionist, that I hope we never have a tolerant society in the sense of being passive and accepting. I understand what the Senator means in the sense of being tolerant in acceptance of difference in terms of a pluralist society. I would certainly reiterate my view, which I have stated time and time again, about the Proclamation of the Republic. It is a pity that the Proclamation was not contained in our Constitution because if it were contained in the Constitution the type of Acts we are trying to cover here today would have been found to be unconstitutional years ago. It seems to me that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Proclamation of the Republic would certainly set the proper tone for this discussion.

Let us look at the case of the travelling community. Where I come from, west Kerry, the travelling community were simply that. They were part of the community and when we went to school there were in our classes members of the travelling community. There was a total acceptance of them. Indeed, I am sure the Minister in Limerick West would have had exactly the same experience. The travelling community were part of the community. In the days before the travelling community had access to cars or the faster means of transport, they were very much an integral part of the community, mainly travelling, but very often with a winter base where they were accepted in the community. It seems to me tragic that we cannot now reach out and make it clear to these people how we see them. We should be able to say: "we see you as an integral part of our community; you are part of the community, and you are there".

I read a book recently called Nan's Story. It was published some years ago. From the perspective of the travelling community, acceptance is the only way. I have these great theories about tolerance, offence and acceptability. It does not matter what one means. It does not really matter what we feel. This is not an objective thing. It is a subjective thing. What we need to care about here is how our actions and our feelings are perceived by the other parts of the community. If we go ahead and do what is in the Bill and do not include the gay community or the travelling community we are creating an offence to those people, which I have no doubt is not intended by the Minister. That is the way it would be perceived. In my childhood and as I grew up there was total tolerance of the travelling community. There was more than a tolerance, there was an acceptance. There were the usual rows but there were rows everywhere between travelling community and travelling community, or between the settled community and settled community. On fair day in Dingle, one did not distinguish one from the other.

We need to bring a bit of that kind of tolerance into this legislation and be seen to do it. I have heard the Minister explain that he could stretch the interpretation to cover the points that I am making but there is more to it than that. There is the fact that we must be seen to respond. We must be seen to do. We must be seen to protect them and to create an integrated community.

When I moved to Dublin almost 20 years ago I recall that in the area of north County Dublin where I live, which is a rural area, there was a community of travellers. These people moved around and called every couple of weeks. They were known and were part of the community. They came into the house and had a meal in the house, or whatever, and were part of the community and were accepted. Their children attended schools there. This was part of Irish society as we knew it. Then a strange thing developed. As society became more sophisticated, it became more intolerant. My house has been burgled seven times. On one of those occasions it was blamed on members of the travelling community. When I discussed this with neighbours years later they would say: "Wasn't your house ‘done' by travellers?". That was one time out of six. It would never occur to someone to say: "Wasn't your house ‘done' by settled people?". This is why they need protection. Those who are in any way different from the average or from what is considered to be the centre of society and anyone who is on the periphery of society is different, and if they are different they seem to threaten. If they are seen to threaten, you exclude them. Once you exclude them, you put them outside the care and tolerance of society. Therefore, you create the climate for hatred, discrimination and all that develops from there. I am making a case in that sense for bringing them into the legislation. It is not just enough to say that they may be covered by the legislation as it stands. We need to take positive action here to include those members of the community who at the moment are not covered.

I have had a number of experiences over the last number of years of discrimination against the travelling community. It is as well to put them on the record, to show the type of thing that happens, the way good works can be confused with discrimination, and the way it becomes impossible to deal with discrimination without proper and due legislation. You do not change attitudes before you change the law. I am speaking as an educationist. Perhaps I should be saying something else but it has been my experience that attitudes do not change before the law changes. We have to change the law first and attitudes will finally change. I have certainly seen it in my own profession of teaching in the area of equality. Change only came there when people began to worry about the law.

One example of discrimination against the travelling community which I came across was in a town in provincial Ireland. In that town there was a disco which was run by the local disco owner. He had a particular rule that he did not allow members of the travelling community to be admitted. A local sergeant of the Garda thought this was very unfair. He approached the owner of the disco and had a discussion as to why the owner felt like this. They immediately began to negotiate. There are some things you cannot negotiate on.

