The decision to jettison a large part of the Government’s hate crime Bill will serve as a salutary lesson for future administrations contemplating legislation on contentious hot-button topics. First introduced in 2021, the Bill became a lightning rod for the debates over limits on free speech which have roiled politics in many democracies in recent years.
Two fundamental principles are at stake. The State has a duty to protect vulnerable groups and minorities against those who would do them harm. And every citizen has the right to express their views, however unpleasant some may find them. These two are not irreconcilable, but they do require clarity of thought and of language to address.
The hate crime Bill was intended to provide greater protection for those at risk of the sort of abuse, harassment or violence which has no place in a pluralist democratic society. It provided for tougher sentences for crimes such as assault that are motivated by hatred and also proposed new offences of incitement to violence or hatred.
The Bill passed through the Dáil with minimal opposition, apart from a small number of left-wing TDs. It came under more sustained interrogation in the Seanad, where the precision of its wording and the vagueness of its definitions were questioned. Some of these criticisms were subsequently picked up and amplified by international figures such as X owner Elon Musk. And concern about the issue mounted following the defeat in March of the family and care referendums, which for critics exposed a gap between the concerns of the political establishment and the views of the voting public.
Ireland v Fiji player ratings: Bundee Aki bounces back, Caelan Doris leads by example
David McWilliams: The potential threats to Ireland now come in four guises
The album that nearly finished U2: The story of How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and its new ‘shadow’ LP
‘I know what happened in that room’: the full story of the Conor McGregor case
Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has now confirmed that a truncated Bill will be brought before the Oireachtas, retaining the “crime” element but dispensing with those parts relating to speech. This, she says, is due to a lack of consensus on the issue.
It appears that significant resistance had emerged among Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael backbenchers – none of whom, it should be noted, objected to the original wording two years ago. It has also lost the support of Sinn Féin.
In its new, reduced form, the Bill is likely to encounter less opposition, although former ministers for justice Charlie Flanagan and Michael McDowell have both expressed concerns over its expanded definition of gender identities.
But the Minister is correct when she says that the subject of incitement to hatred will have to be returned to by a future government. She and her Coalition colleagues, along with most of the Opposition, would do well to reflect on why a lengthy process of consultation, drafting and parliamentary scrutiny failed – until so late in the day – to reveal the lack of consensus which has now led to this change of course.