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.”
“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.
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.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.
‘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.
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.
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.
“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.
