It is a matter of record that yours truly does not believe that the Hate Speech or Hate Crime bill will be passed by the Oireachtas in the remaining time before the next general election, meaning that – if I am correct – the legislation is functionally dead unless and until a future Government decides to resurrect it.
This does not mean, however, that the debate is over. Indeed, new life was breathed into that debate this weekend by no less a figure than the opinion editor of the Irish Times, Jennifer O’Connell, who occupies one of the most influential postings in Irish journalism. The unfolding fiasco with the Scottish Hate law, she observes, is not an object lesson in the lack of wisdom behind enacting such a law, but rather a lesson that such a law should be done – as only we Irish can – properly.
Basically, O’Connell argues, the Scottish law is flawed because it is unclear what, exactly, constitutes a hate crime or hate speech. One might pause at this point to note that the Government of Ireland has been entirely unwilling to offer a definition of “hate” in its own law, which somewhat undermines the claim that Ireland is likely to avoid a similar mistake.
However, the real problem with O’Connell’s argument is when she seeks to justify the need for the law in the first place. I’ll quote the relevant section of her article in full, out of fairness:
It would be tempting for the Government to let this one quietly drop, but there are compelling arguments why it must go ahead, including a 29 per cent increase in reported hate crimes in 2022 and an increase in arson attacks of 11 per cent in 2023, possibly linked to attacks on asylum-seeker accommodation.
LGBTQ+ people say they feel less safe on the streets following a surge in incidents of abuse and assaults. Women journalists and politicians are routinely abused on social media; some male politicians have cited the toxicity in public life as a factor in their decision to retire.
Meanwhile, a handful of aspiring politicians are normalising rhetoric and tactics that would have been unimaginable even a few years ago. In a 24-hour period this week, a candidate in the upcoming local elections, Gavin Pepper, posted videos to his X platform of himself shouting at Hazel Chu on the street, and another he filmed outside the tented encampment on Mount Street which he captioned, “Where are the missing children?”
Would those type of incidents meet the bar for hate speech? Unlikely, because free speech is rightfully protected here too. If the legislation is passed, despite the air of semi-hysteria surrounding it in sections of the UK media, it would be still be almost impossible to go around accidentally inciting hatred. As JK Rowling discovered, even when you really set out to deliberately push the boundaries, it is not easy.
Hate-speech legislation does not stifle free speech.
There are three distinct arguments there, each of which I have highlighted in bold. We will talk about them in reverse order.
The last, that “hate speech legislation does not stifle free speech” is what we might call an unsupported assertion: There is no evidence for it. None is offered. It is simply the author’s personal opinion.
It is notable however that it is a personal opinion offered immediately after an example that explicitly contradicts the opinion.
Gavin Pepper, a local election candidate, she says, with undisguised disapproval, has been wandering around Dublin shouting at Hazel Chu and shouting at Migrant tents. It should be noted here that disapproval of such conduct is something that Irish voters (at least those in Finglas) will have the opportunity to express directly to Mr. Pepper, should they choose to do so, via the ballot box in June. Nevertheless, this conduct, says O’Connell, is a problem, and clearly part of her rationale for supporting the hate legislation, otherwise why mention it?
She then goes on, however, to say that such behaviour would not be illegal under the very law she is using that behaviour to justify: It would not “meet the bar” for hate speech, says she. In which case, one might ask: What’s the point? Why mention it?
This would be a forgivable bit of waffle from an average punter, but coming from the exalted perch of the opinion desk of the country’s most prestigious newspaper, it’s entirely noteworthy, because it allows us to make an inference that was perhaps not intended. That is, that many supporters of the hate speech think or hope that it might result in as much cultural change as legal change: People like Gavin Pepper might not actually commit any crimes, they tell you, but at the same time fear of committing crimes might nevertheless change their behaviour. That hope is also, you’ll note, only extended in one political direction – there’s no example provided of intemperate commentary from the left, since the Irish Times often likes to pretend such things do not exist.
This, essentially, is as close as you’ll get to an admission that the purpose of the law is to act as political intimidation of political candidates that the bill’s supporters do not like, while protecting candidates (such as Ms. Chu) who the bill’s supporters do like. It’s also a nice illustration of the rhetorical trick that the left often plays on this topic when describing the exact same thing done by either side: My side expresses its principled opposition in strong terms, Your side, on the other hand, expresses hate.
Oh, and by the way, “Hate Speech legislation does not stifle free speech”.
The third argument she makes is related to an increase in reported hate crimes, and arson attacks. The first thing to note here, of course, is that such things are already illegal. We are being asked to believe that somebody who is set on breaking the present laws around arson might think twice were a new law enacted to add hate to it.
Yet, how would that even work? How does one prove that arson is a hate crime directed against a “protected characteristic”. There’s a strong case to be made that those who burn down migrant centres or putative migrant centres are acting out of opposition to Government policy, rather than hatred for the likely residents of such centres. Government policy is hardly a protected characteristic.
Finally, you’ll note the inherent three card trick being played upon the public: On the one hand, the bill’s supporters assert that it is a moderate, limited, entirely restrictive piece of legislation that will protect free speech and have almost no impact on public discourse. On the other hand, they argue that it is entirely vital, because of the kinds of political speech we are seeing in increasingly widespread areas of public discourse. The bill is at once going to do nothing, so you don’t need to worry, and at the same time going to save us from the likes of Gavin Pepper.
It cannot be both. If this is the best that the Irish Times can muster in its defence, it is no wonder that this legislation is dying slowly on the vine.