Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE DEPARTMENT OF Justice said it is carrying out research into international best practice on tackling hate crime and will shortly carry out a public consultation, as LGBT advocates report the number of assaults, many of which go unreported, are on the rise.
Earlier this week, a gay man in his 50s was assaulted by a gang of young men who posed as another gay man on the Grindr dating app, and lured him to a car park in Dublin.
He claimed it was a “premeditated homophobic attack” and posted images of the injuries he sustained online.
Ireland is one of the few countries in the EU which has no purpose-built legislation to deal with hate crimes, which means that there are no public statistics available on hate crimes or racist attacks.
Paula Fagan, CEO of LGBT Ireland, said these types of attacks occur frequently within the LGBT community, to the extent that it has become normal and is often not reported as a crime.
“It’s certainly something that is coming up on our helpline and I think it’s under-reported in our community even to us,” she said.
“Firstly, we hear about the worst cases in the media, and then we hear from other people who feel like they might be in a compromised position. For example, someone who isn’t out and they go on a date and have been attacked, or subsequently blackmailed.
“And they will come to us about it because they feel they can’t go to the guards and don’t know what to do. I think, anecdotally, that these things are on the rise and I think we’re seeing a rise in organised hate speech too.”
Justice
The Department of Justice is set to publish the first National LGBT Inclusion Strategy before the end of the year.
In the mean time, it said it is working on ways to strengthen the Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, and it intends to carry out a public consultation in the coming weeks, as well as carrying out research into international best practice in this area.
“The Department is currently reviewing the provisions of the Act and will shortly be announcing a public consultation process in order to gather views on how our legislation on criminal hate speech can be updated to operate more effectively,” a spokesperson said.
“The Department is currently undertaking research on how other countries have legislated for hate crime, to determine international best practice in this regard [and] is due for completion before the end of 2019.”
At present, the act currently prohibits threatening, abusive or insulting conduct that is intended or likely to stir up hated against a group of persons on account of their race, religion, ethnic background or sexual orientation.
That legislation, however, has been criticised due to the volume of hateful content that is being posted on social media sites, and has led to calls for hate crime legislation to be reviewed immediately .
The Oireachtas Justice Committee recently met with social media companies, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, in a bid to address the issue and look at new measures to eliminate hate speech online.
Committee member and Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Justice, Jim O’Callaghan said legislation should have been introduced before now to tackle the issue.
“This has been on the political agenda for the past three years so we need a quick review of the legislation and a proposal put forward,” he said.
I agree there should be a public consultation. You could put it out for public consultation for a period of weeks and have it done but the Government don’t see there is an urgency in this.
“They should have done this before now and we have seen numerous cases of people being targeted because of their race or orientation.”
An Garda Síochána introduced a working definition of hate crimes earlier this month to guide gardaí who are investigating hate crimes.
Priority
Fagan said she is happy to see the Government putting out a public consultation but added that it “has to be a top priority”.
It simply has to happen now and it has to be a top priority for the Government.
“It has to be progressed and it can’t be continued to be left. It has to be legislated for and I think that means that this Government has to do it. It has to be an essential commitment with any forthcoming elections in each party’s manifesto.
“We’re seeing a rise in organised hate speech, and with these organised groups that are promoting hate speech about our community. It’s something we’re worried about, it’s something that has taken hold in parts of Europe, so it’s on the rise anyway.
“When I was reading that story about that terrible thing that happened to that man, I was thinking we know from research that a hate-motivated crime is much harder for a victim, and has a much deeper impact because of the motivation behind it.”
“It completely undermines the safety of you as a person,” she added.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Here comes the regulation of speech… who trusts the regulators?
@Josh Gilman: we have never had “free speech” in this country. You cannot say what you want in a public place if it is threatening, abusive or insulting.
@Paul:
there’s always some caveats, in USA (which i don;’t consider somewhere to want to emulate) you can;t go shouting Fire in a theatre or cinema, when there’s is none, just to create panic
@Josh Gilman: literally the first story in this article is about a gay man who was lured into a violent assault through a dating app.
But sure.
“Free speech” is what’s really at risk here.
@Josh Gilman: free speech Facebook account does not exist .
@B Collins: Actually it is about free speech, assault is already a crime which is what happened to that poor man, it doesn’t matter what was said during any assault to physically harm another person is already set out in law as a punishable offence. As for speach laws we have the incitement to hatred Act 1989, the only thing missing form the legislation is what speech is considered hateful. There’s lots of speech people would agree on that should be included but there’s also lots of speech that people wouldn’t agree on, then there’s the slippery slope argument (as history has shown it isn’t always a fallacy) and the future parameters of language and what future body gets to police what constituents hate speech.
@Josh Gilman: You open the Journal.ie any day of the week
read the name calling abusive posts under fictitious profiles and that’s not hate with no consequences to the person who is posting it Its time for anyone using fictitious profiles to come under scrutiny and banned if necessary. Its very easy to mouth off be a key warrior when there are no consequences.
