Considering the recent rise in hate crimes and far-right sentiment, Ian Hinsley looks at whether Irish laws are failing us.
The legislation of free speech has been, and forever will be, a topic of immense discourse in the public sphere. Ireland’s clashes with the EU Commission in the last few months have drawn attention to the nature of hate-speech in Ireland, as well as Europe as a whole.
Crimes and verbal abuse motivated by race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender have all risen in the last decade. The Garda report a 4% increase in reported hate-crimes and incidents, moving to 676 in 2024 from 651 in 2023, which itself was an increase from the year prior. The anti-immigrant Dublin riots in November of 2023 showcase the growing boldness of hate-motivated action.
Ireland has fallen under an infringement action by the EU Commission who claim Ireland’s hate speech laws are not in line with EU legislation. There are several possible explanations for this: December did see the removal of hate-speech laws from Ireland’s new hate-crime bill. While Taoiseach Micheál Martin claims that Ireland’s hate-speech laws in the 1989 Incitement to Hatred Act are up to European standards, The question remains: are Ireland’s laws too lax, or is the problem inadequate enforcement? Garda Commissioner Harris claims that recruitment numbers must increase to 18,000 to meet the needs of the state, which may take over a decade to meet.
This is an issue of legal philosophy that cannot be answered with a simple yes-or-no, and has no ‘right answer’ at all, for that matter. In the US, often held up as a model for freedom of speech legislation, hate-speech falls under constitutional protection unless there is a direct incitement of violence against another person or group. The enforcement of this is dubious, especially when it comes to statements made online. American right-wingers like Elon Musk have been critical of many EU states’ stricter hate-speech legislation, with the common claim that tight control on such speech could snowball into authoritarianism.
Germany developed its laws to prevent tragedies like the Holocaust from ever occurring again, where incitement of violence is a serious offence, both off and online. However, criticism for unjust arrests and the gains made by the German far-right raise questions on whether the strictness of hate-speech enforcement is an effective deterrent to hate-groups.
Another issue is the citing of hate-speech law to justify crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protests. Both American and German police have used allegations of antisemitism to justify crackdowns on pro-Palestinian protests. “...race, combined with political viewpoints about being pro-Palestinian, are the targets of the most severe punishment,” claimed US attorney Thomas Harvey, sharing a common view among activists: the citing of hate-speech to enforce crackdowns is simply targeting one minority group over another.
Ireland faces a challenging future for hate-speech legislation. It must fall in line with EUregulation but must also clarify its own stance on speech law. Whether that be through a new legislation or a clarifying of the 1989 Act, Ireland is obliged to answer the speech question.