Approx 3000 words = approx 12 minutes reading time.
written by Diarmaid Ó Conaráin
Many will have heard by now that the Irish government is moving toward the legislation of hate speech, based on their perceived need to fall in line with many other European nations. Given the specificity of such legislation cannot be clarified or scrutinized prior to its introduction this blog will not be a critique of specific policy, but more a philosophical examination of the concepts morality to begin with, regardless of how it is ultimately shaped.
I will begin with the most obvious and most common argument against introducing hate speech laws. The concept of Hate Speech conflicts with the concept and existing right of Freedom of Speech, as the former inevitably affects and negates the latter. It is literally impossible for us to have freedom of speech while also having laws that filter or in any way limit that speech. Or in the case of the pronoun movements it is impossible to have freedom of speech while simultaneously being compelled to use words you would rather not. Freedom of speech is arguably the most important right any citizen holds, and affords us the right to say anything we wish, or nothing at all. Freedom of speech affords us the right to dissent, should we feel that what is going on in society or government is unacceptable to the population. The right to dissent is in essence freedom itself. How can one claim to enjoy freedom as a whole, without even the right to say what we want to say? How can we imagine we will retain freedom itself in all forms, when our very right to speak is being legislated? Unless we would like to be simply ruled over in our own countries then freedom of speech is tantamount to freedom itself. Any Hate Speech legislation or limiting of freedom of speech is opening the door to further Sophistry, regarding propositions for further speech that should be limited. Once we begin travelling down that path it will become acceptable and normalized that there might be a good reason to censor more terms of speech. After all, if it was fine to censor particular speech, then what is the major problem with adding more terms or subjects to an already existing list? This is exactly the direction it’s advocates hope it will progress.
Worthy of note is the fact that in 2017 “Claire Byrne live” polled 1000 Irish adults asking if Hate Speech laws needed further legislation in Ireland. 65% said No, with 16% saying they didn’t know. Leaving only 19% saying they believed further legislation was necessary. Of course this is only a fraction of the population, but that only means it is similar to every other poll or survey ever taken. I would never advocate that simply because a democracy is majority rules that no laws should ever be written to support the rights of minorities. Irish citizens have proven their willingness to support minority rights, for example with the same-sex marriage referendum. However, I would hope that the government would have taken into account what the Irish people state as their wish, and conduct further polling if they believe the result is inconclusive. Apparently we will not be afforded the luxury of a democratic decision regarding the legislation of Hate Speech.
One of the major issues concerning Hate Speech, as with the subjects covered in my book, is that they are deliberately designed to seem like progression, when in fact they are often it’s entire opposite, either literally or ideologically. Arguably the biggest issue is the populations lack of willingness to believe that propositions such as this could be anything but just. Though when subject to scrutiny these movements reveal ideology tangled within them that is contrary to our most basic beliefs philosophically. Concepts that in truth are responsible for the very fabric of modern civilization. I am referring to one of the defining concepts of western civilization, the individual.
There is no way to circumvent the truth, Hate Speech is Identity Politics, the polar opposite of the concept of the individual. That is to say it is legislation being designed specifically for, and relating to identify or group. Identity Politics is described by Wikipedia as follows; “Identity politics is a political approach and analysis based on people prioritizing the concerns most relevant to their particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, cultural or other identity, and forming exclusive political alliances with others of this group, instead of engaging in more traditional, broad-based party politics.[1] Those who prioritize their particular type of identity politics may promote their group’s interests without regard for the interests of larger, more diverse political groups that are based in shared theory.[2]”. Identity Politics is arguably the single most divisive way to think politically. Hate Speech will be speech legislated to govern communication between “groups”, as it sees them. It is essentially racial, religious, and gender based speech, as it seeks to regulate only speech between groups, but not within them. This will inarguably lead to more division, as it’s group speech forces group think, forcing us to view and think of each other primarily by group, and not as individuals. Hate Speech will create protected categories of citizens, essentially an inequality of rights. One would have imagined in today’s political climate any inequality of rights would be entirely unacceptable, but apparently the Irish government disagrees. Unlike other laws in Ireland that are designed for the protection of all citizens, or stated as applying to all citizens, Hate Speech legislation seeks to create a law and a “right” that exclusively applies to certain groups only. From a moral and philosophical standpoint this is entirely unacceptable.
The reason many of us will likely not see it this way will be entirely attributed to how the issue is shaped and presented to us by politicians and the media. All rational people agree that racism is despicable, and the establishment seeks to address this issue. This sentiment of righting a wrong will lead the general public to question new policy far less, being convinced that legislating against undesirable behaviour is the right thing to do, and almost naively believing that it could not be done incorrectly. However, I believe if we consider the problem and ask ourselves if creating an inequality in legislation and rights will actually prove to be the solution, we will quickly discover it won’t. Equal treatment simply cannot be encouraged through unequal treatment, a somewhat rhetorical point our elected officials have overlooked.
Many may be wondering, how could simply criminalizing racist and sexist insults really be a problem? Surely this legislation would address genuine racial, religious, sexual orientation or gender based attacks only, and affect nothing else? It would be naive of us to imagine this policy will be restricted to the more obvious insults which are indeed group orientated bias or ignorance. For example to say “women are bad drivers, and shouldn’t be allowed on the road” or “immigrants are lazy and won’t work” are certainly group based, ignorant insults. Yet few of us would agree there should be a legal penalty for ignorance or incorrect opinions. If anything today’s social climate will suppress these kinds of statements moreso than ever in history. Increasingly the general public are holding each other accountable, and choosing to no longer associate with those who may be genuinely racist or sexist. It is hard to deny that racism and sexism are more unacceptable now than ever, and societal encouragement is addressing the issue where legislation is simply an unnecessary step too far.
As mentioned there is no official policy as of yet, but Garda Commissioner Drew Harris has given us a horrifying insight into how the policy may work. It reads as follows; “any criminal offence perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on disability, race, colour, nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender.” In other words, the crime is open to interpretation and definition by the victim, or any other person in the vicinity who interprets the interaction as hateful. If nothing changes, Hate Speech will become a crime definable by an individual’s perception. Highlighting that it will not be simply well known racist slurs that are targeted, but basically anything anyone from a protected group or those observing deem offensive or hateful. This will be utter madness should it become legislation. Theft, rape, murder, etc. None of these crimes are open to interpretation, crime itself is not open to perception, crimes are clearly defined and rarely is any interpretation necessary, as the definition outlines beyond a doubt what is or isn’t a crime. Unfortunately we can not say the same for the proposed Hate Speech legislation.
If “hateful speech” which is a term wildly open to interpretation is to become legislated, should we assume perhaps that disrespectful speech will soon follow? Or should I presume many forms of disrespect can be perceived as hateful, and in fact will also be covered under hate speech legislation? Could condescension be taken as hateful? What about a joke? Is a regular run of the mill insult to be subject to scrutiny in terms of its motivation? To ensure it’s origin was not a group based hatred. If a man calls another man an “incompetent ass” it is a personal insult. If the same man says the same thing to a woman, some women may feel it was an underhanded gender remark. Did he do it because he hates women? If the same man said the same thing to an immigrant male worker did he say it because he dislikes immigrants? This legislation will likely force scrutiny of almost any inter group insults by those willing to play the victim, to clarify whether it was a clash between individuals or an act of Hate Speech.
We have seen that with major movements will come the abuse of the accusatory power handed to the group in question. Any inequality of legal protection will invite manipulative individuals to abuse it’s power, and even societal pressure without the addition of further legislation can provide a similar standard of inequality. The #MeToo movement has inspired more than a couple of now known false accusations. The movement against racism has given rise to the number of fake racism reports that are reported and later debunked. I will post links to examples of falsified allegations at the end of this text for those who may be unaware of such manipulations of the movements in question. Will we be so naive as to imagine Hate Speech legislation will not be weaponized in the same manner? By the very individuals it was intended to be a method of protection for.
Any group being afforded protection is now significantly more difficult to hold accountable for their actions. It has been seen that many groups will use their form of protection in an accusatory manner in an attempt to circumvent guilt for their original actions. One excellent example of this was the group of young black men who claimed it was racism for being denied service at a restaurant where they had eaten before, and left without paying. This was a perfect example of a minority mockingly using the accusatory power handed to them by social justice movements, when it was in fact them who had stolen from the restaurant. I will provide a link to this incident at the bottom of this blog also. It is unfortunate our society has begun placing more importance on one individuals claims than another, but to deny this truth would be to avoid contemplating these issues earnestly. Many of us will have personal anecdotal evidence of a person of colour using a false claim of racism to circumvent the original accusation directed at them. The unfortunate perspective of many, which has not be helped by the media, is that Europeans are racist. This leads many people of colour or different religions to assign racism to behaviour where it simply is not present. They have been indoctrinated by the media into racist presumptions regarding all Europeans, and then feel any questioning or demand of accountability simply must have racist motivations. This may be true in a minority of isolated events, but to imagine anyone saying anything that isn’t exclusively complimentary must be fuelled by hatred is quite an outrageous presumption, particularly when the accusation only applies to one race.
