Brownstone Institute
New Hate Speech Laws Scrapped in Ireland
From the Brownstone Institute
The Irish Government has announced it is scrapping its plans to introduce significant updates to Ireland’s existing hate speech laws, as there is not enough support for the proposed legislation. Remarkably, the legislation had already passed the lower house of the Irish Parliament by an overwhelming margin (114 in favour, 10 against) in April 2023, but began to stall in the Senate as its more problematic features came to light. It had gained international notoriety when it came under fire from X’s CEO, Elon Musk.
Free speech advocates across the world should find solace in the fact that a regressive piece of legislation with dire implications for free speech, is now dead in the water, in spite of being a “sure thing” less than two years ago. This is a piece of legislation, after all, that had already comfortably passed in the lower house of parliament, was supported by all major political parties, and was initially only resisted by a handful of journalists, politicians, and political activists. The Irish government had staked their reputation on the passage of this hate speech law, so they would not have withdrawn it at the last minute unless they had come under intense political pressure.
Ireland already has had hate speech legislation on its statute books for over 30 years: the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act. However, that legislation set the bar for prosecution quite high, insisting on the need to demonstrate that someone is knowingly and/or intentionally inciting hatred. Consequently, only a handful of convictions have been secured in over 30 years.
The government sought to remedy this situation by drafting the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill in 2022, which would have introduced a more stringent and wide-ranging hate speech regime in Ireland. Had it passed, the Hatred and Hate Offences Bill would have had the following legal effects:
- In the 1989 legislation, categories protected from hate speech were race, religion, colour, nationality, membership of the travelling community, or sexual orientation. The 2022 Bill expanded this list of protected characteristics to include gender, sex characteristic, disability, and descent. So the basis for pressing hate speech charges would have been significantly broadened, had this law been passed.
- In the 1989 legislation, Gardaí (police) may seize physical objects from a person’s home during a search-and-seizure operation, if they “reasonably” suspect such objects contain offensive material that was intended to be published. The updated legislation would have given Gardaí the power to compel citizens to hand over passwords or encryption keys to access their privately stored data.
- The 1989 legislation allows Gardaí to seize physical materials in the context of a search-and-seizure operation, while the new legislation explicitly authorized Gardaí to confiscate electronic data, but also to retain and copy it for as long as needed for the investigation.
- The 1989 legislation allows someone charged with a hate speech offence to avoid prosecution by showing that he did not in fact intend to stir up hatred, and was unaware that the material in question was “threatening, abusive, or insulting.” The 2002 legislation would have made it easier to secure a prosecution, by allowing convictions in case an individual was “reckless” as to whether their actions could incite hatred.
- The 2002 Hatred and Hate Offences Bill would have introduced steeper penalties for hate speech offences. Whereas the established penalty is up to two years in jail, the revised penalty is up to five years in jail.
In spite of the defeat of the government’s new hate speech legislation, Ireland’s Justice Minister Helen McEntee is adamant that she will pass another version of this Bill, dealing with “hate crime” rather than “hate speech,” and has suggested the revised bill would retain the expanded list of protected characteristics, including “gender.” Furthermore, the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act, which remains the law of the land, contains deeply problematic features, including the right to search private property based on a “reasonable suspicion” that an individual possesses offensive material intended for publication.
Thus, the battle for free speech in Ireland is far from over. Nevertheless, this was something of a David-and-Goliath situation: all major political parties had backed the Hatred and Hate Offences Bill, and it had already passed the lower house of the Parliament by an overwhelming margin – 114 votes in favour, 10 against. Only a handful of mainstream journalists in Ireland spoke out against the Hate Offences Bill. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, along with numerous other NGOs, came out in its favour, and expressed “disappointment” that the Justice Minister was dropping all elements of it pertaining to hate speech.
So this is certainly a victory free speech advocates should savour and learn from. A small but powerful coalition of voices and organizations, including Senator Michael McDowell, Free Speech Ireland, Elon Musk, and ADF International, were able to make enough of an intelligent “ruckus” about the Hate Offences Bill to sink it. Champions of free speech across the world would do well to learn from this uphill victory.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
Morens implicated Margaret (Marg) Moore, known colloquially as “The FOIA lady” in trying to hide information from the American people, particularly that related to the origins of Covid-19, which is a felony.
A relatively unknown public records officer at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is now at the centre of a burgeoning scandal involving Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
The saga unfolded after subpoenaed emails belonging to David Morens, a former top advisor to Anthony Fauci, revealed that someone had taught him to game the system and avoid emails being captured by FOIA requests.
“i learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia’d but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe,” Morens wrote in a Feb 24, 2021, email. “Plus i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail.”
Morens implicated Margaret (Marg) Moore, known colloquially as “The FOIA lady” in trying to hide information from the American people, particularly that related to the origins of Covid-19, which is a felony.
It sparked an investigation by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to expose what Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) called a “cover-up.”
A letter to NIH director Monica Bertagnolli in May suggested “a conspiracy at the highest levels” of these once trusted public health institutions.
“If what appears in these documents is true, this is an apparent attack on public trust and must be met with swift enforcement and consequences for those involved,” Wenstrup wrote.
Wenstrup said there was evidence that a former chief of staff of Fauci’s might have used intentional misspellings — such as “Ec~Health” instead of “EcoHealth” — to prevent emails from being captured in keyword searches by FOIA officials.
Stay Informed with Brownstone Institute
Today, Wenstrup announced a subpoena to compel Moore (The FOIA lady) to appear for a deposition on October 4, 2024, saying that she’d repeatedly resisted these efforts and delayed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation.
