Individual 11

Dear Department of Justice,

The greatest gift that God ever gave us was that grey matter between our two ears AND the freedom to use it.

What the Irish State seeks with this ‘hate speech’ law is ! I could give an eloquent, detailed treatise about the fight for free speech, from Mills to Milton from Voltaire to Socrates or how dictatorial regimes arose which crushed free speech. How many wars have been fought to keep our free speech and now you want to whittle it away because feelings are upset? How long will it take before the Irish State mandated speech moves from criminalising ‘I hate you because you are gay..etc..’ to ‘I hate you because you disagree with me about climate change’… Have we not learned from the prohibition era in the United States or the Streisand effect or the ban of 2015? Banning speech that you ‘dislike/hate’ will not stop it but just move it to other places.

The solution to ‘hate speech’ is more speech - if you hate what your opponent says, shine a light on it, debate them bring your facts and figures and dismantle their ‘hate’ ideas. I want to see ‘hateful speech’ coming a mile away and then able to condemn it in the open. Banning it sends it scurrying into dark corners where you cannot see it coming and cannot defend against it.

If we run our Irish society or indeed the Irish state based on feelings and not facts then we are on a road to a terrible destination. You cannot have free speech in Irish society where my free speech ends because your feelings begin!

What the Irish State wants is allow plenty of debate in society but in narrow spectrum of acceptable speech that the State and only the State defines. This is still censorship and as Brendan O’Neill says “Censorship is the midwife of stupidity; it makes you stupid.”

Please, please do not proceed with this, please do not restrain speech – please keep Ireland open & free!

Individual 12

Submission to "Public Consultation" pursuant to "Review of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, 1989".

Wednesday 11th December 2019.

Introduction:-

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has been quoted or misquoted as declaring that "one should never start an inquiry without knowing the outcome in advance". Whether Blair actually said such a thing or not, it is difficult to construe this particular initiative of the Government of Ireland - this "public consultation" - as being in any way different from any such ruse in both spirit and intention - and, indeed, any objective forensic analysis of the statements made by the Government in October 2019 around what is colloquially being called "the Hate Speech Consultation" cannot but reach a conclusion that a ruse is, indeed, taking place in this instance.

In his essay On Politics and the English Language George Orwell analysed how those in power manipulate language in order to manipulate individual and group perception so as to pursue an agenda (as Orwell indicated, "if those in power want to abuse someone the first thing that they have to abuse is language" - absolutely). With the Hate Speech Consultation of the Government of Ireland ("the Consultation") it is almost impossible to avoid concluding that the specific agenda of its initiators is to gain extensive control of and, then, curtailment of genuine public discourse in general, with specific regard to political discourse and, so, to achieve the goal of stifling political dissent in Ireland.

The "consultation document"1 ("the Document") linked to the webpage2 in the matter (in its own words:- "If you are making a written submission it is recommended that you read the consultation document") is, in fact, so badly written in so many ways as to be unfit for purpose even on its own terms. This sloppily laid out text, lacking page numbers, is replete with sophomoric vocabulary far below a standard appropriate to a matter which is as important as this is - and there is no mitigation of such criticism by claiming "well, we wanted to put it in everyday language that ordinary people would find easy and simple to read" because the Document is not in everyday language nor is it easy or simple to read, if only in its register, tone and deficient overall composition. Everyday language is clear, concise, objective, neutral and leaves the reader in no doubt about what the intent of the author is or what the author might be trying to tell them - the Document is none of these things. This fact needs no more elaboration; there is no need to provide an exhaustive correction of the Document which, in this specific instance, is not pertinent to the substantive matter. Correction of bad writing should be done elsewhere.

The Document, in its maladroit way, launches itself with some preconceptions. These same preconceptions are not necessarily expressed directly or cogently but it can be inferred that those engaging with both the process of making submissions and the Document itself are expected to accept that:-

(1) there is something wrong with Ireland's present Statute;

(2) there is something wrong with Ireland's Judiciary;

(3) there is an urgent imperative upon the Oireachtas to change Ireland's present Statute by way of either addition or subtraction;

1[link removed] 2 [link removed] (4) the term "hate" already has legal significance overall and particularly to a point where a person might get a conviction3 under such a term;

(5) any person who dissents from (1) and / or (2) and / or (3) and / or (4) above is, in so doing, automatically acting with mal fides;

(6) any person who fits the category as set out at (5), above, is racist, as commonly defined;

(7) any person who fits the category as set out at (5), above, deserves to be ignored, including by the Government of Ireland, overall and particularly with regard to the drafting of any proposed Statute.

That is, as set out in points 1 to 7 above, there seems to be a desire to deploy an ad-hominem argument against any person whose response does not comply with those same propositions. When the situation is seen in this way it becomes clear that, of course, any such attempt to malign any dissenter from the same propositions would be both wrong and even malevolent in intent.

So, to start, the definitions as expressed in the Document are inherently faulty.

Nevertheless it is an imperative to address the Document directly so both this introduction and the rest of this Submission are expressed so as to make a satisfactory response to the five questions included as germane to the Document and the Consultation.

The right to hate.

Hate is a human emotion intrinsic to existence, an involuntary response to an external stimulus beyond the control of the person who is hating. Hate is as strong and sincerely felt an emotion as love (because the opposite of love is not hate but indifference). There was no time in the past when hate suddenly entered the spectrum of human emotions so it is entirely unrealistic, even preposterous to deny that hate exists or to try to engage in some utopian experiment of social engineering to try to "eradicate hate". Denial of this basic fact - that people will hate things or maybe even other people irrespective of whatever laws might be enacted or enforced - seems to be no less than an effort at thought control. Hate influences the opinions of the person who is hating - and people are absolutely entitled to have and to express their opinions - so trying to define and stigmatise hate seems to be an effort to control the opinions of others.

The right to offend versus the right to incite violence.

Different things offend different people such as communicating with expletives, wearing leather, having tattoos, getting a novel hairstyle, political affiliation, particular songs, smoking cigarettes and so on, all of which are not illegal but which many people, with varying justification, find offensive. If

3 "conviction" has a clear and unambiguous meaning in Ireland - it means that a properly convened Criminal Court of Justice has, upon the completion of what shall be assumed to be a fair trial, made a finding of fact being that the person subject to it is guilty of committing an offence presently prohibited by Irish Statute. So, the term "conviction" carries a lot of substantial meaning. In Ireland a conviction cannot arise anywhere other than a properly convened Criminal Court of Justice - not in civil litigation other than regarding perjury or contempt of Court, and at no time in any way anywhere else such as via a disciplinary tribunal, TUSLA inquiry, Oireachtas hearing, Board of Management meeting or any such like whatsoever. Many people seem not to know this fundamental point of Irish Constitutional Law yet it is important to uphold it so as to protect people from being subject to kangaroo courts. people find such things offensive they are, of course, entitled to express their offence but this does not put any imperative put upon the person who might be causing the offence. This stands in stark contrast to the implications of making statements which incite violence such as targeting a specific group of people - Muslims, for instance - and expressing a means by which such people should be victims of violence. Such a remark might be:- "when you see Muslims coming out of their mosque you should drive a car at them" or "those Muslims who live in [insert name of Irish town here] should be attacked and driven out of there".

A real instance of criminal incitement was a few years ago when, through incompetence, the identity of an innocent man who was looking at property in an Irish midlands town was confused with that of an entirely different man who had been released from prison for sexual offences against children. When the innocent man was spotted in the town, local vigilantes jumped to the wrong conclusion, photographed the man, published those photographs on and made a specific request for the man to be physically attacked. After a serious fracas when it emerged that the vigilantes had been wrong, they were unrepentant and unapologetic.

Firstly, the people who abused the privilege of freedom should have been criminally prosecuted for incitement to violence. Secondly, the innocent man should have the full force of civil litigation behind him to stop these people from attacking him again and to be compensated, including in a punitive and exemplary way.

This particular event lends itself to the substantive matter in the Consultation because the basic issue that has been presented by the Government is about the right to use and publish certain forms of language. The people who used language to harm the innocent man deserve to be put on trial as criminals for so doing and Statute exists in Ireland at present to enable such prosecution. That strongly implies that such already present Statute can be used in other instances including when such language is used to target people belonging to an ethnic or religious minority. In other words Ireland does not need new criminal laws.

The right to protect one's good name.

Ireland's Constitution explicitly states that the State will put in place means for its citizens to vindicate their good name. In everyday life this most commonly (but not exclusively) manifests itself in the right to sue a party who it is felt has defamed another person. Such litigation is exclusively by civil proceedings and the Plaintiff is the person who alleges that they have been defamed.

Alas, since the enactment of the 2009 Act, the right to vindicate one's good name has been curtailed. The flaws in the Defamation Act are most truthfully exposed in published rulings of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and the most commonly recurring flaw is that the Defamation Act has created an exceptionally harsh time limit for the initiation of proceedings - one year after first publication of a contentious remark. While it is not pertinent in this Submission to examine the jurisprudence in detail, an increasing amount of cases arise whereby a Plaintiff is not able to sue because they are out of time. If there were only one such case then there would be much less cause for concern, at least from the practical aftermath of same, but this is not what has happened. Another less publicised but equally problematic feature of the Defamation Act is that is redefines defamation on much narrower terms than previously, thereby making is exponentially harder for a Plaintiff to prove their case, even if they have begun proceedings within one year.

There are credible grounds to assert that, in fact, the ability to successfully sue for defamation has actually come to an end in Ireland, thereby destroying the fundamental right of individual private citizens to protect their standing in the community from those who they believe have maligned them. In that context it is a priority for the Government to repair the flaws in the civil defamation procedure thereby allowing those who feel strongly that they have had hatred incited against them to successful sue to remedy such a wrong. However there appears to be no such urgency motivating the present

Government. Overall Ireland has a serious, chronic problem with protecting the rights of "whistleblowers" - people who take the risk of speaking out, in good faith, about some abuse or otherwise untoward situation that has caused them worry. In Ireland it is common practice to immediately smear those who do "whistleblow" by attacking their honesty, their character or their mental stability. This is a serious cultural problem in Ireland where there is an underlying, subtle fear of breaking from a cosy consensus.

A prominent example of such an attack was by the present Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, when he indirectly but unambiguously accused four specialists in Waterford University Hospital of fabricating a complaint of theirs about bad practice in that institution. After the entirely justified public outcry from the Taoiseach's remarks, he responded initially by trying to brazen out his untenable position and eventually changed his tack to being an apology "if anyone thought that" he was impugning the whistleblowers - that is, still foisting the blame elsewhere rather than accepting the acute impropriety of his own remarks. At this point the Taoiseach's untoward conduct seems to have been forgotten despite its being a deliberate besmirching of long-standing, excellent professionals who were merely doing their job. To date the Taoiseach's remarks have not been withdrawn.

This classically narcissistic response of the Taoiseach is relevant to the Consultation because it is clear and consistent evidence that Ireland's present Government takes a selective approach in the overall matter of language likely to offend. Certainly neither the Taoiseach nor anyone in the present Government has any right to claim moral authority in the matter of offensive language.

Hopefully there is now enough context provided to properly answer the five questions as asked in the Document.

The five questions …

1. Are there other groups in society with shared identity characteristics, for example disability, gender identity, or others, who are vulnerable to having hatred stirred up against them and should be included in the list of protected characteristics?

Answer: no, no more than anyone else. Furthermore the notion of creating a "list of protected characteristics" is alarming in its own right because this is inherently subjective, nebulous and open to bias both in selection and application. Everyone should be entitled to protection of the Courts and such already exists under current Statute, notwithstanding the restrictions imposed by the 2009 Defamation Act. 2. Do you think the term "hatred" is the correct term to use in the Act? If not what should it be replaced with? Would there be implications for freedom of expression?

Answer: true to the shoddy overall form of the Document this is in fact three questions so to properly answer the thing each of the three questions has been answered in (a), (b) and (c) sequence as below:-

(a) the term "hatred" is devoid of legal significance and should be included in no Act of the Oireachtas or any functional republic whatsoever - it is identical to "child protection", another glib term which has no real meaning in law;

(b) this question assumes that there is a need for any new Statute at all. As already explained there is not so this question is, in fact, moot and meaningless;

(c) any Statute that creates a blacklist of illegal words and / or phrases is inevitably going to injure the right to free expression - this is obvious.

3. Bearing in mind that the Act is designed only to deal with hate speech which is sufficiently serious to be dealt with as a criminal matter (rather than by other measures), do you think the wording of the Act should be changed to make prosecutions under for [sic] incitement to hatred online more effective? What, in your view, should these changes be?

Answer: this question is incoherent but it has already been explained earlier in this Submission why there is no need for any new Statute.

4. In your view, does the requirement that an offence must be intended or likely to stir up hatred make the legislation less effective?

Answer: no, but without prejudice to the fact that it has already been explained earlier in this Submission why there is no need for any new Statute, mens rea is an essential feature of criminal law.

5. If so, what changes would you suggest to this element of the 1989 Act (without broadening the scope of the Act beyond incitement)?

Answer: no changes because there should be no further Act.

Conclusion:-

The Consultation attempted to compare Ireland to other jurisdictions. Significantly no other jurisdiction was specified. "Other jurisdictions" includes such places as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea where any criticism of the establishment leads to extreme retribution including summary execution or such jurisdictions as the United States of America which has extremely rigorous safeguards of free expression, far beyond those in most western European countries except, interestingly, Ireland.

Indeed, Ireland is a Republic with a long and proud history of protecting the civil liberties of its citizens and its Courts are deeply reluctant to punish ordinary discourse, including bad language, arguments in the street, insulting remarks and criticism. However this priceless freedom must never be taken for granted and there is an imperative upon the Government to desist from interfering in the private experiences of its citizens in such as way as to cause a climate of fear.

Individual 13

To whom it may concern

While I welcome the regular review of existing legislation, I feel that this is a case in which the current legislation (1989 act) remains adequate.

Legally restricting the way in which people can express their thoughts is entirely contrary to how we should go about creating a freer and more open society. The subjective nature of what defines hate speech is in particular a point that could potentially be open to manipulation and exploitation in future by anyone with less amenable intentions. One could foresee a future with the courts paralysed with an inundation of cases arising from petty squabbles and trivial misunderstandings.

We humans think in words, and so restriction thereof is by extension a restriction of thought - if our society is to progress together in creating an equitable society for all, we must be free to think and communicate for ourselves.

A perhaps cliché analogy of the perilous slippery slope we find ourselves standing above can be read in George Orwell's 1984 and how it was primarily through restriction and manipulation of language that malign interests were able to exert their control and ironically, incite hatred all the more effectively.

This review of the legislation is well intentioned and appreciated, however I would urge you to retain the current legislation in recognition of the subjectivity and nuance involved in the majority of these cases, rendering a "one size fits all" approach with new legislation ultimately unhelpful.

Most of all I urge you to consider your fellow citizens - do we want to live in a society in which our rights and freedoms are increasingly restricted and stripped from us? Is that societal progress? Or do we want a more open and free society in which people can praise diversity and condemn hatred in equal measure and with the full force of their words?

Individual 14

To: Government departments relevant to this submission process on the subject of "Hate speech" legislation.

From: A person who risks being censored by this legislation who is also an Irish citizen

------

Dear reader,

I object to this proposed legislation for several reasons and I will explain my reasoning here. First of all, the idea that the state can attribute an emotion "Hate" to a particular comment implies that there is a symbiotic relationship between emotions and words that is fixed, such that, when a word is uttered it necessarily is done so with its corresponding emotional state to motivate it.

This is false as you should be aware. Any word can be said with any emotion and words are not linked to specific emotions, hence people can speak of things in a manner that is detached from any one specific interpretation of what is said. In other words, subjectivity is a very real phenomenon within communication.

Second of all, the very fact that the government plans to suppress the liberty of the Irish public by attempting to curtail the spread of concepts in our society is an offence against our democratic process.

This is because within a democratic system there must be the freedom to elect those who represent the will of their voters, and the will of the voters is not constrained by what is deemed acceptable to the judiciary, and for this reason, ideas and concepts which are somehow linked to potential candidates for election must be legitimate and without censor, for the very reason that the democratic process must be legitimate and without censor. The will of the people is paramount and any efforts to modulate influence or coerce the public into "Acceptable" norms of thought or desire are de-legitimizing our democratic process.

My third reason for objecting to this legislation is that the existing legislation, which I also object to for all of these reasons, is restrictive enough and the objections of a few members of the general public to the desires and will of other members of the general public are not a good enough reason in itself to introduce a more repressive legislation. That would be the same thing as making the state the personal enforcer of the desires of a segment of the population that wishes to suppress another segment of the population. In my opinion, the state should take a neutral position among competing interest groups and competing wills and desires. This legislation is the inculcation of the ideological sensibilities of a minority into the framework of the state, and as such, is placing the machinery of the state at the ideological command of a segment of the population while depriving the remainder of the population of the asset of possessing a state apparatus that was not biased in favor of one segment to the detriment of their own interests and desires.

My fourth reason although I have many other reasons is that the concept inherent in introducing a suppression of freedom to speak publicly by the state is inherently moralistic and exclusionary of those who the moral ideation which motivates the suppression deems as illegitimate.

In my opinion, the evolution of thought all throughout history was aided and not hindered by the innate state of the human mind to think and do things that are forbidden by the wills of others. It is my opinion that the ability of individuals to venture into taboo or risque ideological territory in their thoughts and words is essential to the collective consciousness of society. If therefore, this legislation succeeded in eradicating any and all events of thoughts which dissented from the ideological motivations of those who wanted this legislation, which is impossible in itself to accomplish, then to use a metaphor to describe my view, "if there was a dichotomy between light and darkness, if all was light there would be no light" this is because there would be no distinction between one thing and the other and therefore every thing and concept in society would be devalued into social bankrupcy by the fact that there was no significance to anything that was said or done and no depth and no contrast between one thing or the other in any meaningful way. More than this, if everything was "good" then there would be no "Good" because while "Good" and "Bad" are subjectively interpreted in my opinion, the loss of the opposite to "Good" necessarily involves the loss of significance to the "Good" because the "Good" is then rendered inert and irrelevant. In fact the "Good" only is valued because of its contrast against its opposite.

Now what the state proposes in this legislation is not only a naive theory for the establishment of a totally "Good" state of conversations between individuals or publicly speaking individuals, but in fact that state proposes to take the Irish population down a path of ideological drilling and ideological purity. This is because in a state of things where nothing other than "Good" is tolerated, eventually for those things deemed "Good" to maintain their relevance, they must necessarily have a contrast against other "Less Good" or "Less purely Good" elements. This will take the state down a dangerous path of moralistic coercion of the general public using the authority of the state to enforce more and more severe restrictions on freedoms in order to satisfy the demands of the "MORE PURE" segment of society for the repression of their new found "Evil" which apparently was lurking within the condition of all things being "Good" all along. After such an evolution and deepening of these restrictions on freedom to attain the next level of "Purity" the same thing will take place all over again, ad infinitum, and the discipline required of the general public and the consequences that will befall the general public through criminal prosecution will become so severe that they make life in Ireland unbearable and inhospitable to any and all but the most fanatical ideologically motivated zealots.

These are my reasons for opposing this legislation that I will explain thus far.

Please confirm receipt of my email and that you have read it and will take it into consideration.

Please also tell me if you understand my opinions.

I would be willing to debate my opinions with any government representative in a public format.

I am the author of two philosophy books which are available on this website.

[link removed]

One is called […] which argues against moral absolutism.

The other is called […] which argues in favor of an unbiased state and individual liberties.

If you wish to contact me about my opinions please email me at the earliest opportunity.

If you require my personal details in order to consider my submission valid I will provide them upon request.

HOWEVER I IMPLORE THE STATE to NOT introduce this legislation.

Individual 15

Hi, Very disappointed to see Ireland is re introducing the blasphemy law - but for one religion only it seems - Islam.

It seems it's all based on the perception of the “victim”. If someone “feels” offended by what you’ve said then it’s a crime. Which is obviously terrifying. You really haven’t thought this through and the potential for abusing this legislation is enormous. It would give a massive weapon to every NGO and pressure group in the country.

You know all those nasty hyper offended people online, who shout racism sexism etc every 10 seconds, well this legislation would be like giving them a veto on all speech in this country.

There was even a mention of removing the burden of proof, meaning you are guilty until proven innocent.

Also, It seems the existing laws are robust enough to deal with actual incitement to commit actual crimes.

Very Orwellian if this utter nonsense law is introduced.

Individual 16

Most narratives about hate speech in Ireland are through the prism of minorities like Travellers or LGBTs.

In fact, by volume, the main targets of hate speech are the Catholic Church and Catholic clergy.

But when does hate speech become incitement to hatred?

Example: “I wouldn’t let any of my kids in the same room as them […], […] and […] the bleedin’ lot of them. If it was up to me I’d clean those b*****ds out of the country ”

Apart from the fact that many people would find the reference to […] offensive but would consider the reference to [….] free speech, is the sentence (1) just vulgar abuse, (2) offensive but acceptable because the right to offend is important in a democratic society (3) hate speech but hardly worth the attention of the law or (4) an incitement to attack priests?

Perhaps the answer depends on the context eg mouthed by a drunk in a pub, said by a caller to Liveline, shouted by someone at a public meeting called to protect children from some real or imagined danger or delivered by an anti-clerical party leader at a political gathering.

I think it would be better if any legislation was directed at SUSTAINED verbal attacks rather than at one-off rants and designed to be used rarely when there was objective evidence that it was a threat to life or property, rather than anytime someone felt offended.

I also think that the Garda definition is too broad because it relies entirely on the attitudes of the person to whom the speech is directed.

Individual 17

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would be against the introduction of hate crime laws because I feel that laws regarding abuse, assault etc. should be applied to everyone equally without discrimination. I do not think it wise that any social group have precedence over another. We are all equal under the law and should be protected equally accordingly. The law gives ample discretion to judges to punish attacks that are particularly horrific, racist etc.

While I am a strong advocate of human rights I do not think introducing this law is beneficial.

Individual 18

Submission on “Hate Speech” to Department of Justice

December 2019

1) If one were to believe the main stream media (MSM) there is an epidemic of “hate speech”. Indeed, the Minister for Justice, Mr Flanagan, in a recent comment on a public protest in Achill, called on the protesters to “lift the siege of Achill”. Such inflammatory language (and incorrect to boot – there was no “siege” just a peaceful protest by a group of concerned citizens, as is their right in our democratic society) by our Minister for Justice, does not inspire confidence that any opposing voices/comments/views or opinions, which do not correspond to the prevailing Politically Correct (PC) position on a range of issues (Migrants, LGBTQI+, Travellers etc) will be taken into account in this public consultation process. Nonetheless, I, as a concerned citizen, wish to express my views on the controversial issue of so-called “hate speech”.

2) The words racism, and the clinical term “phobia” which can be applied to almost anything one does not like (and frequently is) has been redefined to such an extent that almost any encounter between people from different backgrounds can now be recorded as “hatred” (Sedgwick, D. (2018) “BBC: Brainwashing Britain”). I would urge the committee or group in the Department who will be deciding on this issue, to avoid the overgeneralization of the word hate or phrase “hate speech” so as to become meaningless or to be used in the manner of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland who said “Words mean what I choose them to mean”. This is the nightmare scenario which will be let loose on the Irish public if so-called “hate speech” is not tightly defined. One person’s so-called “hate speech” can be another person’s misunderstanding.

3) Most so-called “hate speech” is subjective and concerned with “perceptions”. Indeed, it is worrying that the Garda Commissioner in a recently published statement in the press talked about the Gardai operationally defining so-called “hate speech” so as to ensure consistency across the force. With all due respect to the Commissioner, it is not for him or the Gardai to make laws, that is the preserve of the Dail and the Legislature. The foregoing is an example of “hate speech creep” which is increasingly prevalent in the “victim industries”.

4) According to the “Hates Crimes Operational Guidance of the UK Police Force” - “The perception of the victim is the defining factor…..the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief… and officers should not challenge this perception” . The words perception and evidence I have placed in bold to highlight the absurdity in law of this approach. So in the UK, mere perception is sufficient for a crime to have been committed and the person making the accusation does not have to provide any evidence for their perception. This is totally insane in any legal code and contravenes the Mens Rea which has been a central tenet on which our whole judicial system has been based for centuries, going back to Roman laws. I urge the committee to reject any definition of so-called “hate speech” which is based on perception and subjective feelings.

5) As identified by Civitas in the UK, perceptions, not actual crimes, of so-called “hate speech” have increased. This is as a result of what psychologists have known for a long time called “The self- fulfilling prophecy” (ie) “a false definition of a situation evokes new behaviour which then makes the false conception come true”. I respectfully suggest that this is what is occurring now in our society with the perceived increase in so-called “hate speech” and the resulting media hysteria to silence any criticism on certain topics such as race or sexual orientation. This is what happened in the Salem Witch trials in the sixteenth century in Massachusetts in the US. It would appear that as a society and species, we have not moved beyond this today. To legislate on the basis of a self-fulfilling prophecy is faulty in the extreme.

6) In 2008/09 Ireland suffered in the international financial crash. In the aftermath of this experience, one of the key concepts to emerge from this experience was the idea of “group think” which was well established in the psychological literature from the 1960’s on. It was also agreed by most commentators since then, that we did not have enough, or pay sufficient attention, to the “contrarians” in our midst. Indeed, one former Taoiseach told people who criticised the Celtic Tiger that they should go away and commit suicide! As I believe is clear by now, if the reader has persisted with my submission this point, I am of the Contrarian class as it applies to the dominant “victim culture” of various minorities in our society. I trust that my contrarian views will be listened to and taken on board in your deliberations.

12th December 2019

Individual 19

A Chara,

I oppose the proposed Hate Speech legislation. The 1989 legislation re "Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred" seems quite adequate to deal with those who would maliciously infringe the rights of other persons or groups by encouraging hatred against them. It is important that the said legislation be used properly. Therefore I see the proposed "Hate Speech" legislation as unnecessary, and any unnecessary law is not a good move.

Secondly: The proposed legislation has no clear definition of the term "Hate Speech", clarity is a basic need for good law. This lack would lead to "political" definitions and re-definitions over time, definitions which would arise due to pressures from various lobby groups, each with its own agenda. The possibility is high that this situation would lead to erosion of free speech, and there can be no democracy without free speech. Thirdly: The intention of the speaker is to be deemed irrelevant. This is an infringement on human rights.

As a taxpayer who consistently upholds our laws and who consistently votes in all elections, I strongly oppose the introduction of this legislation.

Individual 20 made 2 submissions

Submission 1

Ladies/Gentlemen,

What is happening to our country? How is it that we are allowing the EU/globalist cabal to dictate to our country in any/every respect, constraining our independence and trying to force us to follow their globalist directives? Will the political representatives of the people be the toadies of the globalists and force this upon us?

If this legislation is passed, who will determine what ‘hate speech’ is, and how will it be prosecuted? Will the ACI, the National Party and other independent, non-confirming organizations and people be considered criminal and liable for prosecution?

Would I be considered guilty of hate speech for pointing out that Sharia law considers women second class citizens, subject to stoning for adultery, or even rape? For saying that while there are certainly some legitimate asylum seekers worthy of protection, that many migrants are single, military-age men, sponging off our complicit government while thousands of Irish people are homeless and in need of our help?

There already is legislation to cover hate crime and incitement to violence. Why do we need more? To silence conservative and dissenting views?

The politicians supporting this intended legislation know exactly what they are doing. Politicians supporting our people will vote against it.

Submission 2

To the Department of Justice and Equality:

I would like to address specific questions you have posed in your Review of the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

Question 1. Disability could be specifically added. The current wording would include ‘gender identity’ in ‘sexual orientation’. There is no need to pander and ‘double up’ for the LGBTQ lobby.

Question 2. ‘Hostility or prejudice’ are very loose terms. Hatred is not much less so – all these terms are open to subjective interpretation, despite their dictionary definition. ‘Incitement to VIOLENCE’ is quite clear and would be a better choice. Question 3. The current wording is adequate. If you legislate private interactions, be they verbal or written, you become oppressive and dictatorial. The EU/globalists would become so if given the legislation to do so. We do not want to become like China.

Question 4. We need to prove intent or likelihood, or it all becomes completely subjective. You cannot legislate against opinion without becoming totalitarian.

Question 5. As stated in question 2, ‘Incitement to Violence’ is a more clear, lawful and fair term. Any legislation should be as unambiguous as possible and not open to interpretation based on the whims and vagaries of current social climate.

I also wish to point out that stating facts, when they are established, should not be subject to censure, even if some people disagree with them or are offended by them. Offense is in the eyes of the beholder. For instance:

[…]

Ireland fought for hundreds of years for its freedom against oppressors. We are now in jeopardy of losing these freedoms and losing our nationhood. Our politicians must represent the Irish, our culture and our heritage and not let it become subsumed by the third world and overwhelmed by the EU/globalist agenda of subjugation and modern slavery.