Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2007 - Second Stage - 7th March 2007

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment)
Bill 2007 - Second Stage - 7th March 2007
Mr. Norris: I give this Bill a guarded welcome.
Like most people who tell the truth, I regard the
shared experience of sexual pleasure with
another human being in a loving relationship as
one of the highest forms of physical and spiritual
ecstasy, and we should say that.
Mr. Ryan: Hear, hear.
Mr. Norris: Those people who are privileged to
have that experience should cherish it but there
is a danger, because of the language being used
now, that we automatically equate “sexual” and
“indecent” as if they are replaceable terms, and
they are not. I am not saying there is not sexual
exploitation but let us not pretend that sexual
pleasure is dirty or reprehensible. It is a wonderful
gift. That is why it must be treated sensitively
and examined carefully.
I regret that, once again in this area, we are
dealing with rushed legislation. Senator Quinn
was right when he remarked on the requirement
on this House, under the Constitution, to carefully
examine legislation, and had some hesitations
about what was happening here today. I
do not believe that is the case. Even though it
may well be that almost every speaker who wants
to speak will get to speak on Second Stage, there
is virtually no provision for the teasing out of
amendments in a considered way and then to
return to the issues after the Minister’s explanation
on Report Stage. That is not what this
House is about. In fact, it is a flat contradiction
of what we are about.
The timing of this Bill, in the run up to an election,
could not be worse because it provokes the
kind of posturing we saw in the debate in the
other House last night. I watched “Oireachtas
Report” last night and I was appalled by the
pious posturings, particularly from Fine Gael
Members. I like Enda Kenny, by and large, but I
was disgusted by what I saw. The kind of posturing
that went on would make a rat puke.
I want to say, while the Minister of State,
Deputy Parlon, is in the Chamber because it is
not the first time this has happened, that there
were suggestions that he was less interested in
protecting the welfare of children from sexual
abuse or that he regarded such matters as minor
offences. That is a deeply dishonest and wrong
suggestion. I may differ with this Minister on a
number of aspects but it is outrageous that any
politician should make that kind of accusation.
That is what we get when this kind of legislation
is introduced in an election period. The Minister
showed considerable tact in the way he dealt with
suggestions from both the Labour Party and the
Fine Gael Party and he has addressed the problem
of grooming.
In the absence of the Minister, Senator Ryan
raised a query about grooming and wondered
whether one meeting constituted grooming. I do
not believe it can because as I understand it,
grooming is a deliberate preparation over a long
term to make children believe it is a normal process.
In some horrible cases they were given the
impression that it was a religious duty to cooperate.
That constitutes violation.
To return to the first point I made about the
profound involvement in all of our natures of the
sexual instinct, we must also face reality. A few
minutes ago the Visitors Gallery was full of teenagers
and I would say the hormone level was
885 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) 7 March 2007. (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage 886
through the ceiling. That is the reality and politicians
do nobody any favours if they pretend the
citizens of this country are eunuchs until they are
16 years and 11 months.
My colleague, Senator Henry, referred to the
recent case, which is troubling in many aspects,
and said the young man involved was solicited by
a large number of men. That is not the case. This
young man placed an advertisement on a gay
website stating that he was 19 years of age and
inviting correspondence and contact. A considerable
number of the gay people who contacted him
refused to have anything to do with him when
they found out that he was underage, deleted his
number and told him to stop the contact in his
own interest. Those people behaved responsibly.
I do not use the computer. There is something
in me — I know I am old-fashioned — that
revolts against the mechanical element of looking
for partners through a machine. I do not like it.
It does not appeal to me but I know it is very 21st
century. I pay tribute to the young man in question
for his courage, integrity and the way in
which he told the truth throughout what must
have been an extremely difficult time. This State
has let that young man down because we have
never protected the interests of young gay people.
We still have the exemption of the churches from
the operation of the equality legislation. That
copper-fastens bullying by both students and
teachers of young gay people in schools. Report
after report indicates that 80% of bullying contains
a homophobic element but nothing is ever
done about it, although the Stay Safe programme
was mentioned.
In the case which was widely reported, reports
started off referring to a paedophile ring. There
was no paedophile ring. There is a great deal of
rubbish written in newspapers. Senator
O’Rourke’s contribution was excellent. She
spoke about the need to be allowed to discuss
these issues in a rational manner without being
automatically labelled.
The Minister, in anticipation of the fact that we
might not have time to have long discussions,
took up the question of the amendments. Among
others that I tabled was one about honest mistake.
