Minister for Justice Simon Harris is to consider including migration status as a protected category under forthcoming hate crime legislation.
The Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill is intended to criminalise behaviour likely to incite violence or hatred associated with certain “protected characteristics”.
The Bill includes 10 protected characteristics including race, religion, gender and disability.
Members of the Oireachtas Justice Committee met on Tuesday to discuss amendments to the Bill.
Housing in Ireland is among the most expensive and most affordable in the EU. How does that happen?
Ceann comhairle election key task as 34th Dáil convenes for first time
Your EV questions answered: Am I better to drive my 13-year-old diesel until it dies than buy a new EV?
Workplace wrangles: Staying on the right side of your HR department, and more labrynthine aspects of employment law
Independent TD Thomas Pringle submitted an amendment adding immigration status as a protected characteristic, noting the recent surge in anti-immigrant activity in the country.
“I think in the current climate that it is important it is recognised in such a way,” he told Mr Harris. He submitted migration status should including people with permission to remain in Ireland as well as people with no status.
The Minister replied that some characteristics in the Bill are based on those contained in Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act 1989 with additional ones being added following extensive consultation with minority groups.
The intent was to target the most common type of hate-based crimes in the country, he said. However Mr Harris said he can “instinctively” see the benefit of adding migration status as an additional category, an amendment which was also tabled by Bríd Smith of People Before Profit and Pa Daly of Sinn Féin.
Mr Harris said that while he supports the TDs intentions, he has to seek legal advice on the matter before making any commitment. “From a policy perspective I’d like to do it,” he said. “I will consider it and report back at committee stage.”
Mr Harris rejected other amendments amid concerns they would make convictions too difficult or easy to achieve under the Bill. This included a suggested amendment from committee members to define “hate” as meaning “a state of mind characterised as intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group.”
Mr Harris responded that both the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) have advised againts making a definition too prescriptive. He said the concept of hate is one already recognised by the courts under other legislation.
Strictly defining what constitutes “hate” would make it too difficult to secure convictions as “each constituent element in the definition would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” the Minister said.
The suggested definition was useful for setting policy but not for primary legislation, he said.
He also declined a suggested to define hate as including “bias, prejudice, contempt, misogyny and bigotry” as it would set “too low a bar” for prosecution. Everyone has some form of bias, Mr Harris said.
He added that other countries have not defined hate in their versions of the legislation.
