Thought Crime - Irish Style
Update 117
Ooh, I’m still recovering from the Starbucks’ Indian ad - do check it out if you haven’t done so already:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/starbucks-keeps-you-woke
Anyway, onwards to the extremely worrying Irish hate crime bill currently before the upper house, the Seanad and which is almost inevitably going to become law. I have now read through the Bill and you can find it here:
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2022/105/eng/ver_b/b105b22d.pdf
I am quoting here extensively from an article by Adam Kula on The News Letter (What is in Ireland's new so-called 'thought crime' bill, how many years in jail can you get, and which parties are backing it? 02 May) . Bits below in italics are quotes from the article and the bits not in italics are comments from yours truly. You can find the full article here:
The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 as a whole seeks to "amend the law relating to the prohibition of incitement to violence or hatred against a person, or a group of persons, on account of certain characteristics of the person, or the group".
These “protected characteristics” are:
(a) race, (b) colour, (c) nationality, (d) religion, (e) national or ethnic origin, (f) descent, (g) gender, (h) sex characteristics, (i) sexual orientation, or (j) disability.
An image of Elon Musk, who has tweeted out his criticism of Ireland's 'hate speech' bill to his legions of online followers; inset, an image posted online by Lawyers for Justice Ireland, which describes itself as "group of pro bono Irish Lawyers and associated professionals committed to empowering people with knowledge to take action to uphold our rights and freedoms".
Importantly, this is the bill’s definition of what "gender" means:
"The gender which a person expresses as the person’s preferred gender, or with which the person identifies, and includes transgender, and a gender other than those of male and female" .
So anything you make up basically!! Talk about a wide definition!! It only ‘includes transgender’ so apparently there are lots of other genders.
Section 7 of the bill says it will be a crime if somebody "communicates material to the public or a section of the public, or behaves in a public place in a manner that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons, on account of their protected characteristics".
Very wide again.
To count as a crime, Section 7 says the offender must have either the "intent to incite violence or hatred", or to have been "reckless as to whether such violence or hatred is thereby incited".
This, added to the definition of "gender" above, suggests it will become a crime to voice views which risk resulting in "hatred" towards people who are biologically male, but who want access to women's changing rooms and sports because they feel female.
Similarly, it also suggests it will be a crime to express views which could inspire "hatred" towards the "non-binary" movement (comprised of people who say they are neither male nor female, but instead belong to some new category like "two-spirit" or "gender-queer").
The maximum penalty under Section 7 is five years in jail.
Five years!! Anyway, another problem is the definition of ‘hatred’ in the Bill. Clause 2(1)states:
‘“hatred” means hatred against a person or a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their protected characteristics or any one of those characteristics.’
‘Hatred means hatred’? I’m not sure that takes us very far!! Talk about a circular definition!
Under [section 10], it will be a crime if someone merely "possesses material that is likely to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons... with a view to the material being communicated to the public or a section of the public, whether by himself or herself or another person".
The bill says that where it is "reasonable to assume that the material was not intended for personal use", it will be "presumed" that the accused did indeed intend to disseminate it unless they can prove otherwise.
The maximum punishment under Article 10 is two years in jail.
The whole Bill is really amazing but this clause is even more amazing. So, if you have written a speech which you haven’t yet delivered (and maybe you will never deliver it), and if it is said that speech includes incitement to hatred, it will be presumed that you intend to deliver that speech!
However, there is a get-out clause for suspected offenders – they can defeat the prosecution by showing the material in question counts as a "reasonable and genuine contribution to literary, artistic, political, scientific, religious or academic discourse".
God knows how this defence will work? Surely our gender critical arguments that we employ are ‘political’ and, if you are a university professor or lecturer or school teacher it could be part of ‘academic discourse’? Plus this is just a defence to possession of the material and does not seem to be a defence to delivery of that material. If that is right, why isn’t it also a defence to delivery of the material!?
Mr Kula’s article does not mention a defence in clause 11, which is headed ‘Protection of freedom of expression’ and that appears to apply to both delivery or communication and possession:
‘For the purposes of this Part, any material or behaviour is not taken to incite violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of their protected characteristics or any of those characteristics solely on the basis that that material or behaviour includes or involves discussion or criticism of matters relating to a protected characteristic.’
