Dear Minister McEntee,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed Hate Crime Bill which, I understand, comes before Dáil Éireann for a vote this week. I believe the Bill raises serious issues in terms of clarity, enforcement and potential overreach. While the intent behind the Bill may, on the surface, aim to protect vulnerable communities, I have strong objections based on its potential impact on free speech, its vague definitions and the mechanisms of enforcement. While the assumption might be that this Bill is in safe hands based on the policies and belief systems of the current government, there can be no guarantee that future governments will not use this as a means of controlling citizens. 

My concerns: 

1. Lack of Clarity in Key Definitions
   One of the primary issues with the Bill is its lack of clarity in defining critical terms such as “gender” and “hatred.” As highlighted by former Justice Minister Michael McDowell, the Bill does not adequately define these terms, leading to a risk of arbitrary interpretation. In particular, the definition of “gender” could lead to significant confusion and unintended consequences in legal proceedings. This ambiguity could result in individuals or groups being unfairly targeted for expressing views that are not meant to incite hatred but are simply part of legitimate public debate. 

2. Risk of Overreach and Unintended Consequences
   The Bill, as it stands, opens the door for private individuals to take actions that could lead to harmful and divisive societal outcomes. By enabling citizens to effectively police one another on the grounds of potential incitement to hatred, we run the risk of amplifying a culture of mistrust and fear. As Mr. McDowell has pointed out, the idea of “citizen’s arrests” or similar mechanisms for dealing with hate speech could lead to vigilantism and unnecessary escalation of disputes, rather than fostering the kind of respectful discourse and dialogue that should underpin a healthy democracy.

3. Public Sentiment Against the Bill
   It is also worth noting that the public consultation on this legislation, as reported by Gript Media, revealed predominantly negative responses. A significant portion of the population expressed concerns about the erosion of free speech and the potential misuse of the legislation to stifle legitimate political or social commentary. These concerns should not be dismissed lightly, as they reflect the will of the people whom this legislation seeks to protect. The Government should engage in a more robust dialogue with the public to ensure that any hate crime legislation strikes the right balance between protecting vulnerable groups and preserving fundamental rights such as freedom of expression.

4. Free Speech and Democratic Principles
   There is a strong case to be made that existing laws already provide adequate protection against incitement to violence or hatred. The proposed Bill appears to go further by curbing speech that, while offensive to some, may still fall within the bounds of legitimate public discourse. In a democratic society, it is essential to protect even those forms of speech that we may disagree with, so long as they do not incite violence or cause harm. This Bill risks setting a dangerous precedent whereby unpopular opinions could be criminalised, chilling free speech and silencing debate.

For these reasons, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the current form of the Hate Crime Bill as it does not reflect the wishes of the people. At the very least, the Bill requires significant revision to ensure that it provides clear definitions, safeguards free speech and avoids creating a culture of fear and suspicion among citizens. I would also recommend that the Government take heed of the overwhelming public opposition to this legislation as expressed in the consultation process. 

If the government maintains the view that this is in line with what the public want to see in Ireland, then I suggest that assertion be tested by putting this new Bill before the people in a referendum. 

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.