This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 82, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as a report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, that may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For the convenience of Senators, I have arranged for the printing and circulation to them of those amendments.
Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill, 1988: [ Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil ]: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Acting Chairman
As Members are aware, they may speak only once on this question.
The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill, 1988, has been passed by Dáil Éireann with amendments and I would now like to explain these amendments to this House. Some of the amendments are of a very minor and technical nature but there are also a number of major ones.
Amendment No. 1 arose out of points initially made in this House. It provides a wider definition of "broadcast", which now includes the transmission, relaying or distribution of visual images or sounds by means other than wireless telegraphy. In other words, the transmission of images or sounds by wireless telegraphy, or by any other means, or by a combination of wireless telegraphy and any other means is now covered by the definition of "broadcast".
Amendment No. 2 is really a composite of three separate amendments. The presence of two of these, that is, the inclusion of the travelling community and sexual orientation, owes much to the original debate on the Bill in this House. However, I would first of all like to say a few words about the first change to the definition of "hatred", that is, the extension of the scope of the definition to include hatred stirred up against specified groups of persons outside of the State. I was concerned that, under the original definition, subtle forms of hatred could be stirred up against groups of persons on account of, say, their race or religion, in very specific areas outside the State. Although, in the Bill as it stood, hatred incited against groups of persons outside the State could have been an offence if that hatred was felt by representatives of those groups within the State, there could have been circumstances where such hatred would not have affected any of the groups of persons in the State. This potential loophole has now been closed off. From a drafting point of view it means we have just one definition of "hatred" which applies throughout the Bill and accordingly that definition now appears in section 1, the interpretation section, and has been deleted from sections 2, 3 and 4.
There is little I need to say to defend the other two amendments to the definition of "hatred", that is, the inclusion of the travelling community and sexual orientation. I am glad to say that these amendments have proved to be both popular and uncontroversial. The impressive case made for these amendments in both Houses of the Oireachtas gave rise to a review of what groups should be given the explicit protection afforded by the Bill. To understand the changes, I think it is necessary to remember the reason why this Bill was introduced in the first place. The Bill is based on a report from an interdepartmental committee and it was intended to give effect to one of the matters necessary before Ireland could ratify the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The word "ethnic" was included in the definition of "hatred" in order to give effect to the relevant provision in the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination and as a matter of policy and for the sake of certainty it was decided to include specific reference to the travelling community in the Bill.
The inclusion of "sexual orientation" is also not necessary in the context of ratification of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, as the debate on the Bill progressed it became clear that it was very relevant as far as the Bill was concerned in a domestic context. As with the travellers, sympathy alone is of very little benefit to homosexuals when they are being verbally attacked and abused. An opportunity has now arisen to be more than just sympathetic and I am happy to be able to avail of this opportunity to give the protection afforded by the Bill to homosexuals.
I was conscious that the types of verbal or written attacks that can be made against the travellers and homosexuals that are intended or are likely to incite hatred against them can, and indeed does, lead to violence. Without the protection of the Bill I could foresee that these attacks might increase and an opportunity to prevent those attacks would have been lost.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to section 2 of the Bill are all connected. Section 2 contains the central provisions of the Bill and it is of the utmost importance that it be exactly right. Accordingly, in the light of comments made in the other House, and indeed touched on in this House, the section was re-examined to see if it could be tightened-up and this examination was concerned mainly with the definitions of "public meeting" and "public place". The problem which was identified centred on meetings which were attended by small select groups, for example of an association, and at which it would be difficult to claim that the public were entitled to be present. Take the situation where a meeting is organised for a town hall or hotel room or other conference facility which members of an association attend for the purpose of inciting hatred against one of the groups referred to in the definition of "hatred". The members so present might not have been regarded as members of the public in the way that the term was used in the definitions of "public meeting" and "public place".
The situation was remedied by the three amendments to section 2, the purpose of which was to delete the definitions of "public meeting" and "public place" and to replace them with one of "private residence" into which was incorporated the old definition of "public place". The result is that it will be an offence to incite to hatred in the terms of the Bill, in any place, public or private, except in a private residence and the private residence exclusion is heavily qualified. Thus, it will be an offence to incite to hatred, in the circumstances covered in section 2 (1) (b), and where the other conditions of the section are met, anywhere outside a private residence and even in a private residence if the words, behaviour or material concerned are heard or seen by any person outside that particular private residence or if they are used or displayed at a public meeting in the residence.
