Sir, – I would like to comment on some points made by Minister for Justice Helen McEntee in the Seanad, touched upon by Miriam Lord (“Minister reassures anxious Senators that people will retain ‘absolute right’ to be thoroughly obnoxious”, Oireachtas Sketch, June 23rd), namely on the protected characteristic “gender” and the outcome of the public consultation on the Criminal Justice Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill.
Ms McEntee claimed that the very unclear definition of gender was required to cover the following case: “if a person who identifies as non-binary leaves an LGBTQ+ venue and are then subjected to a homophobic attack, the intention is that they should also benefit from this legislation. Without the interpretation we have set out, they would not.”
If anyone is subjected to a homophobic attack, they are covered by the ninth protected characteristic, “sexual orientation”.
Ms McEntee asserted that public opposition to the Bill is being reported in a misleading way and that “four of the five” consultation strands were positive and that we are focusing too much on the online poll.
Tony O’Reilly, Nell McCafferty, Ian Bailey and more: 50 people who died in 2024
Changing career midlife: ‘At 45 I thought I was finished... But it didn’t even occur to me that I could do anything else’
Restaurant of the year, best value and Michelin predictions: Our reviewer’s top picks of 2024
Women are far more likely to re-gift unwanted presents than men
The remaining four strands were detailed written responses (total 182), 58 per cent of which came from individuals, all of which are publicly available, consistently highlighting concerns with the Bill. The online survey (3,526 responses) and detailed written response were the only means for ordinary individuals to express their opinion.
The Minister referenced a recent survey conducted by University of Limerick and Queen’s University Belfast and stated that it is more representative of the general population, though it appears to deal with hate crime rather than hate speech.
If the detailed written responses by individuals and online survey are not considered representative, and can therefore be brushed aside, it is very unclear why this exercise was undertaken in the first place. – Is mise,
DEIRDRE BYRNE,
Sneem,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – Annaig Birdy is right to vehemently object to this flawed piece of legislation (Letters, June 22nd).
It will provide in the future a political weapon for whatever hue of the right or left that seeks power. Asserting that speech, from which anyone can subjectively take offence, can be defined as hate turns this Bill into a threat to democracy itself and has the potential to be used for malign political ends.
We already have an epidemic of deplatforming and harassment without it. With it, things will get a lot worse. – Yours, etc,
JOHN LEE
Shankill,
Dublin 18.