Complaints to politicians about hate speech legislation

Voters have branded the proposed hate speech legislation as ‘authoritarian’ and complained to TDs that it will turn Ireland into a ‘police state’.

People claimed the legislation’s hate and gender definitions were unclear in messages to politicians forwarded to the Ministry of Justice, seen by BreakingNews.ie following a Freedom of Information request.

Taoiseach Simon Harris has said he plans to pass an amended version of the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hate and Hate Crime) Bill 2022.

Politicians have argued over the wording of the bill, which aims to revise the 1989 hate speech legislation and introduce laws that would make ‘hate’ an aggravating factor for certain offences.

Concerns have been raised about a lack of clarity about what ‘hate’ means and what impact the legislation could have on freedom of expression.

In an email forwarded by Fine Gael TD Michael Ring, who is also a critic of the legislation, one constituent claimed the bill is “contrary to our personal freedoms as protected by our Constitution”.

The person said they were “shocked” at Section 15 and the “extraordinary powers it grants to police”.

The email, sent on May 13, added: “I didn’t realize we were becoming a police state in every sense.”

On May 16, Mr Ring sent the Justice Secretary a “sample of emails I have received in relation to the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hate and Hate Crime) Bill 2022.”

He wrote: ‘As you can imagine, I have received hundreds of emails on this subject and what I am sending you is just a
little monster. I am looking for a full and detailed answer from you and I need it urgently.”

On May 10, Senator Michael McDowell sent an email to then-acting Attorney General Simon Harris, questioning the legislation’s gender definitions.

In his email he wrote: “a) Is transgender a gender for the purposes of Irish law? b) Can you specify what, besides transgender, is meant by ‘any gender other than male or female?'”

Public Expenditure Minister Paschal Donohoe, who forwarded a number of emails from voters, sent one on May 16 in which someone wrote: “I am writing to you as a voter who has voted for you several times, to express my dissatisfaction that you voted in favor of the Criminal Justice Bill in its current form.

“This illiberal bill is a direct attack on the fundamental democratic principle and the right to freedom of expression.

“I want you to understand that I have voted for Fine Gael several times in the past, and specifically for you, because I
Belief in democracy and liberalism, the fact that you have abandoned these principles on this occasion means that I will look for other
parties to represent my views from now on.

“If you want to understand how a young, gay, liberal voter who cares deeply about the suffering of everyone in our society could do that
so strongly opposed to this authoritarian bill, feel free to read more about my position below.”

The author said he was a “33-year-old physician and PhD candidate.”

He added: “Granting the power to define the vague, undefined, subjective and infinitely malleable term ‘hate’, and the power to
deciding which statements are “likely to incite hatred” against the state is reckless. It will be just one popular vote change, one close election or one judicial succession away from a reinterpretation of ‘hate’ and the use of that new power to oppress.”

The email continued: “Minorities are not monoliths, we should not be treated as such, we have diverse opinions within each grouping and have conflicting interests between groupings. Activist organizations that claim to speak for our interests are not democratically elected and do not represent the diversity of opinions within these simplistic groups.
including myself, understand the importance of freedom of expression.

“I would rather know what someone’s true beliefs are, even if they are hateful. Why? Because then I can either exercise my freedom of association and avoid that person, or even (imagine this) have a conversation with them that his or her opinion could change.” Banning such statements means that these weak ideas will take on a mystique or cachet and will only be expressed behind closed doors, away from others.
criticism, where they can spread unchallenged, take permanent root and gain support.

‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It’s also completely ineffective – you can’t ban hate, any more than you can ban jealousy or greed.
Despite its criminalization, there are still many Holocaust deniers in Germany.”

In another email to Mr Donohoe on May 23, someone described the bill as ‘extremely sinister’.

A number of emails raised concerns about gender definitions in the new bill.