Amendment No. 5 has a secondary effect of removing the old definition of "hatred" from section 2. Amendment No. 6 is simply to insert the word "visual" before the word "images" in section 3 (1). It was inadvertently omitted from the Bill when published. Amendment No. 7, also to section 3, is quite technical but will have practical application. In proceedings for an offence under section 3 alleged to have been committed in respect of an item, a script on which the item was based will be evidence of what was included in the item. This is provided by subsection (7). Subsection (8) paragraph (d) provides that, where a copy has been made of the script by or on behalf of a member of the Garda Síochána, it too shall be evidence of what was in the item. Amendment No. 7 avoids the necessity of calling the member of the Garda Síochána, or another witness, to prove that the document produced to the court was a correct copy of the script. If the document appears on its face to be a copy of the script and to be signed by the member, it will be taken that this is the case, unless evidence is produced to show that this is not so. The amendment will avoid the waste of time and expense caused by calling witnesses to prove formally matters unlikely to be in dispute.
Amendment No. 8 is consequential to amendment No. 2 in that it removes the definition of "hatred" from section 3 of the Bill. It may be puzzling at first sight that amendment No. 8 consists of a definition of "script". The explanation is that subsection (9) of section 3 contained the definitions of "hatred" and "script" and amendment No. 8 simply reproduces the definition of "script" alone. That definition is unchanged.
There are two amendments to section 4. Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment which will ensure that section 4 (3) will operate as originally intended. The words "the court" in subsection (3) meant, in a case tried with a jury, the trial judge, and, in a case tried in the District Court, the District Justice. Accordingly, under subsection (3) as it appeared in the Bill, in a case tried with a jury it would have been a function of the trial judge to decide whether or not it was right to be satisfied that it was reasonable to assume that the material or recording was not intended for the personal use of the defendant. The effect of amendment No. 9 will, where a jury is sitting, make that a function of the jury. Where there is no jury, it will be a function of the District Justice. That was in any case the original intent of subsection (3).
Amendment No. 10 is consequential to amendment No. 2. It deletes the definition of "hatred" from section 4. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to section 5 are related and arise out of an amendment accepted from Senator O'Toole during Committee Stage of the Bill in this House. The draftsman advised that the wording of the amendment did not fully meet its objective, that is, to include reports of committees of the Oireachtas or of either House of the Oireachtas in the scope of the section. These amendments meet that objective.
Amendment No. 13 involves the deletion of the original section 8 of the Bill and its substitution with a new section. This new section was inserted to meet reservations about the effect of the section as it stood. It was suggested that on the original wording a person arrested for an offence could not be charged even in a Garda station without the consent of the DPP. The amendment makes it clear that a person can be charged in a Garda station, and remanded in custody or on bail, in advance of the decision of the DPP, but that the formal charge in court alleging the offence, and all subsequent proceedings, will take place only with the consent of the DPP. The section in its amended form is a standard provision found in other criminal legislation.
I come now to amendment No. 14 to section 9. The purpose of section 9 (1) (b) is to ensure that a District Justice or Peace Commissioner would not be able to issue a warrant to the Garda to search premises for a script or recording of a broadcast item unless satisfied that a requirement was made pursuant to section 3 for the production to the member of the Garda of the script or recording and that the relevant item was not produced to the member. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the situation where a script or recording was produced to the member of the Garda but he was not afforded an opportunity of making a copy of the relevant item.
Amendment No. 15 to section 12 amends the Short Title of the Bill and amendment No. 16 to the title amends its Long Title. These amendments are necessary to accommodate the inclusion of "sexual orientation" in the definition of "hatred".
I am sure that Senators will agree that many of the amendments I have just explained are important and that they leave us with better and more relevant legislation.
