Cllr voices concern over new Bill on hate speech
New Bill “significantly damages” balance, says Aontú rep.
A local councillor fears that a new law aimed at curbing hate speech in Ireland goes too far and might result in stifling the freedom of expression and opinion.
The updated legislation seeks to create a landmark set of laws that will make it an offence to deny or trivialise genocide as well as expand protections to include gender identity and disability.
The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 is currently before the Seanad.
“Firstly, I oppose all forms of discrimination and incitement to violence,” Aontú’s Sarah O’Reilly told the June monthly meeting of elected members. “But I am one of those people who questions, challenges and tests in a manner that is respectful, I like to think.”
Describing “censorship” as “authoritarian”, she cited Voltaire's famous sentence on tolerance before attacking the legislative proposals being mulled over.
“There has to be balance of rights. We need to allow a society where there is a freedom to articulate, to challenge to hold to account but also where reputations are not unfairly attacked,” said the Bailieborough- based councillor, who accepts that “most ordinary people” support the existing Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act.
But she said the new Bill and what it contains “significantly damages” the balance, and points to the “lack of clear definitions” on both hate and gender without which Cllr O’Reilly says renders the legislation “meaningless” and even “dangerous”.
To the meeting she noted there is, at present, “clear distinctions” between hate crimes and non-criminal “hate incidents”.
“This is the part of the bill that bothers me most - it is very subjective - for example what I may find offensive, another person may not. It is based on opinion – and you know what they say about opinions!”
Pondering how the law is supposed to “measure hurt, harm and pain caused by words”, Cllr O’Reilly asked: “Is it the subjective opinion of the person with the hurt feelings? Should that be enough to criminalise a person?”
She added that the “potential confusion” that arose in England could arise in Ireland where hate incidents “may be recorded on the Pulse system and could potentially be flagged to potential employers under Garda vetting. And citizens may never know a record exists.”
She concluded that the legislation being debated also risked creating a “hierarchy of victims in the creation of protected groups”, and expressed worry that TDs and Senators had not read the Bill and instead were operating “blindly” under the Whip system.
“The Irish Council of Civil Liberties itself has said that that the definitions of incitement to hatred and the protections of freedom of expression are not clear enough,” said Cllr O’Reilly. “Hatred, we are told by the Minister is the key reason for this bill. Yet it’s not defined anywhere in the bill.
“I oppose hatred. I would say that calling for violence against people is hatred - this should be illegal. But others would define hatred as saying that a woman is a female adult. The right not to be offended is not a fundamental human right. There is also the question of who decides what hate speech is? The idea that something might be said as a joke, would that be considered a criminal offence? Will there be allowances for stupidity?”
Responding to her motion, Independent Cllr Shane P O’Reilly questioned if by introducing amendments to laws such as this meant that people had “dumbed down”, and that to seek the changes seemed like succumbing to the “woke brigade”.
“I think it’s a sad day for democracy,” said Cllr SP O’Reilly. “It’s a sad day for right thinking people.”
Falsehood
Fine Gael’s TP O’Reilly was however very forthright in his response to the comments of both councillors, outlining how the legislation being introduced was to deal with “extremisms” only, and that the “ordinary man” will remain unaffected, and still be able to “speak his mind”.
He added that to suggest otherwise was a “falsehood”.
Fianna Fáil’s Philip Brady, who was elected Cathaoirleach at the subsequent AGM, acknowledged that “more information was needed”, but added that he too did “not know what was going to offend people these days”.
Independent Brendan Fay felt there was a need for legislators to “go back to the drawing board”, and a “lot more detail” was needed.