The Government faced strong opposition from members of the public over plans to reform hate crime and hate speech laws, newly released documents show.
More than 3,600 submissions by letter or online from the public, elected representatives, political parties and academics were received ahead of Ministers last week approving a Bill intended to make prosecutions for hate speech and hate crimes easier.
The Bill will add gender, including gender expression and identity, as well as disability to a list of “protected characteristics” which already include race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnicity or national origin and sexual orientation. A person who seeks to incite hatred against a person or group with one of these characteristics may be guilty of an offence which could carry a penalty of up to five years in prison.
While many academics, politicians and members of the public submitted views in favour of modernisation of the laws, the correspondence also reveals a significant level of opposition from the public.
People complained that the plans were an “interference” in freedom-of-speech entitlements, represented a “grave threat” to democracy and could be considered “Orwellian”.
The Department of Justice received 3,526 online survey responses, with many stating that there should be “no limit” on free speech.
One respondent said they “do not wish to see freedom of speech restricted in any shape. Bad ideas and behaviour should be exposed to the public and shamed, not censored and hidden.”
Another wrote: “It is completely immoral to even try and limit someone’s speech and expression based on the fact that ‘someone’ or some ‘groups’ will possibly get offended. Limiting speech always leads to further unnecessary censorship of expression.”
One submission said “valid criticism should be welcomed and responded to. It is healthy to question, as it is healthy to answer with truth and candour”.
“Some communities will be more protected than others. This unevenness would then be resented, exacerbating the issue. Unwarranted criticism should be disregarded, as it is by definition unwarranted,” they said.
In a preamble to the public correspondence, the department warned that anyone reading the responses might find them “distasteful and objectionable and in some cases, disturbing, insulting, offensive and deeply upsetting”.
It said “the views and opinions contained in the submissions do not reflect the views” of the department.
One respondent in favour of the plans said it is “necessary to restrict freedom of expression where such freedom could reasonably result in harm – physical or psychological – to a person or group or infringe their right to life and liberty”.
“Individuals should be held accountable for the negative consequences of their actions when it is foreseeable such consequences may arise,” they said.
Those who identified as being in marginalised groups were strongly in favour of reform.
“Hate shouldn’t be protected by free speech. The people that claim that their right to free speech is being infringed upon are those whose free speech has never been threatened. Free speech should not equate to a freedom to spout hatred and prejudice, or to incite hatred,” said one.
Another wrote: “Freedom of expression should not come at the expense of the comfort of minorities. Minority groups deserve to feel safe in Ireland, and those who cannot keep hateful speech to themselves deserve to be subjected to criminal prosecution.”
The Government has pledged that the legislation will contain “robust safeguards” for freedom of expression, such as protections for reasonable contributions to literary, artistic, political, scientific or academic discourse, and fair and accurate reporting.
Submissions from politicians and academics reveal that while both groups felt a balance needed to be struck in terms of freedom of expression, they were also, for the majority, in agreement that change was needed.
Green Party councillor Hazel Chu said that “freedom of expression is crucial but, as with all our freedoms, freedom of expression is not absolute”.
“Our personal liberty and freedom does not allow us to actively assault someone,” she said. “Same should go for hate speech, if said speech actively encourages persons or groups to take physical action against a group or a single person because of their race, religion, sexual orientation then that in itself should be limited.”
Jim O’Callaghan TD, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, said the legislation was not fit for purpose and needed reform and amendment.
“However, while the laudable desire to address the growing issue of racial intolerance in Ireland is a laudable aim, Fianna Fáil advocates a cautious and considered approach to reform so as to ensure that any further limitation on a citizen’s right to express freely their convictions and opinions is proportionate and necessary.”
The Irish Freedom Party said its principal concern in respect of any proposed change to the legislation was that it “may undermine the constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of expression which Irish people at present enjoy”.
Dr Seamus Taylor, formerly of the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales and a lead official on incitement to hatred and wider hate crime policy, warned that legislators face a “finely balanced decision”.
He said this was between protecting people from the harmful effects of hate “whilst at the same time not providing those who incite hatred and propagate hate speech with a further pointer with which to attack the legislature and wider society for curbing their rights to freedom of expression”.