Well surely all we debate on the gender critical side of things involves ‘discussion or criticism’? How on earth is that going to work or be applied?
This strikes me as a very badly drafted piece of legislation!
The new law would apply not just to anyone committing such crimes within Ireland's territorial borders, but to anyone accessing "material hosted on an information system in the state".
In other words, this could open up the possibility that if "hateful material" is saved on a server in Ireland, then the person who saved it there has committed a crime, regardless of where they are in the world or whether they knew where the data was being saved.
This is another gobsmacking bit of the Bill. So if I write one of my usual pieces on this substack and someone saves it or even just has it on their computer or other device in Ireland and if it is said it incites hatred, I am committing an offence even though I am in England!!??
It was passed last week in the Dail (the Irish equivalent to the House of Commons) and has now gone to the Seanad (the Irish equivalent of the Lords) for what looks likely to be a rubber-stamping exercise.
It was approved by 110 votes to 14, with the 110 "yes" votes including Sinn Fein, Labour, the Green Party, Fine Gael (including leader Leo Varadkar personally), and Fianna Fail (including leader Micheal Martin personally).
The 'No' votes came from People Before Profit, alongside Aontu and several independents.
Only 14 votes against! What is going on over there!?
Criticism of the bill has been international, with a number of Twitter users saying it amounts to ushering in an era of “thought crime”.
Elon Musk, the US-based space pioneer and owner of Twitter, told his 138 million followers: "This is a massive attack against freedom of speech."
…Dr Jordan B Peterson (…4.1m followers), made reference to similar recent efforts at criminalising "hate speech" in Canada: "Coming your way, Canadians: Bill C-11 is just the beginning. This is where Ireland already stands. Those with eyes open: note and heed Elon Musk's response."
Great to have heavyweight support! Not quite so heavyweight but still very important support from elsewhere:
Gay Irish libertarian Paddy Manning (…10,000 followers) said: "Ireland's hate speech law won't result in many prosecutions.
"It's not law as you understand law. It's lawfare, where the law creates a process of investigation and disrepute that does not require a guilty verdict to punish.
"The process is the punishment."
Lawyers For Justice Ireland (… 5,000 followers) was among those saying the bill amounts to the creation of “thought crimes”, adding: "The most chilling effect of hate speech laws are that they will lead to self censorship as people will fear speaking out.
"This is all by design as such laws are designed as a tool to silence dissent at a critical juncture in our society when more and more people are waking up."
The process is the punishment - exactly! Lawyers for Justice also hit the nail on the head - this is designed to have a chilling effect i.e. to shut you up. Additionally it gives a wonderful opportunity for anti-women activists to report spurious claims to the Garda Síochána ( the Irish Police) and cause immense problems and annoyance to gender critical/ pro women campaigners. Look at what has happened to Kellie-Jay Keen and others over recent years in the UK and our laws here are in no way as extreme as this piece of legislation.
I am afraid that what might be required is for people who are prosecuted or threatened with prosecution to challenge this in the courts but, as you will see, the potential consequences of being found guilty are pretty steep to say the least! However I do think that a good lawyer could have a lot of fun with the uncertainties and grey areas contained within this legislation!
A very dark moment for Mother Ireland in my opinion!
The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS)
In 2016 GIDS staff were gathered in a posh hotel in London ( there was and is loads of money swimming around at the Tavistock!) to hear about the Early Intervention Study. The shocking news was that virtually all the children who had been placed on puberty blockers had moved on to cross-sex hormones. Dr Anna Hutchinson became a whistle blower who talked extensively to Hannah Barnes for her book Time to Think. Hannah writes:
But sitting in a hotel conference centre in central London, Hutchinson’s head spun. She knew that if the blockers were actually confirming a trans identity, as suddenly now seemed possible, then there would have to be vulnerable children who would later realise that that wasn’t the right path for them. ‘I was horrified because I just suddenly thought, “Oh God, oh God”’. If the service was getting this wrong, she said to herself, it was getting it wrong with some of the most vulnerable children and young people there were. Young people who already had difficulties - children who were traumatised or mistreated, autistic children, or those who might grow up to be gay.
This remarkable finding was never discussed formally as a whole group again. Even immediately after the presentation, there was little talk of it. GIDS never explored how it could be that despite their unique characters, experiences , families and beliefs, every single child had made the same decision to continue on to cross-sex hormones ( page 120).