This policy will seek to examine the motivations behind any regular insult, to determine if it’s motive was initially group hatred. It now becomes obvious that behavioural rights will vary depending on the group we as European men or European women are interacting with. Because of course I imagine being called a “white piece of shit” or a “pink cave-dweller” will ironically and almost criminally not qualify. Apparently Hate Speech legislation is drafted to protect minority groups only, and not to tackle all racist or sexist remarks. The Department of Justice and Equality are taking personal accounts from minorities in Ireland, I have not heard if any white Irish individuals have been invited to attend, to share their possible experiences with racism. This should be seen for what it is, Identity Politics, and a one sided discussion to create a one sided law. For example, if a Muslim in Ireland tells an Irish woman she should cover herself up, will this be covered under Hateful Speech laws? Or are we again beginning to see the weaponized and one-sided nature and application of such a policy. This leaves us no conclusion other than the fact that not only will Hate Speech not be a law we will all enjoy equality under, but it appears more and more to be deliberately shaped to protect specific groups from other particular groups , not all individuals equally, as all other laws do.
In that respect Hate Speech can be considered quite patronizing and condescending in its origin, in that it only protects groups percieved as “weaker”, and not minorities as it advertises. As Stefan Molyneaux pointed out, it is highly unlikely the Communist Manifesto is ever subjected to Hate Speech regulation or review, despite it being openly accusatory and hateful of the wealthy, and the wealthy are certainly a minority group. Aren’t all minority groups to be afforded this protection? To this extent I believe it is highlighted that minority groups are not actually the concern, but groups considered weaker and in need of protection in the eyes of those who advocate for the policy. It is essentially a patronizing and condescending group based view, in which apparently straight white men are at the top of the pyramid; capable of oppressing all, but incapable of being oppressed by any. If that is not a white supremacy view I am unsure how much more extreme a supremacists view would be. It is difficult to interpret any way other than to say its advocates believe all groups are in so much threat from straight white men that the laws we currently have are not sufficient protection for all other groups. I find it difficult to interpret that for anything other than the racism it is.
Hate Speech legislation can only serve to encourage what can’t be denied as a trigger happy accusatory environment of Identity Politics. An environment where opposing views are subject to campaigns of accusation in the hopes of defaming characters, for the sole purpose of silencing their arguments. An environment where “innocent until proven guilty” is becoming a thing of the past, and “guilty upon accusation” has become the acceptable slur from those who wish to silence any opposition. And as mentioned earlier, group speech will encourage group think, hence, the “opposition” becomes every other group. Is this really how we want to live? I would hope not.
I am certain this will be used to keep future politicians silent on certain subjects, essentially ensuring the people’s concerns may never be voiced on certain issues, under threat of being convicted of Hate Speech. Ironically, as life is stranger than fiction, a recent example has emerged with Ruth Coppinger branding Noel Grealish a “racist” simply because she did not like his question. It seemed only a blink of an eye before mainstream media was actively trying to destroy Noel Grealish in the court of public opinion. With this kind of reckless and baseless accusation happening already, we should all pray the likes of Ruth Coppinger and Co never receive the power to accuse individuals of Hate Speech. This is an example of how Hate Speech regulation may directly affect democracy and politics, thus affecting the concerns and will of the people. In truth there are so many flaws with this concept it should be thrown out entirely, not rewritten. As mentioned the shift in our culture and lack of willingness to further tolerate ignorant racism is addressing the issue, and those with no patience should realize a change in culture or attitude cannot eradicate all wrong doings overnight. We are heading in the right direction as a civilization, making legislation that is simply overkill and will create inequality an obvious step too far in the wrong direction. I would ask the reader to contemplate for a moment who among the advocates for this policy they believe has an excellent understanding of philosophy? Begging the question, which of them are actually fit to contemplate an issue this complex? I say this only because I personally have lost faith in many of our elected officials, and their aptitude to grapple with esoteric issues, given their comments and blatant displays of ignorance regarding certain topics. Yet these same individuals are about to tear at the very fabric of our everyday lives. We simply cannot stand idly by and allow them to continue marching us in the wrong direction.
With all of this in mind I would like to implore any reader who agrees to attend the Free Speech rallies that have been organized. The first of which is this Saturday the 16th of November, at 2pm outside Leinster House. The next being Saturday the 14th of December at 1pm, also outside Leinster House. I will link both original posts by the organizers to my Tweet with this blog.
The link below is the government’s attempt at appearing unbiased. There are multiple ways to submit your opinion and feedback, please do so if you’re not in favour of having your free speech restricted.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Hate_Speech_Public_Consultation
As mentioned earlier, below are links to falsified claims of rape and racism, to provide proof of those who manipulate social justice movements.
Three examples of falsified rape claims.
https://helpsaveoursons.com/looking-back-campus-rape-hoaxes-false-accusations-how-many/
Three examples of falsified claims of racism. The second article bringing to light that over the past 5 years in the United States there have been over 600 hate crimes reported that were actually falsified.
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/17/18228444/jussie-smollett-attack-hate-crime-arrest-hoax-empire
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/30/hoax-girl-who-accused-white-boys-cutting-dreadlock/
The incident with the young black men claiming racism, when the restaurant merely refused to serve those who had previously stolen from it.
The Human Spirit Publishing 