One email, again to Mr Donohoe, on March 26, read: “I’ll leave the pleasantries behind. I am a trans woman and even I am telling you that the hate crime law needs to be changed. This legislation will be used against transgender people and everyone else, including yourself!

“Are you so confident that you are so loved and adored by the public that someone will not attack your friends or family? This piece of legislation is dangerous for everyone”

An email from former Justice Secretary Charlie Flanagan raised concerns about the “poorly defined” definition of hate.

“Sure it sounds simple, we all hate the idea of ​​hate, but DO YOU think you know what ‘hate’ is? So do I, but wait until the word is ‘hate’.
redefined by those who want to silence their opponents, it is already with us, people throw the word hate at everyone
I don’t agree. The same rules will then be extended to violations, anyone offended will seek redress. This is not the case
the support of the general public, pass a law that people despise, and everyone loses the respect of the law and the legislators.

Another email to Mr Flanagan from a “concerned constituent and supporter of Fine Gael” expressed “deep concerns” about the “potential impact this bill could have on freedom of expression and the need for a balanced approach ”.

“I fear this inadvertently restricts legitimate expression and hinders open dialogue and honest discussions
sensitive topics such as gender-critical views, transgenderism, gender differences, immigration and the refugee crisis.”

The person added: “To achieve a fair and effective balance, I suggest that the Bill should include provisions for robust public consultations, allowing input not just from academics and legal professionals, but most importantly from the Irish people , as they We have to live with the consequences of this bill. This inclusive approach would help ensure that the final legislation is comprehensive, well-informed and respects the rights and freedoms of all individuals.”

An email with the subject line “a view from LGBT Ireland” made rare calls for the bill to be introduced quickly.

An earlier protest outside Leinster House was reported which included intimidating messages and a fake gallows with images of politicians including Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald and then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.

“This must have been deeply distressing for you, your staff and others in the Oireachtas. Sadly, the levels of violence, intimidation and intimidation on display yesterday came as no surprise to LGBT Ireland or other organizations working with the LGBT community.

“What happened yesterday is not new and will not be stopped unless action is taken. Last month, fourteen LGBTs and migrants
organizations wrote to the Garda Commissioner to express our collective concern at the escalation of this campaign, the increased
threats of violence and the risk of serious harm, including death. We need to see a more robust response, not just to
events outside Leinster House, as well as similar events outside libraries and migrant centres.

“For that response to be effective, An Garda Síochána and the wider criminal justice system must be equipped with powers to
tackling incidents that incite hatred, similar to what we saw yesterday. With that goal in mind, we want to see its rapid implementation
the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Crimes) Bill 2022.”

Enterprise Minister Peter Burke sent an email about concerns “raised to me by a constituent that the Bill could lead to an invasion of personal privacy and could lead to the inadvertent withdrawal of information technology companies from Ireland if their rights to streaming of non-mainstream content will be affected.”

He added: “The questions that have arisen are: how will personal and industrial privacy and rights be protected under this bill?”

An email forwarded by then-Senator David Norris read: “Can you request details of the risk and impact assessment carried out by a
Garda Síochána and/or the Ministry of Justice on the use of a third party referral system for reporting hate crime. I can think of several issues off the top of my head, and I want to make sure this information is taken into account when you decide how to vote.”

An email forwarded by Fine Gael TD Simon Coveney, then Minister for Enterprise, again touched on gender definitions. The email asked for more specific definitions of transphobic language.

Another email from Mr Donohoe mentioned a constituent who called his office to “vehemently oppose” the hate speech legislation.

Donohoe’s office wrote: “He believes that people should be able to speak freely and that this proposal would undermine this basic principle of democracy. Also questions why there is no referendum on this.”

Fianna Fáil Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee said she had heard concerns about the legislation from Ireland’s Jewish community.

Ms Clifford-Lee proposed an amendment that would include “the Holocaust” in legislation to prevent Holocaust denial, and to make it a criminal offense to “deny, grossly trivialize or whitewash the Holocaust”.