EDI Jester also reports on the Tavistock reading from an article about Hannah Barnes’ book and I agree with Barry that a public inquiry will be required:
Prolific Barry has put out two further videos today.
On the importance of family:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvL0mh9-kFc
On a new group called Bad Education:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPSjFFZSDZU&t=147s
Glinner
Great interview with Glinner by Heather Binning on Women’s Rights Network. I liked the discussion about the importance of humour on our side of the argument and I hope I contribute to that in a small way ( see later 😎):
Queens’ Speech
Excellent episode from Clive and Dennis including the great Icelandic gay campaigner, Eldur. Discussion of the Rainbow Awards at the (very expensive) venue of the Natural History Museum where ( of course ) Stonewall got an award and where Michael Cashman gave his ‘ you are the enemy’ speech. Loved the fact that Simon Edge has dubbed him Screaming Lord Cashman of Riyadh, since the awards were sponsored by a Saudi Arabian arms manufacturer!!
Nancy Kelley, the sexual racist head of Stonewall, is supporting a ( very large) trans identified male called Tiger Girl who is trying to sue the Rugby Football Union for not letting him injure…sorry, play with women. Dennis confirmed that the case has the chances of a snowball in hell. It is mentioned that, if there was a sport of Pie Eating, Nancy Kelley might be able to take part in that .
Then Eldur relates attending the Danish parliament and his great work in Iceland where the Stonewall equivalent have to employ someone to try and counter him!! What a star!
Feminist Legal Clinic
Couple of great pieces about Australia from the prolific FLC.
Firstly, about Woo Woo Queensland MP Shannon Fentiman, previously Minister for Women and now Minister for Health and about the very offensive sticker that was stuck on her office window (I do hope it was one of Posie’s 😎):
The next one reporting that Reduxx has learned that two women in Australian have received notices from Twitter informing them they have broken Australian law after tweeting about a trans-identified male who has been ‘breastfeeding’ a child. FFS!!!
Pronouns are Rohypnol
I had cause to refer back to this great 2019 article by Barra Kerr recently.
Barra discusses this from a psychological perspective but I think there is also a ‘political’ perspective because, if you start down this road, you are starting down a road that leads to accepting that someone can change their sex. When we arrive at Gender Critical Nirvana maybe we could consider being ‘nice’ but I’m not sure I would even want to do it then! All thoughts gratefully received 😀
https://uncommongroundmedia.com/banned-from-medium-pronouns-are-rohypnol/?utm_content=cmp-true
The Life of Brian
Alison Boshoff in The Daily Mail (John Cleese is forced to cut famous Life of Brian scene about men having babies from his new West End show 18 May) reports:
Monty Python stars John Cleese and Eric Idle have been workshopping new scenes and plotlines for a blockbuster stage show based on the classic 1979 film Life Of Brian.
There is a new character — Fiona Pilate, Pilate's wife — who falls in love with Brian. And, spoiler alert, Brian does not get crucified. But rest assured he will still sing Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life.
Cleese, 83, the prime mover in the revival, said: 'I think Life Of Brian is our best film. We are going to do it in London in the second half of next year and I've changed certain things.'
One exchange which has had to come out is the discussion between People's Front of Judea members Stan (played by Idle) and Reg (Cleese). Stan says that he wants to be known as Loretta and to have babies. 'It's every man's right to have babies if you want them,' says Stan. Reg counters: 'But — you can't have babies.' At which Stan responds: 'Don't you oppress me.'
Cleese told an audience at his one-man show last week that when the scene (co-written with the late Graham Chapman) was performed at a read-through for the new show in New York last year, doubts emerged. 'At the end, I said to the American actors: 'What do you think?' And they said: 'We love the script, but you can't do that stuff about Loretta nowadays.'
'So here you have something there's never been a complaint about in 40 years, that I've heard of, and now all of a sudden we can't do it because it'll offend people. What is one supposed to make of that? But I think there were a lot of things that were actually, in some strange way, predictive of what was actually going to happen later.'
So, OBVIOUSLY, we need to big up that scene don’t we 😎
“Symbolic of his struggle against reality” 😎
It's probably illegal for me to read your pieces now, Dusty.
Grand.. thankyou.