It is because of the celebration of United Nations Day on 10 December and the ratification, hopefully, and full acknowledgement of the United Nations covenants that I appeal to the Minister today to include in section 1 (2), where he outlines hatred against the various groups on account of race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation, incitement to hatred towards women and children. I know this has been debated over the last few weeks, but I wish that this would be included because we know that within certain areas relating to hard pornography — I could go on and on, but I want to make it brief — there are various forms of violence and humiliation which I would suggest are an incitement to sexual hatred and violence. If we are legislating here in the name of freedom, we should really be talking about civil rights and civil liberties which in my, and in Fine Gael's view should include freedom for women and children within this area.
I would like the Minister to clarify one point. This week editors of all English newspapers have met to see how standards could be enforced re the British media. I wonder whether there is scope within this Bill for a similar situation within our Irish media. There was an example in recent times in a national newspaper, which I do not wish to quote because I think I would be just adding to the exploitation of the infringement of an individual's rights, but I can furnish the Minister with details later. I am asking him whether this Bill includes the freedom, as it were, of the media to print what they like in cases where they are violating an individual's freedom.
Acting Chairman
I would remind you that we have to stick to the amendments before us.
I would like to comment on this Bill, as amended, and to address the amendments. First of all, in some general terms, the Minister has very generously and very appropriately indicated the value of Seanad Éireann as a revising participant in the process of Government of legislation with the Dáil. The Minister made it quite clear that he valued the long, detailed and scrupulous examination of the original Bill and that, in a spirit of intellectual inquiry, he and his Department were prepared to take very seriously indeed the arguments that were entered onto the record here in the Seanad during that debate. I have to welcome that and I welcome the amendments in particular. Apart altogether from the technical amendments — and I take it there may be some small discussion on those, but even if there is not, the Minister may take it that I, for one, accept the persuasive force of his arguments with regard to most of the technical adjustments made in this Bill — there are two principal amendments here. These concern the inclusion of the travelling community and the question of sexual orientation, both of which were initially placed against the Bill here in the Seanad. This indicates that we have matured as a people and as a Government. Particularly in the context of the next few months it is very important that these kinds of amendments be made during a period when we will be assuming the Presidency of the European Community. This is a valuable indicator of the fact that we are an equal intellectual and moral partner with the other countries in the European Community.
It is important that this be stressed because it has been suggested recently that this Bill, as amended, is a dangerous instrument and will restrict freedom rather than enhance it. I do not believe that is the case. Although I am aware of the fact that incitment legislation does not always have the immediate direct intention, nor will these amendments, that they are intended to have, one has only got to look up the road 90 miles where there is already in place incitment legislation and it does not, tragically, inhibit people from committing outrages against the members of different communities whom they have taken into their heads to dislike. It is, however, very important that this Bill be passed and that it be passed this afternoon because, among other things, if it does not pass with these amendments, it is quite possible that Ireland, very embarrassingly, during a period when we hold the Presidency of the Community, could become a principal publications centre for material that would be rejected elsewhere in Europe. I welcome the fact that the Minister has taken on board a number of amendments which will positively affect this situation.
I was particularly pleased that the Minister indicated that one of the amendments is a tidying-up of an amendment that was introduced by my colleague, Senator Joe O'Toole. I would like also to refresh the memory of the House with regard to another amendment, that is the question that is addressed in amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to section 2 of the Bill which concern the places of assembly which may or may not be covered by the operation of the Bill and in particular the definition of private house, meeting hall and so on. My recollection is that this was introduced at some length by Senator O'Toole. At the time my attention was so firmly focused on other amendments, as the Minister can understand, that I was not sure of the relevance of what my distinguished colleague was saying. The Minister, obviously, has a clearer understanding of what was going on at that stage and has welcomed and incorporated the suggestions made regarding this point. He said that this matter was raised extensively in the Dáil and perhaps referred to in the Seanad. I would simply like to establish the fact that these matters were quite comprehensively covered in the debate in the Seanad.
I do not wish to be tedious because we had our say here in arguing forcibly on these amendments and the Minister has clearly studied them. I would like to end with two observations, both general but also quite specific to these amendments. The first is that as originally introduced without these amendments this was minimalist legislation. It was, in fact, enough to meet the requirements necessary to allow us to become a signatory to the international Covenant on Human rights. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister has clearly signalled that he intends to be a creative Minister for Justice and not to confine himself merely to minimalist legislation that will meet our requirements in these matters. It is generous, good and useful that he has decided to expand the provisions of the Bill to do something positive for the development of Irish society.