@Josh Gilman: next they will actually try to make it illegal to actually hate somebody or thing, trying to regulate against human emotions.
when are people going to learn that we are not actually all suppose to get along, like one big happy family, we are animals like any other and all animals fight with each other for whatever reason, the fact that we are a ‘more intelligent’ animal just makes it worse as we see every day.
This modern day idea that we are all suppose to get along and be happy together in a completly mixed up world is i have to say a wonderful idea but it is just that an idea, a fairytale, it is never going to happen and the reprecusions of the last couple of decades of trying to force it on people and comunities hasnt even begun to be felt yet it is a social catastrophy waiting to happen a time bomb that will change the face of Europe forever.
and further more trying to tell people they are wrong over however they feel in relation to this subject actually contributes to making the problem worse or at best doesnt help the situation. we would have a better chance of living peacefully if we accepted that we are all not suppose to get along.
@Alan Scott: Fictitious? You mean people such as myself who aren’t glued to social media all day? Who don’t share private information out of safety concerns, namely misuse of personal information? I’m not putting up pics of my family just to please you.
@B Collins: If we lose free speech we all become victims. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
@Alan Scott: I bet you’d love to dish out the consequences.
@Josh Gilman: free speech is not the same as oppression. Yes, say what you want but your words should not be used to oppress others. Hate crimes are words and actions that are specifically aimed at suppressing another group because somehow the person actioning hatefulness believes that they hold a degree of superiority. If you cannot see what is wrong with that, then you need to go and read a few history books. That man was beaten up because he is gay, it wasn’t just a random assault or robbery. It was specifically because the people beating him were homophobic. That is a hate crime. It should not fall under the same statistics as a random assault as it’s clearly a premeditated attempt to oppress. Because there is no separate reporting system/stats for hate crime we are not understanding the scale of it in Ireland. That’s why we need need separate legislation.
Assault is assault. There are no LGBT, Racist, Political or Class excuses. This is just another non story invented by our divide and conquer Status Quo.
@Denis McClean: A non story? The guy was targeted because he is gay. It was a premeditated attack. Wtf is wrong with you?
@Ian Breathnach: he probably never heard of grinder. Story went over his head.
@Ian Breathnach: The man was beaten up and his attackers should be found and prosecuted for what they did, not for why they did it.
If they had beaten up the man for his wallet would that have made it a lesser offense?
If we start doling out justice based on a hierarchy of victims we corrupt the very concept of justice.
@Will: The man was targeted simply for being who he was. He was lured to the attack. It was premeditated. It is clearly a hate crime.
@Ian Breathnach:
We hear of endless cases where innocent people are assaulted for no reason by mindless thugs looking for kicks. They do not need the excuse that a person is Gay to target law abiding citizens.
@Denis McClean: are you tick? The assault was premeditated by homophbic, straight men with the aim of oppressing someone’s sexual orientation. If you genuinely believe that there are no LGBT/Race motives to crime then you are delusional.
@Ian Breathnach: All violent crimes are hate crimes. Ask yourself, if two men are beaten up by different assailants and both end up with the same injuries but one happens to be gay, should the guy(s) who beats up the gay man get a longer sentence?
Of course not, both crimes are equal and the punishments should be the same.
Unless you believe that beating up a gay man is worse then beating up a straight man.
@Aisling Bruen: Real justice demands that the act is punished, not the motive. A motive allows the police to narrow down suspects but it should not be used to decide on the punishment, unless you believe some victims to be more worthy of justice then others.
@Will: Well said Will. We need to prosecute violence against everyone without dividing everyone into groups.
@Aisling Bruen: I’ll ignore the insults. It doesn’t matter who they are or what motivated them. They assaulted someone and that is already a criminal offence. I hope they get caught and when they do, their motivation is irrelevant. Why complicate a simple issue.
@Will: exactly, and the act is hate crime.
Why is it confined to inciting hatred against people on account of their “race, religion, ethnic background and sexual orientation”. What about inciting hatred against a group or an individual on account of their sex or political opinions or even their social status. Protection should be equally applied to all citizens, not just the chosen few.
@Frank McGlynn: If is
@Frank McGlynn: the other categories are already protected by Constitutional and equality law rights. You actually understand the requirements of incitement to hatred ? . Tell us of the incidents where men,women, married ,single, working class ,middle class , unmarried mothers , people who vote for commies or socialists or FF FG or any political party (all the other groups who worry about ) been victims of some lunatic trying to stir hatred towards them ?
@Christy Dolan: I challenge you to go to the guards and tell them your teen, who doesn’t fit into any of those categories, is being cyberbullied and see how protected they are.
Why do we need special treatment for this??? Surely these would be treated as ‘assaults’, same as with any other victim?? Integration and diversity will never happen if they are treated differently. Govt CAUSING these problems. This is assault. End of.
@Kath Noonan: Exactly. But there’s always room for another group in this country.
@Kath Noonan: wrong.
@Aisling Bruen: no, you’re wrong.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
― George Orwell, 1984
@Yermanuptheroad: Compared to 20 years ago it has never been easier to express thought and broadcast it to the world.
@Squiddley Diddley: which is exactly why they’re making up new laws to suppress it
Who defines what hate is?
@Michael Connick: the Parliament will, it’s kinda what they do, once they review the laws of other countries that have more experience with this stuff
@Christy Dolan: so you’re OK with leaving something a definition as broad and murky as hate up to the government? Other countries aren’t doing so well with their hate speech laws. What happens when hate speech laws contradict scientific fact which they do in several countries.
@Michael Connick: what scientific facts and which countries?
Who exactly is pushing for this legislation, and what is their motivation? Gay people face less discrimination now than at any other time in our history as proven by the same-sex marriage referendum. This proposed legislation is to curb our freedom to express ourselves nothing more and nothing less.
So, on an article about a gay man being targeted in a premeditated attack you seek to minimize this attack because gay people face less discrimination now than ever before?? Are you for real? The LGBT community are still the target of attacks simply for being who they are. For you to dismiss this is quite shocking. Have a word with yourself. And you a so called Christian.
Crime is already legislated against.
Could commenting on the journal be a hate crime… Saying for instance Islam is very anti gay people in Muslim countries…
@iComment: this is Ireland!!! We have nothing to do with Islam. I can’t see it being an issue.
@iComment: it’s probably more to do with gay people in Ireland being lured into traps where they are brutally beaten by other Irish people who don’t identify as Muslims. Extraordinarily violent crime against a gay man just a few days ago
@Mairtin Antaine O Conaill: sure the flood gates are open
@iComment: how is that a hate crime ? Telling the truth , being factual or making a valid argument that can be backed up with evidence and uttered without intention of harming anyone a hate crime ?
@Mairtin Antaine O Conaill: Ireland is not a Muslin country but we have many people in communities who are apart of Islam. so you are wrong there !
@Mairtin Antaine O Conaill: Yet!
Utter load of bollxxx!! Crime in general is up of all sorts .. if lgbtqwxyz want to be treated equally to all others in society , well get used to the crap the rest of society deals with on a daily basis!! Snowflakes!!
@Kevin Flanagan: no fan of identity politics or that LGBT melodrama, but, this is a legitimate concern for them. Much of the crime is up, it’s true. But people are being targeted for a characteristic that they have, one that ought to be no one else’s business
@Kevin Flanagan: What a disgusting thing to say. Your parents must be proud of what you’ve become.
@Kevin Flanagan: you don’t love the gays, we get it. Still, I think they can be legitimately concerned about hate crimes when hate crimes are increasing.
@Kevin Flanagan: have you ever been targeted because of your sexual orientation?
@Ian Breathnach: there is always one…
@Christy Dolan: Most people are targeted for a vulnerability they have, when it comes to crime, be it age, solitude, distraction, etc. but I don’t get the need to diminish the severity of another group’s crimes because of that going on in these comments. I really don’t.
It’s much easier to prosecute someone who says something hateful online than to do something a
about street violence. To really protect minorities we should have safer streets with an increased likelihood of getting caught if you attack someone. If someone is abused online you have hundreds of brave souls willing to fight back on their behalf and report the offender. If someone is attacked in the street, no so much. A sceptic might worry that government, like most of us, will opt for the inexpensive way of being seen to do something.
Always the victims ! Let’s have a straight parade paid for by the taxpayer !
The amount of subtle homophobes on this thread opposing measures like this would make you sick.
@Keith O’Reilly: absolute bull.
somewhat of an eye-opener of a story, but not the first of it’s kind. I am ashamed of the behavior of some element s of our citizens, but much more ashamed that our ‘powers that be’ in legislating against certain crimes, that we don’t have a specific law against hate crimes, or use of acid attacks, beggars belief. it’s not fn rocket science to introduced mandatory sentencing to deal with emerging and on-going types of crime, is frankly preposterous.
Another pet project for Mr varadkar.
Assault is assault, I by no means condone the actions of homophobic morons. With the same-sex marriage referendum only recently passed, assaults were only going to increase as a result people being more open. The mentality of the hate mob will die out over time and change in attitudes. Tougher sanctions for assaults based on context. Regulation of “free” speech is a step to far!
Face on Eoin Murphy in that photo lol.
Leo said before ““The Minister, Deputy [Simon] Harris, and the Attorney General are working on it but we are running into real difficulties around restricting peaceful protest and free speech.
now it looks like he might use this disgusting incident as an excuse.
About time..these people have no right to assault anybody
have your say