As a trade union activist I know too well that when you sit down at a table you have to start conceding. The sergeant felt having done what he considered to be a good day's work when he got agreement from the owner of the disco that ten travellers could attend the disco on any given night. He was very pleased with himself. I am sure, in fairness to the man, he acted with the most honourable of intentions. He responded to what he saw as discrimination and inequity. He went to resolve it and came back with some form of a solution. How then would the ten travellers identify themselves? They would identify themselves by a note that he would give them. Who would he give the note to? He would give a note to the first ten travellers who asked him. I am not joking. I know the town, the Garda station and the sergeant. I heard about this, and I was appalled. This happened within the last 18 months. The travellers would call to the Garda station and meet the sergeant; the sergeant wrote a pass for the first ten to arrive; they went down to the diso, presented their pass and their money and were allowed in and no more. The difficulty was how to deal with that.

I tried to deal with it because to me it was the Pass laws, Irish-style; it was no different to the apartheid system in South Africa. When I investigated it I found that this poor man was doing his best to resolve a situation. He did not resolve the situation but it was impossible to do anything about it. He would have been in trouble had the Minister for Justice become aware of the fact. I know that two papers had the whole story and did not publish it because they did not want to get that man into trouble. That is the type of thing that can happen. In the meantime, this has been stopped. I am not sure how it was resolved finally. That is one example of the type of discrimination I am talking about.

Another example was in a hotel in Dublin last year where a group of travellers organised a fund raising "get-together" on some issue. They approached an hotel in the city centre, booked the hotel and paid for their function. There was no difficulty. At about 11.30 p.m. at a function that was supposed to go on until about 1 a.m., the management found out that they were mainly travellers and closed the disco and put them out. That happened a year ago in this town not a mile away from where I speak, only because they were members of the travelling community.

One month ago I spoke to a leading member of the travelling community who was nominated for a European prize by certain agencies in this country some years back. Two of her daughters are getting married next month. She is highly regarded, articulate, intelligent woman who has done a lot in a representative capacity for her people. She went to book a hotel for the wedding of her daughters which she was prepared to pay for, money up front. Indeed, she was prepared to pay an extra premium just to get into a hotel. That woman could not get a hotel. I was with her when she rang hotel after hotel. I was there when supporters of hers did the same thing. It was only when the matter was raised on a radio programme that some hotel owner rang back and said he was prepared to take the function. This is Ireland 1988 I am talking about. I am not making these stories up. I have chapter and verse on everyone of them.

I was myself asked to address a public meeting in an hotel on the northside of the city last year. When we arrived at the meeting the travelling community were not allowed to go into it. It was a meeting about travellers, for travellers' rights and the organisation of housing for travellers, but they were not allowed enter even though the owner of the hotel knew the people. Many of them actually drank in the hotel. There were no known troublemakers. They were not dirty. They had money to pay for what they wanted. They did not have any criminal record. They were never in any difficulty with the hotel. The only reason they were not allowed access to that public place was because they were members of the travelling community.

It is impossible for me to accept legislation which does not deal positively with this kind of activity. In other words, what I cannot accept is that the Bill would be silent on this issue. It is not good enough. We need to take a positive step here to deal with it. Otherwise, we are condoning the type of activities I have just talked about. We are condoning the type of activities that my colleague, Senator Norris, talked about in the Hirschfeld Centre. We are condoning what is bad in our community. We are enabling prejudice to continue. That is not the objective of this legislation. The objective of this legislation is to rule out and make illegal that kind of activity.