The second and final observation I will make is that to a large extent this is a theoretical situation, apart from the few practical situations I have outlined such as the danger of Ireland becoming a publishing centre for reprehensible materials, usually from the extreme right. It is largely theoretical and hypothetical. That does not mean that I do not welcome it; I clearly do. What will give teeth to this Bill and to its amendments is if the Minister finds himself able to follow it up with what we urged during the debate on the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Bill, namely, a Bill concerning discrimination. I understand that this is also something that may be in the pipeline in order to allow us to ratify yet another international protocol. It may not be appropriate for the Minister to address himself to this particular point in his reply; I hope, however, he may find himself able to do so. I urge the Minister to consider the introduction of such a Bill outlawing discrimination and to show equal wisdom in drafting this legislation to ensure that it also includes both the travelling people and the question of sexual orientation.
It is a matter of particular pleasure to me to read amendment No. 16 which concerns the Long Title of the Bill, An Act to Prohibit Incitement to Hatred on Account of Race, Religion, Nationality or Sexual Orientation. That, as the Minister well knows, places it as an historic document whose importance reflects very considerable credit on him.
I would like to add just one rider, because everything I have said has been positive. This is totally uncharacteristic of me and would like to add one minor technical cavil, that is, that I regret there were not sufficient copies of the Minister's excellent speech. I hope that does not indicate an assumption that there would be a less than general interest either in the Minister's words or the very important substance of what we have been discussing here this afternoon. I have no hesitation in giving a warm welcome to this series of amendments.
I think we can work ourselves into a position of being perpetually critical of Government. I want to give an unequivocal welcome to this legislation and to congratulate the Minister. The Minister is a politician who lives in perhaps a harsher world of politics than university Senators and he deserves a particular compliment. He cannot have been certain when he and the Government chose to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover the travelling community and sexual orientation that he was not going to have descend on him a frightening cacophony of dissent and the sort of extraordinary extremism that exists in this country. I would have been prepared to reassure him on the issue.
We have an inclination in this country to apologise for ourselves. I suspect there are many European countries whose media would be inclined to look at us as an illiberal and conservative society who do not have legislation to prevent incitement to hatred against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. Let us be very clear about what this Bill means. The relevant phrase in terms of the new definition of hatred is written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and, having regard to all circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.
Let us be very careful of what this means. There are many people in our society who are inclined to be very vocal, particularly about the travelling community, what they do or do not do and about; they are also vocal about the alleged responsibility of the Gay community towards the AIDS epidemic. People are inclined to say quite remarkably horrific and horrible things. Let them all be warned now that if those things they say and do are likely, having regard to all the circumstances, to stir up hatred, they are committing an offence. We have introduced legislation to defend various vulnerable minorities and we have chosen freely — in this regard the Minister deserves particular plaudits — to incorporate two groups in our society who have been the subject of considerable and appalling verbal abuse and, indeed, in some cases physical abuse, and considerable harassment.
Once this Bill comes into force any people in our society who launch into some of these horrific diatribes will be, in my view quite rightly, liable at least to investigation because we have said that the limits of debate in our society are extremely broad. We have, in fact, extended our vision of who is incorporated fully within our society but we have also said that within those limits of debate to say things directly or by publication, which are likely to cause hatred towards any of the groups identified in this Bill, to say that or to do that, is an offence under the law. This is a very welcome day and it is another small indication of something that, as a fairly vocal critic of Irish society I have said on frequent occasions but whatever my criticisms of Irish society I do not regard us as an illiberal conservative society, I do not regard us as in any way, having the reactionary imagery that is portrayed of this country.
This is a remarkable tolerant society, given the traditional religious values. The people who have traditional values in this country are also a remarkably tolerant people. The fact that legislation like this can be passed quite easily once the Minister was persuaded shows the degree to which our society is a remarkably tolerant society, without, in many ways, some of the more ugly manifestations of extremism that other societies have to deal with.
