Elaine Loughlin: Voices from the centre must be heard in hate speech row

Those who do not come down strongly on either side — or who have yet to form a view — fear being cancelled if they speak up and ask questions

Helen McEntee: Entrenched in a war of words over hate speech legislation.

Back from maternity leave, Justice Minister Helen McEntee found herself in the middle of a war of words as accusations were hurled across the Seanad this week.

But as the discussion over hate speech becomes more and more polarised, there are concerns that voices in the centre have been bullied out.

Worse still, those who do not come down strongly on one side or the other of this bitter debate, or who have yet to form a view, are scared of speaking up or asking questions for fear of being cancelled.

Hate offences laws currently being debated by politicians have become a lightning rod and there was no shortage of sparks this week.

Entrenched in the ‘no’ side of what has become an extremely divisive Bill, Senator Sharon Keogan said she had felt intimidated by her Seanad colleague Barry Ward who, during his contribution, urged the nay-sayers to refrain from repeating the “rubbish” being bandied about online.

“I felt it to be very intimidating. His raised voice was not warranted. It was unnecessary to speak in the tone in which he spoke to open the debate. I will just get that off my chest now before I start,” Keogan said before she ran out of speaking time during a debate which centres around what people may or may not be allowed to say under the new laws.

The Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022 has already gained significant attention, both here and abroad with Donald Trump Jnr weighing into the row by dubbing the proposed legislation “insane”, while Twitter owner Elon Musk said the laws were “very concerning”.

'Woke' approach

It has become tasty fodder for those who like to dine out on the notion that we have strayed too far down the liberal road and adopted a woke approach to everything.

Others, including McEntee, say our outdated laws must be addressed to protect vulnerable minorities, be it gay or transgender people, migrants or those with a disability, who, she said, are almost afraid to leave their own homes given the level of abuse being directed at them.

McEntee stressed that the proposed legislation is about protecting these groups from hate crimes “where they are physically assaulted, where there are assaults on their property and other forms of crimes, but also where there is language use that incites that type of violence against another person”.

Words of course matter, but as the argument becomes more and more heated, some feel they cannot speak up for fear of using the wrong terms.

Speaking to this, Fianna Fáil’s Lisa Chambers warned that the fear of cancel culture which she said is “real” is stymying a thorough examination of topics. She said:

The issues raised around this are real and genuine, they are not from crazy people and not from the far left or the far right.

“There are many ordinary, middle-ground people who are not quite sure what we are legislating for, if it is needed, if it is reasonable, and if we are doing what we are required to do or are we going further than that. These are reasonable questions.”

Asking legitimate questions, does not make someone a bad person or a hateful person, neither does it mean that a person is in favour of restricting the rights of others or, on the flip side, it doesn’t follow that the person is in favour of preventing minorities from being safe to walk the streets in our country.

Ireland in recent times, has been mature enough to approach what had been previously considered as contentious, emotive and even taboo subjects in an open-minded manner.

Allowing citizens to honestly explore and question topics such as marriage equality and abortion led to historic changes which ultimately has made our country a more open-hearted place to live for many who previously had felt shunned.

We must continue to foster an environment which allows people to openly discuss issues.

But there is now a danger that those with the strongest views on both sides of contentious arguments may silence those who simply want to learn.

There will always be bad actors who use issues to stoke fear, who will try to alienate vulnerable groups through the dishonest guise of concern and questioning.

Safe space to talk

We must ensure that there is a safe space to talk.

After all, it was countless conversations over dinner tables and in sitting rooms ahead of the referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment and the vote to acknowledge same-sex marriage, that cemented opinions.

It is concerning in the extreme that Chambers, a politician who cites herself as one of the more liberal members of her party and who strongly campaigned in favour of repeal, feels that she must now self-censor on certain topics. Raising the hot topic of gender, she said that despite speaking under privilege in the Seanad she would be “very limited” in what she said as “it is a space where, no matter what one says, one will upset somebody. It is so controversial and so divisive”.

It’s an atmosphere that means comments are often taken to mean a hatred of one group when this is not the case at all, she said.

She added: “I am very concerned that we are going towards a situation where we are telling people how to think, how they should think, and ‘If you do not think how I think there is something wrong with you’."

No one goes through life without changing their outlook on one issue or another. To grow is to change.

But without being exposed to a whole range of opinions and not just the polar opposites, how can people come to an informed and balanced view of issues?

Again, it was an area that Chambers touched on: “I am in the fortunate position of often being on the side of the popular view, whatever that might be, but that might change.

"When I am of pension age, the views may be different. We wish to make sure that all views can be expressed at all times because it protects all of us.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

“It was what we needed 30 or 40 years ago when we wished to try to stop the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. People could not walk the streets in this country, because their view was unpopular, and we do not want the same to happen to people who hold views we do not like today.”

Seeking to be educated on the evolving matters and vocabulary around transgender issues should not be cause for ostracization or a barrage of online abuse.

Likewise, it is not automatically racist or anti-migrant to raise concern at the level of investment that will be made in communities to ensure adequate healthcare or education facilities — these things benefit migrants as much as locals.

This country must aim to foster and protect a thriving biodiversity of opinions.

We cannot be dragged into a putrid swallow hole where debate is only allowed between those who hold the most strident of views on either side.

We must rise above this to allow all voices to be heard.