God forbid you would break a law to end the genocide. It would be terrible.

On behalf of Independent Ireland, I add my sympathies to those made yesterday to the family of Brother Kevin Crowley.

The European Commission has now issued a formal notice to the State demanding that we implement the so-called hate speech laws under the threat of infringement proceedings. Once again, I see indications from the Government of the bending of the knee. It is willing to compromise the constitutional freedoms of the Irish people to appease the European institutions and digital outrage merchants. Let me ask the Minister plainly: will the Government stand over a law that criminalises people for what they think and say rather than what they do? We are not talking about the incitement of violence, threats or harassment. We are talking about words, ideas and opinions, sometimes unpopular and uncomfortable but still lawful expressions, which are supposedly free in a republic.

Is the Minister aware that in Finland, a member of parliament was prosecuted for publicly citing scripture. In Sweden, a pastor was given a one-month prison sentence for publishing his sermon. In Denmark, an MP was convicted for his views on Islam. Interestingly, in the Danish hate speech law, at section 266b, the truth is not a defence in hate speech, regardless of the factual accuracy in a statement that is deemed insulting.

In parts of Europe, laws are being used to criminalise satire, prosecute artists and silence dissent. In Scotland, even private conversation spoken within one's own home may fall within the remit of criminal hate speech. This is not theoretical; this is happening.

Would you get real?

Could we have one person speaking in the Dáil, please? If we are to pass this legislation, we must ask ourselves, "What comes next?" Will quoting scripture become a punishable act, something that fines the teaching of exclusionism? Will religious observations be branded as hateful if they conflict with the views of the public? Will the right to express a moral belief, if it is found to be uncomfortable, not be accepted?

Ireland already has hate speech laws in place. These deal with genuine hate speech, which is about the incitement of violence. What exactly is the real purpose of this proposed legislation that is to come before us? Is it to protect people from violence or to protect the Government from criticism?

Who will define hate for this House? Will it be the courts, civil servants, an online administrative service or an algorithm? What will the threshold for criminality be if I disagree with somebody's views? Will I be found a criminal if I have a different view from the Minister?

The Deputy will certainly not be found a criminal for having a different view from me.

I hope so.

I assure him of that. As we deal with this important matter that is at the heart of how we conduct politics in our society and the liberal democracy we are all proud of, which we know we can never take for granted and have to protect and renew by act, deed and word, it is important to remember what has already happened and what the legal framework for all of this is. As the House will be aware, the Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 came into effect on 31 December last year. That Bill prescribed prison sentences for very specific crimes where word or incitement is proven to be motivated by hatred or where hatred is demonstrated. What that did was put the right legislation and right legal framework in place to ensure that any assault aggravated in any way by hatred is one that will attract a higher prison sentence. That is what we have already done. Therefore, in dealing with the issues the Deputy raised and the charges he made regarding how we want to maintain that balance, it is a balance that deserves further debate, maybe in a more careful way. I believe the use of language and the way we describe issues in the House have an effect on the tone of politics. In turn, the tone of politics affects the conduct of politics, as well as how we can make the case for politics as a force for good and helping with the issues all of us are elected to raise. We will do that in a way that gets that balance right.

I am not familiar with the detail of the legislation in Denmark or Sweden the Deputy referred to. They have political traditions that are every bit as proud as ours and take the case of parliamentary democracy and freedom of expression every bit as seriously as we do. If, however, there is cause to consider the matter further in Ireland, we will do three things. First, we will ensure that whatever we do continues to be consistent with the constitutional framework, which we cherish, in place in our country. Second, any such moves or further decisions are ones that always have to be proportionate and recognise the deep value of free speech and the right to freedom of expression. Third, freedom of expression is not cost free or consequence free. Words can be used in such a way that causes more than hurt and offence; they can influence how others act. That is recognised in the legislation the Government already has in place. The Deputy and others can be assured that in any further consideration of this issue, the Government and the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, will always be aware of the delicate and vital balance we need to maintain.

Is the Minister aware that the European Commission has sent a request to the State on this to ask us to tighten the laws? Is the Department of Finance prepared to pay the fines if we do not change the laws? There are proceedings in that regard that have been cited by the European Union.

I draw the Minister's attention to the European Court of Human Rights verdict in the Handyside v. the United Kingdom case in 1976, when it was found that freedom of expression includes speech that offends, shocks and disturbs. That was accepted by the court. I also bring the Minister's attention to Article 40.6.1° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which outlines the right to expression. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no other influence from the European Union to bring in more hate speech legislation? There is a genuine concern about people's right to talk and their right to stand out. Many people in this country have a view that conflicts with many European countries when it comes to Palestine and Israel. Will all those people be included under a hate speech law?

The European Union is an institution that we are part of and that we shape, benefit from and influence. Implicit in the Deputy's question is the idea that the European Union is handing down direction or making decisions that we are, in some way, not able to influence or respond to. I am not familiar with the exact detail of the engagement the Commission has with the Department of justice. The Minister for justice will treat any such engagement from the Commission in a very serious way.

The Deputy referenced the European Court of Human Rights, which is another institution that has done so much to protect and advance human rights and political and civil liberties. It is another institution that Ireland engages with and has the greatest of respect for. What I can do is restate the principles I outlined, which are that freedom of expression is precious and liberty in a liberal democracy is something we must protect, but words and acts also have consequences. We have looked to recognise that in the legislation in place, which the Dáil passed. In respect of any further initiatives that could originate within the European Union or elsewhere, we will be conscious of the need for Ireland to maintain that balance.

I am sure it will go down well on Gript anyway.

At least we talk to them.