I could go much further with it by talking about the need to cover groups like this in educational and housing terms. I have given a few vivid exmples to show what it is like in day-to-day life. I will finish up with a story. Two friends of mine, two members of the travelling community, told me this story on the night on which we were not allowed into the hotel to have the meeting. They were quite good natured about it. They were used to it. One of the guys, Peter, was very well turned out in his suit. He wore glasses. He said that the glasses were a great trick for travellers because they never expect travellers to have glasses. He wore glasses all the time with no lenses. They were of ordinary glass. It gave him a look of respectability. He told me he used them all the time. He was a guy with a sense of humour. He also told me that he had some time previously been in a bar in town and met another friend of his. They were sitting at the bar. They were nicely turned out, each having a pint. Two guys arrived in in boiler suits coming off a building site, or whatever. They walked up and ordered a pint and they were served. The two travellers were sitting looking at these guys who just came off the building site. They were dirty, wearing dirty overalls and boiler suits. Peter said to his friend: "Would that not be a great trick for travellers to wear boiler suits so that they would get in anywhere." The barman heard this and the two of them were chucked straight out. That is the kind of way these people have to live by subterfuge to get into public places. What this Bill is about is to outlaw that kind of activity and to make sure that we make some attempt to do what the Constitution says, and that is to attempt at least to cherish all our children equally.

I know that no Government will be prepared to take on board that responsibility of cherishing all our children equally. I would hope in my time I might see it but I do not believe I will. In political realities there is no political movement or will to do that. I do believe that we need to start tying down those areas where there are difficulties, and that this is one of them. It now seems to me that the aspects covered in the amendments that we are discussing at present boil down to two things really. They are to include the travelling community and the gay community.

I would, therefore, ask the Minister to firm up on this legislation which I consider to be a positive direction and a progressive piece of legislation. I would ask him to firm up on it by taking on board the two areas which have been raised here today. I would say to him if there is no other value in having a Committee Stage in the Seanad this is a value, where we can tease something out in a reasonably relaxed atmosphere. You know where we stand on this issue. It has been said many times here. I ask the Minister to take this one on board. It is a small amendment. It will be something which, historically, will be recognised as a major positive step forward. It would be in line with the philosophy, thinking, direction and with what was encompassed in this Bill. I would plead with the Minister to take on board these amendments.

Mr. Robb

In rising to support the thrust of this Bill, and in particular the amendment under discussion, I could start by saying that in Ireland, in common with many societies, what we do not understand we endeavour to marginalise in order to cope with it. If we add to that marginalisation the attitudes of hatred and if we publish these in one or other form, then I think we could be guilty of using this incitement to hatred to seal people into the state of marginalisation which we have used in order to cope with the problem which we do not understand.

I cannot pretend to understand completely the state of homosexuality which is the state of the gay community. At the same time, having said that, I have tried and I have learnt a lot through communication with Senator Norris. It is a process of education, particularly as we start in Ireland from a pretty backward stance in relation to such matters, because not so long ago it was a taboo subject. At least we have reached the stage where we can discuss it. We now must go further and protect people who are subjected to the most extraordinary attacks which are implicit in this terrible document which was read out by Senator Norris and was written by the nationalist socialist party.

The points that I would really like to raise is that Ireland has moved now into the global arena with a vengeance. After 1992 we will be part of a much more extensive legislation. We will be part of a community of nations in which a much broader spectrum of approach to matters in relation to law and in areas of morality will have to be taken on board. It is interesting to note that the way in which section 2 (3), line 30 in the first paragraph, is worded. It refers to hatred meaning hatred against a group of persons in the State on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion or ethnic or national origins. If we look at the various conventions and declarations in relation to human rights we find that, by and large, the statement also includes the word "sex". If we take the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 2, everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or otherwise, national or social origin, property, birth and, I would emphasise, "or other status".

In the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2 (1), it says much the same thing. It refers to the rights to recognise in the present covenant without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The same thing is again said in the covenants in Article 24. The Charter of the United Nations, Article 13, repeats exactly the same form of phraseology. Article 55, section C, also refers to sex without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion and in Article 76 we find the same expression.

Could the words, "or other status" have covered many of the areas which must, of necessity, occur to us after this gets on the Statute Book, if it does. There will be other areas apart from the gay community and the travellers which would require our attention for protection. I feel it is too late in the day now. I did not address myself to the problem early enough. The use of the words "or other status" might have been able to cover all eventualities in relation to the Proclamation of the Republic which has already been mentioned and the ethos that was written into that Proclamation. I would ask why the word "sex" has been left out in the list which is mentioned in this Bill.