The Minister is to be complimented in giving leadership. I would like to associate myself with what Senator Norris said. The Minister has made a fine start at being a reforming Minister. A great deal of legislation is needed in the area of reform. A great deal of legislation is needed in many areas where this Minister could contribute, simply to put into formal fashion many things that are accepted in our society.
I do not want to detain the Minister unnecessarily. We have now reached the first stage in a process of recognising that there are weak and vulnerable minorities within our society. It is extremely important that the political process at national and local levels reflect that view, particularly as far as the travelling community are concerned, that they are no longer to be seen as a soft target for a good headline in an evening newspaper, provincial newspaper or local newspaper, but are identified as a vulnerable group whom the Oireachtas have chosen quite specifically to protect. I compliment the Minister on what he has done.
I am very proud of the role this House had in beginning and developing the debate on the way in which this legislation should apply. I compliment the Minister and, indeed, many Members of the Oireachtas who created what effectively became a consensus to extend the provisions of this Bill so that we were not just making fine gestures about groups who, perhaps, did not present a problem in our society but were identified specific groups within our society who, for one reason or another were vulnerable and liable to be the victims of incitement to hatred. What we are saying is, "We will not simply produce empty rhetoric; we will produce legislation that could well have a specific effect on the way we do business in our society". The Minister is to be complimented for that.
I do not want to embarrass the Minister by heaping any more praise upon him from the Independent benches than is avoidable and I do not want him to feel politically uncomfortable when there is an unanimity of support from these benches for what he is doing. I should remind the House that it is barely seven or eight months ago since an amendment very similar to the first one proposed by the Minister was decisively rejected here. I do not know how the Minister managed to get the Cabinet to change their minds and I would not ask him to tell us that. I would put on record that, personally and collectively this side of the House congratulate him on being able to do that and having the courage to come forward to both the Dáil and Seanad to do this.
It is only right that those of us who proposed or supported such an amendment such a short time ago should recognise that there were supposed political difficulties in producing an amendment to this legislation which included both the travelling community and sexual orientation. I suspect that those difficulties because of the way this amendment has gone through the Houses so easily, have now been proven to be more in the mind than factual. I hope, as Senator Norris and Senator Ryan have said, that this will be the forerunner of similar liberal, sensible attitudes towards these sort of issues.
I hope that this means that the Minister will be prepared to introduce legislation, first of all, in response to Senator Norris's case in the European Court on human rights. Having got this Bill through, that should be easier, with the change in attitudes, but I hope it will also mean that he will be prepared to look again at liberal social legislation, like marital breakdown. I hope that as a consequence of the ease with which this has gone through from is party's side he will look again at the possibility of having another referendum on divorce.
There is no doubt that with the support of the Fianna Fáil Party for legislation and amendments of the sort tha Minister is bringing forward here, similar legislation on divorce or in response to the European Court of Human Rights decision, would pass through the House almost without opposition. The Minister has made a very good start in doing that. I congratulate him, but I hope it is only a start. I hope the matter of divorce will be tackled. I hope discrimination against homosexuality will be tackled and I hope that this will continue in the way that it started.
I would like to make a point about those who criticise this sort of legislation. The main, camouflaged criticism as I understand it is that it is a form of censorship. I am afraid to say that the word "censorship", in liberal terminology or in ordinary termonology, in this country is now a word of abuse. I do not regard "censorship" as a word of abuse. In certain circumstances, censorship is utterly justified. Those who criticise this Bill on the grounds of censorship are saying quite simply that you should be allowed to do these things because of some ethereal principle to which we all subscribe, that people should be able to say anything like, whatever the consequences. I do not subscribe to that. I do not think most people who want to see an ordered, civilised society subscribe to that. We have only to look at a very controversial issue, which is supported by the principal parties in this State, section 31, which is similar in many ways to this Bill because it stops people from inciting other people to kill other people or do harm to other people. Censorship in itself should not be a prejorative word.
Acting Chairman
I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, but could I ask him to get back to the amendments?
