Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

4 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4493986

Read the official Assembly record

Text

From the outset, let me state that abuse of a person, physically or verbally, because of a protected characteristic is serious and on the increase. We in the DUP are clear that crimes against persons due to their race, religion, disability, sexuality, gender or age are totally unacceptable. Frankly, I take the view that all such abuse, aimed at anybody, protected or not, is unacceptable. For me, the issue is less about whether a Bill is stand-alone, but rather that whatever is eventually brought and passed needs to be right and of merit and value. At present, hate is recorded at the perception of the claimant and is considered to be an aggravating factor in other crimes, rather than a crime in itself. Whilst the Minister may have stated that we are not creating new crimes, it is difficult at this point to see how we would not be, although that will, of course, become clearer with the text of any forthcoming Bill. In considering a viable working definition of hate crime in Northern Ireland, we should be mindful that, in many areas, weaknesses with existing legislation have been laid bare in poor enforcement, excessive application and a lack of awareness of, or unwillingness to, utilise current tools. We must keep in mind that what may, initially and in principle, appear straightforward will likely not actually be so once we begin to discuss and take forward the practicalities. As ever, many of these matters around proposed hate crime are not clear-cut. Certainly, the issues that have been mooted and recommended to be included in a Bill are complex and often emotive, divisive and controversial within our society.

I will not just at the minute, Matthew. Let me make my point. For example, already there is considerable debate around the subjects of privacy, freedom of expression, the private dwelling defence, the role and powers of the PSNI — who must absolutely not be turned into the thought police — the rights of women, how to combat keyboard warriors and, extremely importantly, how a private conversation may be defined. Bear in mind the issue that we will ultimately debate will be criminal thresholds. The motion references finding the balance between competing rights. Surely, everybody in the House with a scintilla of wit and common sense will recognise that that is much more easily said than done. It is often inordinately difficult to strike the right balance, and we must recognise that the resultant outworking and handling can lead to significant damage to the public's confidence in not just this place but the rule of law, the PSNI and the justice system itself. Hence, the importance of not virtue signalling or point-scoring. Instead, we must handle with care. We have seen the quagmires created elsewhere by ill-considered legislation on these matters and it is imperative to learn, not repeat the mistakes, and heed the warnings. Scotland should serve as an example enough of the potential perils and pitfalls. Calum Steele, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, expressed concern over the Scottish Bill even as it passed through Parliament. He said:

"Police officers are all too aware that there are individuals in society who believe that to feel insulted or offended is a police matter. The bill would move even further from policing and criminalising of deeds and acts to the potential policing of what people think or feel, as well as the criminalisation of what is said in private."

Similarly, the Law Society of Scotland warned:

"the Bill presents a significant threat to freedom of expression, with the potential for what may be abusive or insulting to become criminalised."

Free speech and civil liberties are no small matter in our value system. There is no right not to be offended. If we are only to express views that are popular and mainstream, freedom is merely a concept and we will have cancelled diversity of thought. We must preserve the ability to discuss and debate at all costs, because abuse and opinion are not the same as crime. Discussion and debate around issues is integral to freedom of expression, speech, religion and conscience and, regardless of whether they take place in public or private settings, they are worthy of protection. We must be clear how exactly private conversations, including in the home, can and will be protected. With regard to the private dwelling defence, legitimate concerns have been raised about malicious communications by individuals in the course of private conversations online or on forms of social media. Indeed, I presented a petition to the House on the malignance of that problem. We believe that a comprehensive approach to tackling online harm should be the starting point for tackling this wrongdoing. Moreover, we must not create a hierarchy of victims, as can often result from intersectionality, and, rather, should ensure that justice is blind and even-handed for all. We must take care to ensure that any such law promotes good relations between protected groups and does not pit them against each other by facilitating proceedings against legitimate behaviour without reasonable cause. The key for me is always that, in circumstances —

— where someone is a victim of crime, they must have confidence that the perpetrator will be caught and put through the system, so the parameters around hate must be robust, narrow and clearly defined.

893 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification