Ireland’s Justice Minister Defends Hate Crime Law After Donald Trump Jr. Brands It ‘Insane’

Ireland’s Justice Minister Defends Hate Crime Law After Donald Trump Jr. Brands It ‘Insane’
Ireland's Justice Minister Simon Harris speaking at the official opening of a new Garda Control Centre for the Dublin Metropolitan Region at the National Train Control Centre at Heuston Station, Dublin, on May 5, 2023. Brian Lawless/PA Media
Lily Zhou
Updated:

Ireland’s justice minister Simon Harris on Friday hit out at Elon Musk and Donald Trump Jr., who have said the country’s new hate crime bill is “insane” and a “massive attack on freedom of speech.”

Harris said the bill was passed through the lower house of Parliament with the support of all main parties, and that critics are “trying to overstate things for whatever reason.”

The bill is “not about stopping freedom of expression,” the minister said, The Journal reported.

“Whenever you see Donald Trump Jr, the Trump family, and Elon Musk oppose your legislation and then you see Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, the Greens, Sinn Féin, Labour coming together to vote in favour of something? You know, there’s no conspiracy here,” he added.

But opponents of the controversial bill said they don’t believe the legislation will be effective in tackling the social problems that it’s meant to deal with.

Speaking to The Epoch Times before Harris’s comments, Alex Sheridan, co-director of civil liberty group Free Speech Ireland, said he’s concerned the legislation will stifle political debate.

And Elizabeth Kiely, senior lecturer at the School of Applied Social Studies in University College Cork, said other measures should be tried before resorting to “punitive” legislation that is more likely to punish people from “lower social class backgrounds.”

The Bill

Campaigners have pushed for new legislation on so-called hate crimes in recent years, saying Ireland’s current law on the incitement of hatred is no longer fit for purpose.
The new Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 (pdf), if made law, would criminalise the incitement to violence or hatred against people with “protected characteristics,” including race, colour, nationality, religion, national or ethnic origin, descent, sex, preferred gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Those who communicate to others materials considered likely to incite violence or hatred could face up to five years of imprisonment, unless they can prove that the communication is necessary for lawful purposes, such as prosecuting an offence, or it’s “a reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse.”

Those who prepare or possess such material could also face up to two years of imprisonment unless they can prove they didn’t intend to disseminate the materials, according to section 10 of the bill.

Department of Justice minister James Browne last week said it was necessary to make sure those who are prepared to spread these materials are held accountable even if police managed to intervene before the materials become public.

‘Thought Crime Section’

All political parties are supporting the principle of legislating against hate crime, but after a debate on the bill last week, a number of independent lawmakers and the People Before Profit (PBP) Party voted against the bill, saying they couldn’t support certain parts, including section 10.

During the debate, PBP’s Paul Murphy branded it the “thought crime section.”

The section also attracted criticism from Trump Jr., the eldest son of former U.S. President Donald Trump. On Twitter, Trump Jr. said it’s “insane what’s happening in the ‘free world.’”

Musk, the U.S. entrepreneur who recently became the owner of Twitter, has also commented on the bill, calling it a “massive attack on freedom of speech” on the social media platform.

Donald Trump Jr., son of former U.S. President Donald Trump, speaks during a Republican National Committee Victory Rally at Dalton Regional Airport on Jan. 4, 2021 in Dalton, Georgia. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Donald Trump Jr., son of former U.S. President Donald Trump, speaks during a Republican National Committee Victory Rally at Dalton Regional Airport on Jan. 4, 2021 in Dalton, Georgia. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Genocide Denial and Hate Motivated Crimes

The bill also seeks to criminalise the condonation, denial, or gross trivialisation of genocide or war crime against people on account of their protected characteristics, with a maximum prison term of one year for communicating such material or behaving in such a manner in a public place.

An offender of other crimes could face higher sentences if they demonstrate hatred “immediately before or after” committing a crime.

During last week’s debate, Murphy argued using a racial or sexist slur during a crime doesn’t prove the crime is motivated by hatred towards a protected group. But Browne said the provision would make it easier for the police to investigate potential hate crimes, and the offence can then be presented and challenged in court if deemed necessary.

Sheridan told The Epoch Times he’s concerned that the “problematic sections” of the legislation are “extremely vague.”

The Free Speech Ireland director said the law could potentially punish people for sharing a post on social media or for challenging issues such as having men who identify as women competing in women’s sports or the sex-transitioning of children.

Sheridan said his group is worried about “any sort of restriction on free speech,” which he said is “the cornerstone of democracy.”

“We’re concerned that it will stifle debate. People will be afraid to speak their minds. Not everyone’s a lawyer, not everyone’s going to read the law. And just having the spectre of being prosecuted hanging over you, it’s just not going to be good for our society, and that’s what we’re very afraid of,” he said.

Sheridan also said he believes the bill wouldn’t act as a deterrent to serious crimes, and would only reduce “good contributions to debate” from “respectable members of society.”

Kiely: Hate Crime Laws Ineffective in Other Jurisdictions

But Kiely said she believes hate crime laws are more likely to punish more severely “the same people” who are being punished for other crimes.

“I also think there’s evidence from other countries that ... people of colour or people from lower social class backgrounds are very often the people who are punished under this kind of legislation,” she said.

Referring to research on hate crime laws in the UK, New Zealand, Europe, and the United States, Kiely said she’s “not convinced” the new law would be effective.

“If you do a quick review of the literature, overwhelmingly there are concerns about how the legislation operates,” she said, adding that it has “proved quite problematic” in other jurisdictions to prove a crime is motivated by hate.

Kiely said she believes there is already “sufficient legislation” to punish criminal actions, and “a whole set of other measures” can be tried to discourage hate before turning to legislation that’s “quite punitive in orientation.”

“If the idea of the legislation is to act as a deterrent, I’m not sure that it could do that because I didn’t see anything built into it that would maybe change people’s views or challenge people’s views.”

Kiely also said she has been concerned before the legislation was introduced because of “limited discussion” at the time, which “mainly focused on how every other country has this legislation, so therefore, we should have it too.”

The bill is now in the Senate for further scrutiny.

Related Topics