Mary Dunlevy Greene

The ‘Hate Speech’ Bill that isn’t about ‘Hate’ It is not surprising to hear the Government say that it will be renewing efforts to pass the ‘Hate Speech’ Bill. They tell us that the they have ‘made commitments’, after all. But ‘commitments’, we might ask, to whom? Commitments to the public? (I think most people would be happy to relieve them of any obligations there.) Or could it be commitments to insider NGOs? Or to the World Economic Forum? Or to the European Commission? The Government doesn’t say. But people may wonder. Here’s something to watch: when the 2023 Garda statistics are published shortly, will the focus will be on another rise in hate crime figures, if there is such, or will the focus be where it should be, namely on the rise in serious assaults, sex crimes, if there is such, and on the plight of the missing children who were supposed to be in the care of the State? The problem with using the shorter ‘Hate Speech Bill’ as a term for the Bill, as I have been doing, is that some critics, innocently or otherwise, ask how can you not oppose ‘hate speech’? So it is worth recalling that the Bill doesn’t just tackle the type of ‘hate speech’ that could legitimately be targeted by criminal law because it endangers people. While ‘hatred’ remains undefined in the Bill, and against a background where Gardaí use a subjective test where what is perceived by anyone at all as a ‘hate incident’ is counted up as part of the catalogue of hate going on out there, the Bill is a threat to robust and legitimate freedom of expression. Add in the twisted new definition of ‘gender’ in the Bill’s list of ‘protected characteristics’ against which ‘incitement to hatred’ could be deemed to take place, and you have a recipe for ideological oppression and social conditioning. So we might also term the ‘Hate Speech’ Bill the ‘Contempt for Free Speech Bill’ - because that is the core of the problem. No doubt the ‘Hate Speech’ (CforFS) Bill has attractions for those who would like to manage social media exchanges. As the referendum results showed, political discourse is currently beyond government control. (How dare people express and actively organise support for the archaic sexism of motherhood? Or not support modern fluidity in families? How dare they doubt the government’s concern for carers? How could people possibly hold views beyond those expressed by insider NGOs?) If passed, the ‘Hate Speech’ (CforFS) Bill would give the Government a desperately-desired lever of control. And the beauty, as they see it, is that they need not ever send one person to prison for it to be successful. How can this be done? Well, since hatred remains undefined, hate speech and incitement to hatred are unknown quantities, and the current Garda definition becomes the understood standard. Remember that definition (my italics added for emphasis): ‘Any non-crime incident which is perceived by any person to, in whole or in part, be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on actual or perceived age, disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.’ Ideologically-driven campaigners against free speech will use that definition to try and shut down any untoward political viewpoints using our new online media regulator, simply by claiming that a post contains illegal content. Social media platforms are in no position to contest the interpretation of whether something is illegal without risking enormous fines. Even X must obey the law. So, maybe no court cases, no jail time — but no freedom of expression either. And though we’ve been offered no definition of ‘hatred’ (‘hate is hate’, we’re told) in the ‘Hate Speech’ (CforFS) Bill, how interesting that they managed to produce a definition of ‘gender’ — because that is where much of the energy for shutting down free speech will be.