I would take some gentle exception to Senator O'Toole's suggestion that you change the law in order to change attitudes. I do not see how, for a logical person like himself, he could accept that the law could possibly be changed unless someone's attitude is first changed in order to promote a change in the law. Here we are in the Seanad endeavouring to come to terms with the problems and to try to come to grips with changing attitudes inside ourselves and, along with other people in society at large, to enact a new law and to ensure that it is good law.

I do anticipate considerable difficulty in the future if the Minister cannot see his way to including the amendments which have been put down in relation to the travelling community and to the gay community. We have, as I mentioned at the commencement, gone a long way in Ireland to show our concern for marginalised minority groups. We are certainly showing increasing concern for the condition of prisoners. We are showing concern for the condition of mentally handicapped. We have shown concern for the condition of the mentally handicapped and the disabled, but here we have people who are ordinary, healthy citizens, participating actively in society and are nevertheless subjected to the sort of threatening attitudes and actions to which Senator Norris has so eloquently borne witness. If I had not been convinced before, I was certainly convinced as I listened to him describing the most appalling threats which had been made on him personally and I have no doubt that such attitudes and such threats are shared by the gay community. What we are trying to do here is to de-marginalise Irish society and in order to do that we must educate to understand so that we do not have this device of marginalisation. The one thing we must prevent is any incitement to hatred which is the means by which we seal people into their marginalisation.

Mrs. Bulbulia

I would like to support these amendments which have been discussed and which have been very eloquently dealt with by preceding speakers. The Minister in his reply to earlier remarks gave a clear indication that in the preparation and research that went into this Bill cognisance has been taken of legislation in other European states which were involved in ratifying the convention. This is an Irish piece of legislation. This is an Irish response to our ratification of the covenant. Everybody knows that of minority groups, our exclusively Irish minority group is the travelling community and I fail to see why an Irish legislation ratifying a convention, article 20 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, actually omits to mention the travelling community. I cannot credit that that is so.

Senator Fennell expressed regret that it was not possible for the travelling community to make submissions to Senators and TDs in respect of this legislation. Of course, there was not the opportunity because this legislation was sprung on us all. Nor was there an opportunity for social justice groups and various groupings within the community who work very closely with, for and on behalf of the travelling community, to make their views known. I am confident that in legislation like this they would wish to see stated specifically by name the travelling community as coming within the ambit of the legislation. It is not good enough to feel they are covered by the phrase "ethnic origin". I would have expected Irish legislation to have named the travelling community.

Whatever about submissions, it is a pity that the travelling community do not have membership of the Dáil or Seanad. I am confident that in time to come they will have. In both the Dáil and the Seanad we already have representatives of minority groupings within this State and it is logical therefore to accept that over a period we will have members of the travelling community who will be able to stand on the floor of the Dáil or the Seanad and espouse their own grouping as eloquently as Senator Norris does in the case of the gay community. By contact, Senator O'Toole has, over a long number of years, put himself in a position where he is able to do a very good job for the travelling people. His contribution was very amply and ably illustrated by the ancedotes which he brought forward. I could not credit that the one involving the pass into the disco, which sounded antediluvian, was related to an episode or an incident which had occurred only some 18 months ago. It is clear that attitudes within the community need to change and that a process of education and information should be reinforced by legislation.

Senator Robb is right when he says that unless somebody in the community feels that something is important the process will not begin and legislation will not be brought forward. What this legislation is about is elevating the dignity of people. It is about according them dignity and ensuring that they do not become targets of racial, religious or national hatred. The Irish minority — the travelling people — should be specifically named in this legislation.

Senator Norris has ably made the case for the gay community. I concur with everything he has said and I would also make the point that we are approaching 1992, when, there will be a great movement of people within the European community. This legislation in that context will assume even more significance and more importance. That is why it is vital that we would get it right. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the exclusion of the travelling community and also about the exclusion of references to sexual orientation or gender.

Mr. B. Ryan

I apologise to the Cathaoirleach and the Minister for being absent. There was a meeting of Comhchoiste na Gaeilge which I had to attend. I do not propose to speak at length. I want to have my views on these amendments on the record. I understand from what I heard reported that Senators O'Toole, Fennell and Norris spoke at length about both groups mentioned here. So did speakers that I heard. There are very good reasons why these two areas of concern ought to be referred to specifically.