I am trying very hard. I was replying to the criticism of the amendments which has not been made but which I was anticipating. I was really saying that if "censorship" is to be a pejorative word we should have explained to us why it is such a bad thing. In the case of this Bill and the amendments, which certainly expounded censorship, I personally welcome it for what it prevents.
May I raise a point of Order? I want to draw Senator Ross's attention to the fact that Senator O'Toole and I have tabled Item No. 61 calling on the Government not to renew section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. We plainly feel there is no conflict between the position he outlined in support of these amendments.
Acting Chairman
I am afraid that is not in order. This is a Bill coming from the Dáil specifically dealing with the amendments that were made. In essence the Minister in making his speech effectively has would up the Bill until we come to the next Stage.
I would like to join my colleagues in complimenting the Minister on this Bill. I particularly welcome the sections that refer to the travelling people. The two most unpleasant nights I spent during my 16 years as a member of Dublin Corporation were those that I spent in my constituency where public meetings were held to discuss the efforts of Dublin Corporation to site in a very small, very modest, very well thought out location a few houses for travelling people. In the second instance the site was in a middle-class area and the particular project was extremely well thought out. The meetings which I attended were horrific. I will never forget the abuse which was showered on the travelling people and I am very glad that that sort of behaviour will now be outlawed and it will be an offence. I am glad to say that the public representatives for my area stood firm and the proposals went through.
Dublin Corporation have been hampered in other parts of the city in their efforts to provide facilities for travelling people by unfounded fears which are stirred up by local community associations and other groups. I very much welcome the provisions of this Bill which I hope will facilitate Dublin Corporation and other local authorities in the efforts they are making to improve the lot of the travelling people.
I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister on the amendments and on the two categories included in them. Nobody should be prejudiced against because of sexual orientation. I also compliment the Minister on the inclusion of travellers. Very few people have done as much for the travelling community as the Minister for Justice who, when he was Chairman of Dublin County Council, brought in a very comprehensive plan to see that they were housed and given halting sites. I would like to congratulate the Minister on these two amendments.
I wish to join in the words that have been said in support of this legislation. I would also like to thank the Minister for being generous in his response to the points I made recently in the House. I find it quite gratifying that the two amendments which I put forward have now been accepted. It is a fair reflection on the Government that the Minister has been prepared to take this on board and make these changes. It makes it stronger. However, it creates some confusion among people who believe that this is an actual discrimination Act. The amendments tighten up the Bill in the way we wished.
I want to give an indication of the confusion that is caused very often by some of the subsections here. This morning I was in a travellers camp site in the west Dublin area. There are 70 families living there and they have to get their water supply from the tap. I will not describe the horrific hardship endured by those people. One person said to me — and it goes right to the definition of hatred — that they cannot get schools for their kids, they cannot get many things they are looking for and she asked me: "Why do the settled community hate us?" This Bill is about hatred. I am pleased that the definition of hatred is extended at least to incitement to hatred of such a cultural indigenous group as the travellers. It points with some emphasis to the great need for an anti-discrimination Act. Can I speak to specific amendments?
Acting Chairman
The Senator can speak specifically to the amendments made.
In regard to private residents it does not cover the particular point which was raised at an earlier Stage of the Bill, that is the idea that a private club, whether it be in a private or public place, could still organise incitement to hatred. I do not see that that has been covered by amendment No. 3. I would like to ask the Minister to say if this covers the situation.
Acting Chairman
I do not want to mislead the Senator. The way this Bill has developed is that it has gone through the Dáil and has returned to the Seanad with amendments for Report and Final Stages and this puts me in a dilemma. Once the Minister has replied there is no scope for him to answer questions. I shall ask the Seanad about the next Stage and if the Bill is agreed. I want to advise the Senator; I do not wish to mislead him by by thinking he can get answers to the questions he has raised.
Will the Minister be replying at this Stage before it goes to the next stage.
Acting Chairman
No.
If we take a clandestine organisation whose very raison d'etre is to incite hatred against a particular group, if they meet in a public hall but at a private meeting that does not appear to be covered by this section. A Ku-Klux-Klan-type organisation in Ireland could meet in private. It could be a Nazi organisation doing something similar. They can still operate.
Yes.
I take the Minister's word on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5.20 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.