Concerning times for freedom of speech – by Carl Duffy

Dáil Éireann has recently passed a bill that seeks to penalise ‘hate speech.’ On the surface this might seem appealing. After all, hate is ugly and there is no shortage of it, so perhaps there should be measures in place to curb this.

However, this should not be a question of whether ‘hate speech’ is right or wrong. The question we should ask is, ‘What do we do about it?’ Banning any form of speech often leads to horrific outcomes and in my view is the first step towards totalitarianism.

The important thing to note about freedom of speech is that it does not imply freedom from consequences. Gary Lineker, Diane Abbott and JK Rowling have all faced considerable backlash for voicing ‘unacceptable’ opinions in an increasingly intolerant age. Between the online mob attacking them, calls for them to be cancelled and in the case of JK Rowling death threats for merely stating biological fact.

So, in this current climate of fear where people are becoming increasingly intolerant of dissenting voices, should we not try to move in a direction that celebrates a true diversity of opinion? By all means, criticise stupidity, bigoted and logically incoherent positions, but we should not give the perpetually offended further ammunition.

Senator Eileen Flynn welcomes this legislation and argues that taxi drivers who refuse to enter halting sites late at night are guilty of a crime. This is based on a recent personal experience, where a taxi driver would only leave her to this destination if the Gardaí were simultaneously on the phone. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the driver’s reluctance came from a place of fear  as opposed to hatred. This Senator’s pathetic grievance-seeking victimhood mentality is unfortunately far too prevalent, and I’ve no doubt the hate speech bill will only help fuel this infantilism.

Sinn Féin’s Eoin O Broin voted in favour of this legislation which defines “hatred” as hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics. Amongst these protected characteristics is ‘gender’ that is defined as the gender of a person or the gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender or with which the person identifies and includes transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.

Eoin was also recently recorded being unable to explain what a woman is and instead spoke of ‘gender identity.’ I would defend O Broin’s right to speak publicly about any pseudoscientific gibberish that he wishes t, but my minimum expectations for an elected representative is that they do not legislate against sane thinking people’s right to criticise this idiocy.

Sinn Féin have of course been victims of censorship themselves when the UK Government banned media broadcasts of their voices. Yet despite being a victim of censorship, not a single Sinn Féin TD voted against censoring Irish citizens.

This bill presented supporters of Irish freedom an incredible opportunity to defend what should be any democratic society’s greatest freedom, yet Aontú, PBP (questionable free speech advocates) and a collection of independents were the only ones to vote against this bill.

The bill also mentions possessing material that is deemed likely to ‘incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics’ will be considered an offence. In other words, if the ‘thought police’ deem material- that you may have unknowingly received via online communication- fulfils these criteria, then you are now potentially guilty of a crime.

Ultimately, speech is merely vocalised thoughts. Any socially attuned person normally self-governs what they say based on their company and various social norms. For some people, such as eccentrics, artists or comedians, these norms may already feel far too restrictive, and the braver ones will actively challenge what is and what is not considered socially acceptable. What we do not want to do is add further restrictions onto what we can and cannot say even if it is under the guise of tackling ‘hatred.’

Instead of stifling thought which could then deprive us of literary, artistic, and scientific genius, we should defend freedom of speech – even if that comes at the risk of people saying ‘hateful’ things. If this bill is the ‘cure’ for hatred, then I would sooner accept the ‘disease’ of free speech.