I endeavoured in an amendment earlier to change the basis of this legislation so that it would not be necessary to mention specific groups by name, with the exception of the question of sexual orientation which has an extreme importance, given the sort of lurid document Senator Norris made available to us. Nobody can justify that lurid threat to anybody. There is no time for niceties and delicacies at a time when people are being tarred — in particular the gay community — as being the cause of something when that is manifestly untrue, and when they are being blamed for things. When I heard a senior officer of the Garda Síochána, at a meeting I attended in a private capacity as a member of a residents' association, suggesting that most of the sexual assaults on children were carried out by homosexuals, I realised that we badly needed legislation.

I am intrigued as to which of the homosexual community — I presume he meant men — were sexually assaulting little girls. I was intrigued by the suggestion that not only were they seen to be somewhat awful in their homosexuality but in addition to being homosexual had developed a capacity to interfere with and indecently assault young girls. I made no public statement about it; I do not believe in any way that the person in question could be identified and I choose to keep it like that but I found that statement unsavoury and it reflects the reason why the gay community feel legitimately concerned that they are entitled to be protected from incitements to hatred. Prejudice runs deep. It surfaced immediately after Senator Norris's much-to-be-celebrated victory in the European Court of Justice and it surfaces whenever anything uneasy arises. It surfaced during that appalling murder in Fairview Park some years ago — an ambivalence, an uncertainty.

If there is a fund of hatred against a particular identified group in our society then nothing can justify our not legislating to protect that group from those who would incite hatred against them. No basis of uncertainty, no basis of delicacy, no basis of an inherited morality can be used to justify that. It is our duty as legislators to put aside whatever historical views and feelings we have and to say it is not right in our society. This has got nothing to do with a person's individual views about a particular area of human activity. What it has to do with is the need to ensure that the rule of law applies in our society. If certain groups can be dealt with and referred to in the unspeakable way they were referred to in that literature that Senator Norris received, then our law is inadequate irrespective of whom those things were being said about. The one thing we know is that the group being referred to are gay people.

For myself, going beyond that, since I do not share the moral scruples that many people in our society have about gay people and since I regard them as no more than just one more minority in a nation of minorities — to use a South African phrase which is much abused — I would therefore quite happily endorse the proposal. I understand — and Senator Norris has made it clear — that we are not breaking new ground in this, that discrimination against the gay community is a matter of statute in many countries, that in the United States of America those who would claim to represent the fundamentalist right of the present President and the incoming President have found it necessary to be somewhat circumspect in how they deal with the gay community notwithstanding their moral fulminations because the gay community is a significant voting minority.

People will have to realise that gay people are not a new phenomenon. The great and wonderful thing about the late twentieth century is that gay people are now beginning, through their own courage and to a certain extent through the increasing enlightenment of our society to be able to say that they are gay, which is something they were not, apparently, supposed to say though even a cursory perusal of literature will show that being gay is not something that began to happen in this or the last century. It is a normal part of human life for as long as human sexual activity has existed. What we have now is an opportunity to ensure that incitement to hatred on the grounds of somebody's sexual orientation becomes an offence which can be punished by law. It is not a question of our having to prove why this Bill should be amended: the burden of proof ought to rest with the Minister to prove why it should not be necessary to do this. It is simply not enough to argue that it is unprecedented. A clearly identified group who are subject to precisely what is meant to be prohibited by this Bill are entitled to the protection of this legislation.

The question of the travelling community is in some ways even more straightforward because there can be no moral scruple about this. The principle is the same. Here is a group clearly identified in our society who are often the subject of the most appalling threats and attacks, and towards whom many elected representatives around this country have been guilty of the most appalling incitement, and who are often an easy target for a good headline in a local newspaper, even occasionally an easy target for a good headline in the national newspapers from Members of the Oireachtas. It needs to be said that the general attitude of Members of the Oireachtas towards the travelling community has improved considerably. Their vocabulary has improved, their insight into many of the demands of the travelling community has improved though action has not necessarily followed that improvement.