I did so partly because I saw “Oireachtas
Report” last night and suggestions were made
from the Labour Party benches that there might
be a constitutional problem. The Minister mentioned
the question of mens rea, which is very
interesting. As a distinguished lawyer, I am sure
he is right. He then stated this was a fundamental
part of the Constitution and that we may well
have a referendum to knock it out. If it is so fundamental,
if it is automatically assumed and if it
is a good thing, why are we then knocking it out?
I wish to make a point about protecting people
who are mentally handicapped, with which I
agree. However, let us not be too simplistic about
this. The mentally handicapped have various
degrees of handicap. Some of them can be pretty
bloody cunning. I know of a case of a person who
was borderline handicapped and used that condition
to approach people as sexual partners and
then blackmailed them. He made a career out of
it. What about protecting the rights of those
people who under this law would be copper-fastened
as criminals? We must realise this area is
not fully black and white.
I believe we will need to return to legislate on
this subject. Let us have a full sexual offences Bill
that deals with the whole situation and not during
the run up to a general election. Senator Ryan
mentioned the second last paragraph in page 6,
which refers to “inviting, inducing or coercing the
child to participate in or observe any activity of a
sexual or indecent nature.” God bless The Tailor
and Ansty. What about a farmer who takes a
young lad aged 16 and a half to the yard to see
the bull service the cow? Under this section the
farmer could go to jail, which is daft because the
wording is so loosely drafted. We must protect
people from real exploitation. We must be honest
and admit the sexual identity of young people,
which is true.
The Minister should be aware that parents
inevitably resent that their children are sexual
beings because they see it as part of growing away
from them. We need only consider how fathers
often react to their daughters’ marriages.
Ta´ naiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and
Law Reform (Mr. M. McDowell): I do not want
to cut into time for amendments in the other
Stages of the Bill. I fully agree with the views
expressed in this House that we need a sexual
offences Bill of a comprehensive kind. Although
it was not given major coverage, I indicated last
night in the Da´ il that I intend to ask the codification
committee, which has just been established
and is operational in association with University
College Dublin, to make this area its first priority.
The existing law is spread over a series of statutes,
which is why this mistake was made in the
first place. It is very impenetrable and is now
becoming increasingly interlinked with cross-references
between all these Acts. The second
reason for doing so is that the Joint Committee
on Child Protection, which was established in the
aftermath of the emergency legislation last year,
was of the view that we needed a comprehensive
statute.
I do not like rushed legislation. I wish to say
this here because I would get howled down if I
tried to say it in the other House. When I asked
for a fortnight or three weeks on the previous
occasion last year I was howled at from the editorial
columns asking me on what planet I was
living. I said there was no great big black hole
and that we had time to get it right.
Mr. Norris: I remember that.
Mr. M. McDowell: I was screamed at as if there
was something wrong with my head and I could
not understand the issue. I was abused for not
887 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) 7 March 2007. Bill 2007: Committee and Remaining Stages 888
[Mr. M. McDowell.]
seeing the obvious. I cannot understand why all
the people who accused me then of not being
sufficiently urgent about it are now running columns
in the same newspapers giving out shots
about me for the consequences of legislating in
haste. It is strange. Of course I realise that it is
the prerogative of a commentator to be always
right and it is the prerogative of a politician to be
always wrong.
I would prefer to have more time to discuss this
legislation. I was asked by the Labour Party to
deal with it as a matter of urgency. I said I would
make time available in the Da´ il yesterday for the
purposes of doing so. I did that. I took on board
the Fine Gael proposal because I did not want
controversy about matters I was not doing. I
know Senators would like to have a week to consider
this entire matter. However, we need a comprehensive
sexual offences Bill. We need it to be
properly thought through and published, followed
by a public discussion. I expect that process
to happen later this year. It cannot happen until
we sort out the issue one way or another as to
whether we will have a zone of absolute protection.
There is no point in legislating yet again on
this issue and then claiming there is a constitutional
difficulty with what we are doing. We
need to get all our lines clear in this regard.
1 o’clock
I was condemned with vigour last year when I
asked for a little time — I said on radio that a
couple of weeks would not make any difference.
Clambering mobs made all sorts of
demands. People told me that something
was missing in my head if I
could not see how urgent it was to act immediately.
When I was taking the Bill through the Da´ il
I said I was concerned that I had noticed several
mistakes in the text overnight. However, I get no
credit for any of that — that is the way the world
is. In that self-pitying mode I will sit down.
Mr. Norris: The Minister is the very one who
wants newspapers to be able to lie about politicians
as much as they want.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday