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.
THIS WEEK WILL see the Hate Offences Bill debated in the Seanad, having been passed by an overwhelming 110-14 margin in the Dáil in what was a rare outbreak of cross-party unity for a crucially important and long-called-for piece of legislation.
The Bill, when enacted, will finally bring to an end Ireland’s ‘outlier’ status as one of the very few countries in the western world without any hate crime law. Regarding the separate but related issue of incitement to hatred also covered in the Bill, it is important to note that Ireland has had legislation in this area since 1989 so it is hardly a new invention or radical departure.
However, both victims and criminal justice practitioners have long regarded the ‘89 Act as hopelessly outdated and largely toothless. It is therefore right and proper that we are updating our approach, especially in the online era, where so much hate proliferates but which current law is entirely silent on.
The legislation is certainly timely in light of recently published official figures revealing a nearly 30% rise in reported hate-motivated attacks for 2022 – an alarming increase which is only the tip-of-the-iceberg as this is a crime that is vastly under-reported. And while criminal law alone will not adequately address the ugly spectre of hate and extremism, it is a vital part of what must be a broader societal response making clear that hate crimes will not be tolerated.
In targeting a person’s inherent identity, the hate crime perpetrator instils fear in the entire community that shares the victim’s protected characteristics. It represents the ultimate ‘signal crime’ and the effects are chilling.
For example, according to the ‘LGBT Hate Crimes in the United States: Findings from the National Crime Victimisation Survey’, LGBT+ victims of hate crime are 12 times more likely to experience acute distress in comparison to being victimised by other crimes.
Yet, in the absence of specific legislation, the hate element in the crime routinely gets filtered out during the judicial process in what ultimately amounts to a failure to vindicate the rights of the victim.
As far back as 2016, our ‘Burning Issues’ survey – a comprehensive piece of research into the views and priorities of the LGBT+ community – revealed hate crime legislation to be the leading policy priority of our community. In the years since, the scourge of hate and abuse has become ever more prolific, facilitated in large part by the ‘wild west’ nature of the online world and more bad actors having since moved into that space.
According to more recent research we published in 2022, 90% of the Irish public agree that hate crime/incitement-to-hatred offences need to be effectively addressed in Irish law. Indeed, many people believe we already have such legislation which is the norm in virtually every other comparable jurisdiction.
Having waited so long for legislation to be enacted, we must now ensure that it is fit for purpose and does not replicate the shortcomings of the aforementioned 1989 Act. To that end, the National LGBT Federation, along with many other civil society voices believe it is essential that we retain what is known as the ‘Demonstration Test’ for both hate crime and incitement to hatred offences.
This approach has been adopted by our nearest neighbours in Britain and Northern Ireland and is crucial to ensuring the law is effective and victim-centred. According to Dr Seamus Taylor of Maynooth University, who previously served as Director of Equality & Diversity at the Public Prosecution Service in London, the absence of such a Test makes it virtually impossible to prosecute this crime as it essentially requires ‘getting into the head’ of the offender.
The All-Party Oireachtas Justice Committee found the ‘Demonstration Test’ case compelling when they recommended its insertion into the Bill in late 2021.
In tandem with our colleagues in the ‘Coalition Against Hate Crime’, we also very much support the need for a public awareness campaign once the Bill is enshrined in law. A National Action Plan is also important, along with comprehensive training for those charged with enforcing the new provisions.
Unfortunately, we have already witnessed attempts to muddy the waters and import the kind of toxic ‘culture war’ tactics that are proving so corrosive in the likes of the US and UK.
Legislators must resist these false narratives and instead focus on what the proposed legislation is about – making sure that Irish law is capable of robustly responding to increasingly disturbing and violent attacks motivated by hatred of a person’s actual or perceived characteristic.
Claims that ‘free speech’ is being eroded under the Bill also do not stand up to scrutiny and conveniently ignore the fact that we have recognised the need to legislate against extreme criminal hate speech for the past 34 years. Far from being anti-democratic, such measures are in fact the hallmark of a civilised society.
The legislation also must be fully Trans inclusive and afford protection to what is a highly vulnerable community.
As Professor Amanda Haynes of the European Centre for the Study of Hate at the University of Limerick stated recently: “These laws seek to protect everyone from crimes committed out of hatred towards protected categories” which means “a definition [of gender] that recognises that offenders target people not only on the basis of hatred for binary gender identities like woman or man but also that they target people for having non-conforming gender identities.”
We hope the Seanad debate this week will stay anchored to the pressing need to finally legislate in this area – a need so clearly acknowledged by the overwhelming cross-party endorsement the Bill received in the Dáil.
This legislation is far too important to be in any way delayed or derailed. Impacted communities have waited too long already.
Adam Long is a Board Director with the National LGBT Federation (NXF) and has a long track-record of working to advance LGBT+ equality. A policy and communications specialist, he has chaired numerous panel discussions and more recently conducted in-depth interviews with the Taoiseach and other leading political figures as part of the PRIDE festivities. Social media: @adamlong80 and @nxfie.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It’s my right to be offended, if I so choose, but it’s your right to express your opinion, without fear of the Law.
This is a very thin end, of a very long wedge, and lovers of freedom should be concerned at the erosion of those rights, by highly vocal, and shrill minorities.
@Ed Brennan:the bill is entering the second stage in the Seanad today. The coverage is almost non-existent. The journal gives us a one sided fluff piece by a fella working for a government backed NGO. This law will be draconian. It is policing thought and freedom of expression. As much as I disagree with Paul Murphy on almost every single thing he says, he was one of the few who openly challenged the government on it. How dare they legislate to suppress our right to object or disagree. It’s shocking to see how easily it’s happening.
This a government funded organisation (53% of NXF’s funding is government grants) arguing in favour of government legislation.
A great example of manufactured consent – create “NGOs” almost entirely reliant on government funding and use their cloak of independence and expertise to pretend that your policies have widespread support.
Will the Journal publish any non-governmental perspectives on this issue? I highly doubt it.
@Tony Maher: I think it’s more accurate to refer to state funding than to government funding.
@Brendan O’Brien: Stop nitpicking.
Well I’ll be… man who receives money from the government writes article supporting the government. I’m sure there’s a word for that.
@Maria Doyle: His organization receives money from the state: not from the government.
@Brendan O’Brien: Pedantic much Brendan.
@Maria Doyle: It’s an important distinction, and far from pedantic. It’s not like organizations go to government ministers asking for funding: they go through the proper process.
@Brendan O’Brien: Pedantic much
@Brendan O’Brien: In fairness the government directs how the state spends its money.
@TL55: The government legislates. Public servants assess funding applications: not politicians.
@Brendan O’Brien: The state is made up of population, territory and GOVERNMENT. This is fun Brendan, what have you got for me next?
@Maria Doyle: More facts, if necessary. You clearly don’t like them.
@Brendan O’Brien: It is a fact that the state is made up of population, territory and government. Tell me what is not factual about that.
@Maria Doyle: Do you understand the concept of a civil/public service that carries out the functions of the state apparatus, such as disbursing public funding?
@Brendan O’Brien: You haven’t answered my question. As much as I have enjoyed our little chat, unfortunately I must go now. I’m sure you won’t miss me, as I see you have others to argue with. You take care now.
People just need to be in the correct “community” to get “equality” nowadays. Not sure what they’re equal to though ..
Equality before the law is a hallmark of democratic and civilised societies. And this bill bravely asserts that in our democratic republic all are equal before the law, but some are more equal than others.
Cult status confirmed
The journal support anything pro government so i’m not surprised with this write up,although i am suprised the comments section is open.The journal normally d’ont like people posting their opinions.This bill is basicly the government trying to shut the people of ireland up from speaking up agaisnt all the wrongs that are going on in this country today.To which there are many.If this goes ahead,we are in big trouble.
Maybe there should be a referendum on this. Why should these so called politicians pass such a law on our behalf. I would imagine the majority of the public would not support this. Can we please have some proper investigative journalism ( I know not from The Journal ) ,but why is so much of the main stream media giving such a one sided story.
@EMcD: Why should politicians legislate? It is literally their job. It is what they are paid to do and it Is why people vote for them. And on what basis should a Referendum be called? The legislation doesn’t require a change to the constitution and there is nowhere near enough support for an ordinary Referendum. You need to take a civics course or something you don’t even understand the basics.
@Gareth: please don’t lecture me! I’m totally entitled to voice my concerns and feel that the government have lost the run of themselves, trying to pass legislation which they know that most of the public ( who they are answerable to) do not support it.
@Gareth: very condescending there of you Gareth! Can you please inform me how you know there isn’t enough support for an ordinary referendum?
@EMcD: Because you need at least a third of TDs to sign a petition in support of an ordinary referendum. Only 14 TDs opposed the bill. It’s just maths. They’re short 40 TDs.
And of course you’re entitled to your opinion but you literally do not understand the basic function of our TDs as legislators nor do you understand how and when referendums can be called.
And what makes you think most of the public don’t support it? I haven’t seen any research on it but most people I’ve spoken to support it. And like me none of them are FF or FG supporters.
Propaganda from our broadcasting corporation, censorship (removing books some may deem offensive) and now trying to introduce this into law. The government really do want to control us. So much for freedom.
LGBT > freedom of speech and opinion
@Barry Donnelly: I don’t suppose you read the article.
“Claims that ‘free speech’ is being eroded under the Bill also do not stand up to scrutiny and conveniently ignore the fact that we have recognised the need to legislate against extreme criminal hate speech for the past 34 years. Far from being anti-democratic, such measures are in fact the hallmark of a civilised society.”
@Brendan O’Brien: A counter claim doesn’t negate anything. Wow you quoted the article written in favour of it! Must be true.
It’s utterly contradictory, ‘need to legislate against extreme criminal hate speech’ .
Crime is inherently illegal so why would one need to legislate against something already illegal?
Hate speech laws didn’t prevent the a certain German party gaining power in 1933 and we’ve seen in the UK it simply builds a culture of resentment where memes and jokes shared on social media get fines, arrests and trials.
Disgusting.
@Brendan O’Brien: There’s already law covering this subject. This law is draconian. It sets up a police state. There is a section that presumes guilty until proven innocent. Not the type of law a liberal society should have.
It’ll still be OK to hate Catholicism and traditional Irish values, this law will only work one way.
@Concened Irish Mother: It’s people like you that hate traditional Irish values (e.g. welcome and hospitality for the stranger).
@Brendan O’Brien: Hey Brendan. My rent is too expensive so I might stay at your place for a while, okay? I’ll come in, sleep on your couch, eat your food, use your electricity and flirt with your wife. Not sure how long I’ll stay, might be a while.. Or forever. I’m sure you won’t mind. Afterall, you’re a very welcoming person. Right?
@Brian: The state has responsibility in this regard: not individuals.
@Brendan O’Brien: Is it wrong to be very suspicious of people who destroy their passports?
But anyway, that’s another topic.
@Brendan O’Brien: the state or the government, Brendan?
@John Dough: The state, as I said.
@Brendan O’Brien: Did the state vote on this as it was pushed through the Oireachtas? Or just the government? Can you name me a single country that restricted free speech laws and thus led to a more open and free society?
@John Dough: I’m not sure that there were many ‘free speech laws’ to begin with: unfettered ‘free speech’ has never existed.
My point regarding state v. government is directed at those who claim that state-funded organizations are predisposed to support the current government, because it funds them. I don’t think that’s the case.
@Brendan O’Brien: Can you answer any of the questions I asked? You have a knack of avoiding or deflecting away from questions that don’t suit your narrative.
@John Dough: I addressed your second question. Your first doesn’t make sense: obviously the Dáil votes on legislation. I have no duty to educate you or to indulge your whims.
@Brendan O’Brien: addressed yes, answered no. For a man who is so pedantic with other peoples replies, you sure don’t like it when it’s directed at you.
@Brendan O’Brien: individuals pay for the state to assume its responsibilities.
The curtailing of freedom of speech is not good. Extremist governments have always used that tactic eg Nazi Germany, Putin’s Russia to name but 2. The EU claims to be an open democratic society yet legislation like this is a tool used by the most totalitarian regimes.
Beware the law of unintended consequences.
@TL55: I’m no expert but I suspect Nazi Germany and Putin did not introduce legislation aimed at protecting minorities or people from vulnerable or marginalised communities. Quite the opposite I think.
@TL55: Absolutely. I should be able to defame you and accuse you of all sorts of criminal acts without fear of the law.
If this law is passed then words like ‘TERF ‘ and ‘cis woman’ should also be considered hate. As a heterosexual, woman I find these words offensive….works both ways!
@EMcD: The problem is, it won’t.
They’ll still get away with insulting ordinary Irish working class people.
@EMcD: But that’s the whole point, it doesn’t. Only ‘vulnerable’ minorities can benefit from this. White heterosexuals are the only targets of this legislation.
@Tony Murphy: I know, the world has gone mad. But what can we do to change it? We are sitting back and letting this happen.
@EMcD: I agree. The only practical thing for most of us is try to wake people up to what’s happening and get them to realise that it’s not happening by accident. Also to give it good and hard to the politicians who voted for this when they come to your door at the next election. The problem is it’s such a big subject and most people won’t react until they’re directly impacted personally.
@Tony Murphy: genuine question – who is there to vote for?? All parties have the same mandate.
@EMcD: There is nothing in the Bill about language being offensive. It has to incite hatred to apply.
@Tony Murphy: if hatred is incited against white Heterosexuals that is covered under protected characteristics within the Bill.
It’s problematic. What are the hate standards? What are the measures? What number must we stay below to remain ‘good’ citizens? It’s grey and it is an issue. There are very obvious examples that anyone can grasp, but there’s also room for subjectivity and the law will side with whatever way the political wind is blowing. We already have seen instances where the guards have been called and responded because someone ‘feels’ offended. We had arrived at a place in Ireland where we just about hit the sweet spot, there is no perfect society. But we have long since decided to keep the train moving, we are going too far and there is now a new type of fear, one that will be backed up by law. The fear of speaking ones mind, because may people now are afraid to say certain things and that is not how a progressive society should work.
@Nick Cahill: “It’s grey and it is an issue.” That’s a feature Nick, not a bug.
@Nick Cahill: Have you tried reading the bill? It’s about 40 pages in total.
“An Act to amend the law relating to the prohibition of incitement to violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of certain characteristics (referred to as protected characteristics) of the person or the group of persons and to provide for an offence of condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes 10 against humanity and crimes against peace and, in doing so, to give effect to Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28″.
Are there parts of that you take issue with or that you disagree with?
@Gareth: Obviously, hence my comment.
The spirit behind this Act changes the fundamental assumption of innocent until proven guilty and also gives the ‘vulnerable’ minority (you know, Muslim, traveller) ‘victims’ the power to decide whether they were offended. In any event the most basic stated purpose is flawed because you can’t legally force people not to hate somebody else. Throwing them in jail will certainly not improve the hater’s attitude I’d waged.
No, this measure is a multi-purpose power grab that can and will be used to close down views the establishment doesn’t like and if necessary jail the more troublesome Thought Criminals.
@Tony Murphy: Not true. Read the Bill. In order to prosecute you have to demonstrate that material incites hatred or violence. There is not one mention of “offending” people. And alleged victims do not get to define anything any more than any other alleged victim of crime. It also does not make it illegal to hate anybody, only to incite hatred.
@Brendan OBrien.
I did read it. It’s horseshite . The author is biased and makes a career out of this rubbish
@Barry Donnelly: Biased against hate crime?
@Brendan O’Brien: I think it’s a hate crime to appropriate a different gender. To invade female spaces and safe zones. But the author reckons
“The legislation also must be fully Trans inclusive and afford protection to what is a highly vulnerable community”. So how do you legislate for that? Do you risk the actual safety of women or the feelings of men dressed as women? So yes, I think the author would be biased when determining which one would be classified as a hate crime.
@HMurphy: It is not a hate crime to demand a safe space for yourself. It might be a hate crime to deny somebody the right to live as they wish without harming anybody else.
@Nicholas McMurry: do you see the contradiction in your argument? Women want a safe space free from men or men who think they’re women. So if a man who thinks he’s a woman enters a women only space, are women not allowed to feel threatened or intimidated? What if the man who thinks he’s a woman wants to enter that space? Do you not see how women will be on the losing side if they voice their concerns due to the vagueness and wording of this bill?
@HMurphy: Well, slippery Harris says that this bill will ‘keep people safe’, but who will be kept safe in the instance you describe above? Of the ‘protected characteristics’ in Ireland this bill will cover but not limited to ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’. The former being of clear biological reality and the latter as a result of ones perception or feelings. In the current climate, I think, that the biological woman will be on the losing side, this is a sad reality of the times we live in. There is a drive to increase the punishment of what someone’s thought process may be perceived to be, but no move by the Gov. to maybe start leading the way to breaking down some of the barriers that cause issues like this in the first place. A couple of men who like to dress up in dresses, or tight shorts and wear lipstick but keep a stubble, have shaved heads and walk their dogs down the street. It’s accepted in the area and there is no evidence of anybody who attacks them, but I also would not like to discover that they are in the same changing room as my 19 year old daughter in our local gym with all their bits flowing. Is what I say hate? If my daughter and I object to this and make a complaint, are we both being hateful? will their protected characteristics be more protected than my daughter? The bill is problematic.
@Nicholas McMurry: So, Nicholas, you look like a man, your name is a mans name, you have some hair on your face. Tomorrow, without changing a thing about your features, you can identify as a woman and call yourself Nicola and soon after can start entering female changing rooms in your local swimming pool, get undressed in their company, just as they are. Does your desire to identify as a woman and call yourself Nicola override the requirement of women and girls to undress without you standing there looking at them? Is it ok for you to feel ‘safe and protected’ but not women and girls? Who makes the decision here? Would you be happy for the law to come down hard on a woman because your ‘protected characteristic’ is the flavour of the month? Note: When I say women and girls I refer to biological women and girls (can’t believe I had to say that)
Brian.. that lad use to be called Sinead.lol it wouldn’t surprise me today.
@quacquac 51: Clown world
How do I report this person for a hate crime? He/she/it states that hate crime legislation is a mark of a civilised society. Nigeria does not have hate crime legislation, therefore this person is implying that Nigeria is uncivilised. This is incredibly offensive to our Nigerian brothers and sisters. I cannot believe the journal is allowing this person a platform to spew their bigotry and intolerance. Disgusting.
@Brian: Drop into your local Garda station.
@Brian: Excellent!
@Brian: Offensive material, even incredibly offensive material is not covered by the Bill.
The head on that lad. God we’re screwed.
We already have some of the most restrictive liable laws on the planet already. Why not make it easier for people who feel offended to seek solutions in the courts . Messing around with free speech has never had a positive outcome
The part of this legislation that assumes someone is guilty unless they can prove otherwise is clearly hugely problematic.
Will it be a hate crime to hate the “far right”?
@Winston Smith: give it time and we will be required to express our visceral hatred of the “far-right” (or any and all other pantomime villains du jour) for two minutes every day.
The Church had a lot of power in Ireland 50 years ago, people then started speaking out against the Church.
If this law had existed 50 years ago would it have been used against people crticisng the Church?
@Voice of Reason: Not from how it’s worded. If people incited hatred against Carholics, that would be covered.
@Brenda O Brien: Responsibility to whom? The whole world?
Conflicts will quickly arise. I find it deeply homophobic to suggest that a gay man has a vag!na or that a lesbian has a pen!s, yet that information is paraded by some as a fact. Will I be able to stop the dissemination of such belief based dogma?
There have been people in the UK prosecuted under hate laws for saying a woman is an adult human female, because offence was taken by a tiny few. I hope that doesn’t start happening here.
And he says 90% of the Irish public support this….must have plucked that figure out of the ether
I hate lots of things, especially ridiculous “legislation” of this type!
@James Kevin’s.- or out of some other place, a la David Drum!
This is an insidious argument that uses ‘hate’ as if it were always an objective thing that can be legislated about and calls the virtue of the 1989 legislation in making it appropriately difficult to impute hatred to critics of the new woke establishment a shortcoming. This guy demonstrates again that LGBTism is a pernicious anti democratic ideology that relies on gaslighting and sophistry to expand its control over the public sphere, as tyrannies have always done.
Lobby groups which are funded by tax payers are trying dictate others and to avoid getting criticised they want to impose legislation to be untouchable. These groups are turning into back in the days how Church was untouchable. It was the bible back in the days not it’s legislation and social pressures. The church ended up with scandals and these groups will not be different. No one should be intouchble or immune from criticism even if it’s harsh.
Smug Adam Long supporting a bill that gives him more privileges while denying the rest of society our freedom of expression
have your say