The facts are that the only way to look at legislation like this and to see where it should apply is to look through the eyes of the potential victims of incitement to hatred. For most people in Ireland the travellers are visible, different, a threat, and are clearly identified as a different group. It is an unfortunate fact that many people believe that all travellers need to be kept out of various facilities. They suffer that on a continuous basis. That is a matter for a different and very necessary kind of legislation to do with discrimination in general. To suggest that we can somehow deal with this sort of legislation on incitement to hatred and ignore the experience of our own cultural or racial minority is close to nonsense.

It is a regrettable fact that many people still cannot get used to using the description of the travelling community that they choose to use themelves. They call themselves "the travellers." They do not like being called "intinerants" though many people seem to feel obliged so to describe them. They are not intinerants. They call themselves "the travelling community." If that is what they call themselves the least we can do to support their dignity is to give them the name that they choose for themselves.

They are an isolated community, an excluded community, a marginalised community, a community with very few rights. They are a community which have been told by us — the settled community — for generations that they were simply the left-overs. It has taken them until now to begin to discover that they have an identity, a language, a proud history. They are moving now to a position where they no longer believe they are under any obligation to apologise for themselves or to tolerate being dealt with as a problem. I had to write a very strong letter reprimanding an official of a local authority who described the whole of the travelling community as the "problem" of members of the travelling community as if the travellers were only to be dealt with as a problem. They are not a problem: they are a people, a people with rights, a people with feelings and a people who can hear and increasingly can read some of the appalling drivel that is written about them and spoken about them.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the Senator going into a Second Stage speech?

Mr. B. Ryan

I did not get an opportunity to make a Second Stage speech.

An Cathaoirleach

I hope the Senator is not going to make it now. That is what I thought he was doing.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am talking entirely about a group who I believe ought to be referred to in this legislation. I have not talked about anything else in the Bill except that group. I have not talked about the principle of the Bill other than that it applies to that group.

An Cathaoirleach

We are on the Committee Stage and amendments to that part of the Bill. I do not know where the Senator is.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am giving the reasons why the travelling community not just deserve but are entitled to be covered by this legislation. If the intensity of my argument has given a different impression——

An Cathaoirleach

I felt I should tell the Senator where I think he is going or what he is at.

Mr. B. Ryan

It is very rarely that I would take issue with you——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is doing it now.

Mr. B. Ryan

Given the Chair's concern for me, can I reassure the Cathaoirleach that I knew exactly where I was? I was not in the least losing my way. There is no danger that the unintentional interruption will dislodge me from where I wanted to go. I will stop, a Chathaoirligh, if you tell me to stop. I always obey the Chair. We are all civilised people. I believe, in terms of the intent of this Bill and in terms in particular of the interesting elaborations on the phrase "ethnic origins" that the Minister gave us when we were discussing amendment No. 2 in my name earlier that the travelling community ought to be covered by this legislation if it is to apply in the way that it has begun to be applied in other countries.

In this regard the question might then arise as to why they should be named. We should name them because, first, they have asked to be named. I have had representations from both the Dublin Travellers' Education Workshop and the National Council of Travelling People and they are both quite flabbergasted that legislation that they dreamed and imagined would refer particularly to them is not going to mention them at all, legislation that they saw as civilising Irish society. The perspective of the travelling community is that they are the victims of an uncivilised society which says the most outrageous things about them, which does the most outrageous things to them but which is, apparently, not able to regulate itself to prevent that being said or done. It is a classic history of a cultural minority, a convenient scapegoat, an easy excuse and an easy target for a good headline. It would have been a fine and noble thing for the Minister to say from the beginning that it was his intention — and if we could get the Minister's intent clear we could argue about the wording of the Bill——

An Cathaoirleach

If the Senator would let him in he might know what he is thinking because the Senator has been talking for 20 minutes and I am sure the Minister would love to tell him what he feels about all he has said.

Mr. B. Ryan

I have never tried to stop a Minister from getting in on any debate.

An Cathaoirleach

You are doing pretty well at it, now.

Mr. B. Ryan

May I explain myself? I have every intention of letting the Minister in but I have no intention of finishing until I have finished, unless you tell me to finish, a Chathaoirligh, in which case I shall.

