Government not expected to amend hate speech Bill despite criticism

The Government does not expect to accept any substantive amendments to the hate crime and hate speech Bill, despite heavy criticism of the legislation in the Seanad last week.

A spokesman said that any amendments would be considered on their merits but it is understood that the Government does not expect to make any significant changes to the proposed law.

Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, sought to assuage fears the Bill would restrict free speech on Sunday, saying that refusing to use a person’s preferred pronouns would not be against the law.

The Bill, which had its initial stage in the Seanad last week after passing all stages in the Dáil, will return for detailed scrutiny in the upper chamber in the coming weeks, though it is not clear if the Government intends to complete all stages before the summer recess.

Hannah Daly: Batteries are vital to ending fossil fuel dependence

---

Dave Hannigan: Grotesque Tyson-Paul spectacle the very antithesis of a real sporting event

---

‘I had no agent, no invites . . . it was do or die’ - Jude McAtamney, the latest Irishman heading for the NFL

---

Karlin Lillington: Google somewhat two-faced on workplace politics

---

The Bill has seen significant public criticism as well as opposition from all parts of the political spectrum in the Oireachtas, though the Government retains the ability to push it though the legislative process if it wishes.

Writing in defence of the Bill in the Sunday Times, Ms McEntee insisted that the Bill would not unacceptably circumscribe the right to freedom of expression.

“You will still be able to offend other people or express views that make others uncomfortable,” she said. “You will still be able to debate and discuss issues regarding protected characteristics.”

This suggests that the Bill does not go as far as some of its supporters suggest. Last week, the Green senator Pauline O’Reilly suggested speech that made some people uncomfortable should be banned.

“If your views on other people’s identities go to make their lives unsafe, insecure and cause them such deep discomfort that they cannot live in peace then I believe that it is our job as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good. Because you cannot do and say whatever you like in our society, a society governed by laws,” she said.

[ Michael McDowell: Clarity needed on definitions of gender in new hate speech Bill ]

The interpretation put forward by Ms McEntee, however, is less restrictive.

“The line we are drawing is that you can be offensive, say things that make others uncomfortable, have full and robust debate – but you cannot incite hatred or violence,” she said.

“You could, for example, say you disagree with using a certain pronoun a person uses to identify themselves and not use that pronoun if you don’t want to.”

Ms McEntee said that she intended to continue with the new definition of gender in the Bill, which has been criticised by some opponents. While gender – including in the law governing gender identification – has previously been binary in law, the new legislation includes transgender as a gender and also refers to genders other than male or female.

“The meaning of gender in this Bill applies for this Bill alone and has no bearing on any other legislation,” she said.