Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

4 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4494352

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hate crime is an issue in which there is often more heat than light. I welcome the fact that the debate was mostly undertaken in a civil and balanced way. It acknowledged the seriousness, sensitivity and complexity of the legal and moral issues at stake and that the issues are extraordinarily important. The debate takes place the day after, as Members acknowledged on several occasions, the inauguration of Lilian Seenoi-Barr as the first black mayor in Northern Ireland. It is an extraordinary, historic moment not just for the city of Derry but for the whole region. We were extraordinarily proud to nominate Lilian to that post. Over the past weeks, as Sinéad McLaughlin said yesterday, Lilian has been subject to a torrent of disgusting racial abuse. Lilian is a talented public representative. She has been a champion not just via the SDLP and the North West Migrants Forum but day-to-day as a public representative. Yesterday, the Alliance Councillor Micky Murray — Paula Bradshaw's colleague — became the first openly LGBTQ Mayor of Belfast, and my colleague Pete Byrne was confirmed as the first openly LGBTQ chairperson of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council. The reason why I point out those events out is that we are making progress in this society. We are moving towards greater acceptance and, indeed, celebration of diversity, but we cannot kid ourselves about the huge problem that we have with the permissiveness around hate. Kate Nicholl's remarks struck me. Kate represents South Belfast, as do Deirdre Hargey and Paula Bradshaw. It is a constituency that is proudly the most diverse constituency not only in Northern Ireland but, quite possibly, on the island of Ireland. In that constituency, however, we have constant reports of hate crime. We constantly deal with individuals — our constituents — who are subjected to hate. Other examples have been mentioned, but I draw attention to one particularly stark and startling example: the burning of the Belfast Multi-Cultural Association (BMCA) centre on Donegall Pass on more than one occasion. The people who owned and operated the BMCA centre, which was in a former church at the end of Donegall Pass, simply gave up on occupying the premises, because they did not see any meaningful investigation that was going to lead to prosecutions for what was, self-evidently, more than one hate crime being committed against their premises, from which they did extraordinary work in that part of South Belfast. That is the context in which we need improved and updated hate crime legislation, as Judge Marrinan's review said. That review was nearly four years ago. That is why the urgency exists today. I will deal with some specific points from the debate. Stewart Dickson said that legislation alone is not enough: of course legislation alone is not enough. To be honest, that almost goes without saying when we debate any form of legislation that involves a culture change, particularly in relation to criminal justice. Of course, legislation is only ever legislation; it is only ever as good as the public servants who deliver it and the society in which it operates. It is important to acknowledge — this point was made multiple times — the effect of years of stalemate and lack of an Assembly. Again, that goes without saying. It is also important to say, however, that, as Stewart Dickson acknowledged, hate crime legislation has been a specific commitment since 2016; indeed, the Marrinan review was published in 2020. Notwithstanding the fact that there was a period of collapse, there was a clear commitment to stand-alone hate crime legislation at that time. Deirdre Hargey mentioned the importance of a specific hate crime Bill. She talked, I think, about a stand-alone or dedicated hate crime Bill. Deirdre, like me, represents South Belfast, and, I know, takes the issues seriously. If that is Deirdre and Sinn Féin's position, I urge them, in the most respectful way possible, not to support the amendment, because it does not specify a stand-alone hate crime Bill, which is what we need. Joanne Bunting talked about the importance of scrutinising the legislation carefully and understanding that we are dealing with complex matters in relation to definitions of hate crime. They are complex, sensitive areas that require all of us to scrutinise them in detail. That is one of the best arguments for having a stand-alone hate crime Bill rather than simply having provisions in a separate sentencing or victims of crime Bill, because it is important that we unpack and are mature about unpacking things such as the definition of hate crime. In his review, Desmond Marrinan offers a definition of hate crime that is pretty usable — he is much more qualified to define it than I am — but that is the kind of thing that we, as legislators, particularly those on the Justice Committee, will have to unpack. That and the fact that that will then have to be communicated to the wider public make the argument for a stand-alone Bill. Doug Beattie speculated about being ginger being a protected characteristic. The Minister and I may be able to find a degree of common cause on that; I do not know about that. He also said that we should not rush something through. I do not think that we have rushed on this: we have been talking about it for a number of years. Paul Frew talked about getting the legislation right. I go back to the point about why talk about getting the legislation right supports the argument in favour of specific, stand-alone hate crime legislation. Because of the discrete nature of the issues that we are talking about, it makes sense to debate them in a discrete and targeted way, when we can unpack some of the controversies and complexities. Kate Nicholl spoke passionately, as always, about the diversity of South Belfast. I agree with her that there is too much permissiveness and tolerance of low-level hate, which then escalates into permissiveness of explicit acts of hate crime of whatever kind. I again come back to the point about the signal that we are trying to send. Kate talked about leadership and why it is important. The exercise of debating specific hate crime legislation would enable us, as legislators, to unpack some of the issues, including the broader cultural and historical context of hate crime and hate in this society, be that the deep legacy of sectarian hate that we have all inherited or, indeed, the fact that we have yet to grapple with and properly embrace the new diversity that we have in this society.

With respect to my fellow South Belfast representative, I completely reject the idea that I am focused on this as a panacea. We are debating a hate crime Bill because that is what is in the motion. Of course, we need to debate broader issues of racial equality and community cohesion. Of course, that is true, but the motion is specifically about a hate crime Bill.

The Alliance manifesto promised a stand-alone hate crime Bill. I did not make that up, and it is not me promising it off the top of my head. It was, with the greatest of respect, a specific pledge in your party's manifesto.

I will give way briefly, as I do not have much time left.

I am aware that the Minister does not like to be criticised in any context, ever, but my job is to be an Opposition politician who holds Ministers to account.

I apologise, Minister. If the Minister does not like that, I am very sorry, but my job is to hold Ministers to account for the job that they do. With respect, the reason that we will not support the amendment is that the argument has been made, including by the Alliance Party and its leader, for a stand-alone piece of hate crime legislation. Yes, it is important. If we are not successful, and the Minister introduces a statutory aggravation model through a different Bill, such as that which she called the "victims of crime Bill" in response to a question for written answer that I tabled but seems to have renamed the "victims of hate crime Bill", that is fine, and we will, of course, engage with it. A stand-alone Bill is what was promised, however, and that is what people have the right to expect. On the broader motion, we have an opportunity, finally, to start to deal with some of the deep legacies of division and hatred in our society. Hate crime legislation will not solve all those problems, nor should it come close to doing what Mr Allister suggested, which —

— is to legislate on people's private affairs. It can, however, set out a clear framework for tackling hate crime. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

1,479 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification