Mick Clifford: Why are we allowing hate speech thrive?

Government parties are scared witless of the intolerant right that would portray them as 'woke' if they were to pursue enacting a law to prevent minorities being targeted by hate

Online hate-speech fuelled the Dublin riots of November 2023. The spread of hatred these days is directed at asylum seekers and people from diverse ethnic backgrounds.

Should we be free to say whatever we want, to voice our deepest fears or resentments? Should we have the right to cause offence if we believe such offence is entirely warranted?

Right now, the Government, and much of the body politic, appear to be going along with the notion that there should be precious few restrictions on the right to abuse or denigrate minorities.

Most of them are not doing so out of conviction, but out of fear. At issue is a matter than any thoughtful politician knows has an impact on society, but in the prevailing atmosphere is considered more trouble than it is worth. And if such cowardice impacts negatively on individuals, well, that’s really awful but the attitude appears to be that those individuals will just have to suck it up.

Ireland has been threatened with legal action by the EU for failing to implement proper hate speech laws. The current law in this country, the Incitement To Hatred Act, dates back to 1989. It was enacted before the internet became central to life, at a time when the country was fairly banjaxed, before it took off and attracted people from all around the world to service the economy.

There have been seven successful prosecutions under the act in the last 35 years. 

This suggests either we are living in a Utopia of peace, love and understanding or else the law is an ass

New legislation was drafted and last year began its passage through the Oireachtas. It was flawed in a few respects. One section in particular would have made it a crime to be in possession of material that could, if disseminated, lead to incitement to hatred. That was by any standards overkill and attracted criticism from both left and right.

The other issue that arose was the protected categories of people against whom it would be illegal to incite hatred. One of these involved gender. The whole area of gender dysphoria is contested and has been at the centre of the culture wars both here and abroad in recent years. Again, there would have been a way to frame that with a little political will.

All such political will disappeared in the wake of the defeat of the women in the home and care referendums in March 2024. Accurately or otherwise, the result was at least partly interpreted as a visceral reaction to so-called “woke” culture which is associated with the rise of identity politics in the late decade or so.

Thereafter, with the body politic shook at the reaction to referendums that nearly all parties had supported, the reaction was to run away from anything else that might be interpreted as “woke”.

Such an attitude, while politically understandable, is a complete derogation of the most fundamental duties in a liberal democracy. Hate speech laws are necessary, as recognised by most developed countries 

Nefarious elements thrive on spreading hate about minorities. Some elements make money out of this, particularly online. Meanwhile, the spreading of hatred can result in fractures in society, violence, and even impinge on basic elements of a democracy.

At the level of individuals, it means that people can be abused or denigrated based on their ethnic make-up. Interestingly, the kind of people who shout loudly that we should not have laws to prevent this are the first to reach for a lawyer if they perceive that even the most innocuous slight on them personally amounts to a grievous character assassination.

Prior to the opening up of the country to foreign workers, the spreading of hatred was customarily done by those who felt entitled to abuse Travellers collectively. These days, it is directed at asylum seekers and generally people from diverse ethnic backgrounds and members of the LGBT community, particularly those who class themselves as transgender.

Donald Trump and other authoritarian figures have shown that there is political capital and money to be made from allowing hate speech to thrive. He has won votes on the back of denigrating minorities and from the tech bros who own the online space who resist any restrictions on speech that might in any way prevent them from inflating their billions.

On this side of the Atlantic, there is generally some regard for society as a whole and less for putting the interests of billionaires and their cronies about all other considerations.

Despite all that, our Government is intent on sitting on its hands. The justice minister Jim O’Callaghan has informed the EU that we’re perfectly happy with our ancient peace and love, and we understand law in this country and we won’t be changing.

This was confirmed by Taoiseach Micheál Martin during the week in a doorstep interview outside government buildings. He said the way the entire debate around hate speech has been conducted “left a lot to be desired”, which is certainly the case.

He went on: “There is too much incitement to hate going on in this country which can lead to bad behaviour and to violence because of their sexual orientation or their race and we have all witnessed it on social media.”

So the Taoiseach openly accepts that hate speech is a major problem in society, but insists that we can tackle it through the peace, love and understanding law that is about as useful as tits on a bull

The reality is that the Government parties — and Sinn Féin in particular on the opposition benches — are scared witless of the intolerant right that would portray them as “woke” if they were to pursue enacting a law to prevent minorities being targeted by hate.

Prior to the 2024 referendums, the main parties were scared of the other extreme, the authoritarian strain of the left that focused on identity politics. If any politician said anything interpreted as straying from the strict ideology of this intolerance, particularly in areas like gender dysphoria, they were abused and labelled as transphobic, racist or whatever.

That intolerance in turn got the backs up of some people who expressed their frustration or opposition to it by voting against the referendums.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

Then, in the customary Irish way, one extreme was swapped for another. The intolerant right had the upper hand in the public square and replaced the authoritarian left as the bogeymen for mainstream politicians. Where once the body politic was afraid of those purveying identity politics, now they fear most anything that might result in being lumbered with the label “woke”.

In such a milieu the easiest solution to any problems around hate speech legislation is viewed as dumping the whole thing. It’s no way to run a grown-up country. The result is that hate will be allowed to fester online and in person. The message being conveyed from the very top of government is that doing anything about it is more trouble than it’s worth.