An Cathaoirleach

I can say that it seems to me you are making a Second Stage speech and, in fairness, it might help you, me and the House if you allowed the Minister in at this point. He has listened with great care to everything you have said. Maybe you would sit down and let him say something and he might help you enormously.

Mr. B. Ryan

I have been looking at him and he looks as if he is listening with considerable interest and with not the least bit of irritation.

An Cathaoirleach

Do not push him.

Mr. B. Ryan

We have nothing against Limerick men. With all due respects to your gentle guidance, a Chathaoirligh, the basis for picking out a specific group in our society and naming them in this legislation deserves elaboration. However, I am satisfied that my two colleagues here and Senator Fennell have also elaborated on this.

An Cathaoirleach

And Senator Bulbulia.

Mr. B. Ryan

Senator Bulbulia was here; therefore I heard what she had to say. I am not used to being interrupted by the Chair and I have to give some credence to the fact that I must be, if not irritating the Minister, manifestly irritating you, a Chathaoirligh, and therefore in my own interest I had better conclude. I am intrigued as to whom I should appeal to when I am being interrupted by the Chair. I cannot appeal to the Minister——

An Cathaoirleach

I do not interrupt; I only intervene and give you guidance and there is a difference.

Mr. B. Ryan

At the risk of appearing flippant — which I am not usually — it is in a funny sort of guidance that ends up with one being more confused after it than one was before. I am somewhat confused because I believe that perhaps this issue could have been dealt with at great length on Second Stage. There is a minority in our society. It sees itself as a minority, it experiences all the experiences of a discriminated-against minority. Members have felt that they were the victims of racial hatred. They have suffered because of their identifiable differences and they have particularly expected that legislation such as this would apply in our society to vindicate their rights, and because they had expected that legislation such as this would vindicate their rights they are most disappointed. They are particularly disappointed because they have not had the opportunity to make their case to Members of the Oireachtas before this legislation is passed.

Mr. Collins

First, I would like to thank Members for their contributions. That does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything that was said. Nevertheless I found the speeches extremely interesting and I recognise the sincerity with which they were made.

All the amendments which were the basis for this discussion seek to add specific references to the travelling community and "sexual orientation" to the cetegories covered in the definitions of hatred in sections 2, 3 and 4. As I indicated in my reply to the Second Stage debate I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not condone the use of abusive or insulting words or behaviour or the incitement of hatred directed against any particular section of the community, especially when that section appears to be in a disadvantaged or vulnerable position.

At this stage I will mention the document which Senator Norris brought to our attention, which he received by post presumably in the recent past, a document which has been very aptly described by Senator Brendan Ryan as a lurid document. This document was also referred to by Senator Robb. I, too, condemn that document and those who are responsible for it in the strongest possible fashion. Senator Norris may not understand this but I, too, at times, perhaps too often, am the recipient of such documents because of the particular Ministry I hold. The Senator can take my word for it and I know exactly how he feels. I hope that document we are now talking about was referred to the Garda Síochána because I am satisfied that there are plenty of headings in the criminal law under which that document and the person who signed that document can be dealt with. If, as the Senator said, efforts were made to burn down a building or that there was incitement to violence, there are headings under which these people can be dealt with under the criminal law. I am mentally side-tracking myself because I am thinking about what was in a document which I got yesterday. It was not very pleasant and was meant to cause serious problems for me. Unfortunately, mine was not signed but it was very close to the bone.

In my Second Stage speech I referred to the various international human rights instruments which provide the background to the Bill now before this House. This Bill was prepared in the light of the recommendations of an interdepartmental committee which was established to identify the legislative changes necessary to enable this country to ratify the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. What we have before us today is a Bill which gives effect to only one of the recommendations of that committee. In other words — and I would like to stress this point — this Bill is aimed at removing one of the obstacles in the way of ratifying the covenant on civil and political rights. The covenant provision in question refers only to national, racial or religious hatred. In the Bill, this has been broadened to cover also the corresponding provision in the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination which refers to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. The category of person now covered by the definition of hatred in sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill is, accordingly, very wide. It covers race, colour, nationality, religion, or ethnic or national origins. If we go beyond this list we will open up a debate which could well delay the enactment of this Bill, with consequent delay in the ratification of the covenant.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.