“Her alleged scheme to help NIH officials delete COVID-19 records and use their personal emails to avoid FOIA is appalling and deserves a thorough investigation,” said Wenstrup.
“Holding Ms. Moore accountable for any role she played in undermining American trust is a step towards improving the lack of accountability and absence of transparency rapidly spreading across many agencies within our federal government,” he added.
Moore, however, has indicated through her lawyers that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Her lawyers wrote to Wenstrup explaining that she’d cooperated with the Select Subcommittee to find “an alternative” to sitting for an interview, including expediting her own FOIA request for her own documents.
They also explained that Morens’ emails suggesting Moore gave tips “about avoiding FOIA,” were misleading because Morens, under oath said, “That was a joke…She didn’t give me advice about how to avoid FOIA.”
Nonetheless, Moore’s decision to plead the Fifth has only fuelled concern over the lack of transparency and accountability of one of the nation’s top health research institutions.
It’s not over until the FOIA lady sings!
Further reading: The great FOIA dodge
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
Mere words cannot restrain our aspiring censors from weaponizing their power to silence dissent. Enemies of the First Amendment vow to “hammer it out of existence,” as John Kerry explained this week, and they are prepared to circumvent legal protections to achieve their aims at all costs.
Kerry, speaking on a panel on climate change at the World Economic Forum, lamented what he regards as insufficient censorship of “disinformation” and called on his allies to “win the ground, win the right to govern” in order to be “free be able to implement change” despite the “major block” of the First Amendment.
But a survey of the dismal state of free speech in the United States shows that Kerry and his allies have already developed means to sidestep the “major block” of our founding documents. Hillary Clinton herself has floated the idea of criminal penalties for the spreading of “misinformation.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has similarly called for “reining in the media environment” so that people cannot just “spew information.”
Earlier this year, journalist Mark Steyn was forced to pay $1 million in “punitive damages” for mocking a climate scientist and comparing him to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.
The prevailing attorney urged the jury to inflict the punishment to demonstrate the ramifications for engaging in “climate denialism,” which he compared to President Trump’s “election denialism.”
In New York, State Attorney General Letitia James has demonstrated the threat that change poses to our foundational freedoms. During her 2018 campaign for office, James proudly broadcasted her antipathy to the First Amendment, pledging to weaponize the justice system against a range of political enemies from President Donald Trump to the National Rifle Association.
Her intolerance for dissent led her to target VDare, Peter Brimelow’s immigration-restrictionist website. Unable to find a crime, James used her office to drown the organization in legal costs until it was forced to cease operations. Despite having never advocated for violence or committed libel, Brimelow and his group were guilty of dissent in a jurisdiction that elected a zealot.
Stay Informed with Brownstone Institute
Steve Bannon, Julian Assange, Douglass Mackey, Roger Ver, and Pavel Durov have undergone similarly brazen persecutions that debunk the supposed safety of free speech protections in the West.
Our Constitution cannot survive Soviet-style justice of “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” Brimelow, Assange, and Durov were targeted for their dissent, and the regime reverse-engineered means to punish them.
A similar process occurs in academia. Last week, the University of Pennsylvania announced that it would sanction law professor Amy Wax, a critic of affirmative action, by suspending her for a year and docking her pay. Penn insisted that the sanctions did not implicate freedom of speech and instead concerned “professionalism” standards for its faculty.
But Wax’s sanctions are explicitly based on 26 incidents of wrongthink, including criticizing “anti-assimilation ideas,” “rap culture,” and cities being “run like third world countries” as well as commenting on differences between the sexes and racial groups.
As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression explains, “Penn’s willingness to sidestep academic freedom protections to punish Wax sets a troubling precedent. If scholars with controversial views can lose their academic freedom merely for unspecified ‘unprofessionalism’ concerns, all faculty who hold minority, dissenting, or simply unpopular views are at risk.”
Americans more broadly face the same risk. Neither the First Amendment nor abstract free speech principles will stop the censors in their crusade. They will sidestep legal protections of our freedoms under the guise of ostensibly innocuous sloganeering.
Germany is already showing the way, with a guilty verdict for CJ Hopkins, an American living there who objected to Covid controls. With the documents already in place for “the future of the Internet,” the existing administration has a stated aim to close the Internet to free speech and install censors at all levels. This will necessarily run headlong into a confrontation with Elon Musk, but it will eventually hit Rumble and every other alternative source of information.
The target is the First Amendment but with a precise purpose: securing regime control over the whole population, with a public culture wholly controlled in the interests of protecting the administrative state against populist resistance. Those are the stakes.
Let there be no mistake about this. Your freedom to know the truth is what is at issue.
Author
Federal Greenwash law: guilty until proven innocent
Some dockworkers earn more than $400,000 a year
Cartels, UN, and NGOs Fuel U.S. Border Crisis – A Report from Colombia
‘There Were Bodies In Trees’: Rural South Decimated By Hurricane Helene As Death Toll Rises Above 130
-
Crime9 hours agoCanadian church goes up in flames for the third time in a week
-
Alberta14 hours agoDanielle Smith confirms Alberta will introduce bill to ban men from competing in women’s sports
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
The FOIA Lady Pleads the Fifth
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta rail hub doubling in size to transport plastic from major new carbon-neutral plant
-
Economy1 day agoOttawa’s proposed ‘electricity’ regulations may leave Canadians out in the cold
-
Alberta2 days agoChris Scott and Rebecca Ingram attempting Class Action Lawsuit against Province for COVID restrictions
-
National1 day agoParliament’s Debate on Bill 377: A Battle for Transparency, Accountability, and the Control of National Security
-
Alberta20 hours ago
Class Action Lawsuit Against the Province of Alberta – Rath on Behalf of Ingram and Scott