Editorial from Village July-August 2023 Edition The case for gay rights, pioneered in the 1980s in this country by David Norris through the courts and the European Convention on Human Rights, is unanswerable. Everyone has the option – philosophically – to believe the equality of gays or to deny it. But the fact is that if people choose – politically i.e. in practice – to be offended by what others get up to where no nuisance is caused to third parties, there would be no end to the asymmetrical busybodinesses that would undermine public and individual welfare. For this reason, society is best served by freedom for consenting adults to exercise whatever sexual preferences fulfil them. But it’s easy to be smug. As Dublin overflowed with pride in mid-June other countries were not so self-confident. In May, Uganda introduced the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”. Russian authorities have been banning Pride events for years in order not to promote LGBTQ+ lifestyle to children. Former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov also labelled Pride ‘satanic’. This year, 40 Turkish Pride activists were detained after they defied a ban to stage a march in Istanbul a month after Turkey’s homophobic and hate-filled election campaign. The celebrations in Houston, the largest pride event in conservative Texas, were scaled back due to rising insurance and security costs, as Texas lawmakers prepared bills banning youngsters from drag shows and restricting how they learn about the LGBTQ+ community; and restricting gender-affirming healthcare. Pride planners across the US and Canada said they were facing higher bills because of anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and hatred, and many events were cancelled. Prominent members of the US Supreme Court have expressed scepticism about deriving LGBTQ+ rights from the Constitution. But the principles inherent in decriminalisation and celebration of LGBTQ+ politics and culture should animate greater tolerance and enthusiasm for others who exercise preferences contrary to those of the majority, and to vulnerable minorities. Village has no time for a la carte egalitarianism. You cannot be pro-LGBTQ+ but anti-Traveller. Against that background, this magazine asserts its strong support for Trans people, the latest target of discrimination and hatred, particularly online. If someone wishes to change their gender that is their business. Issues like Trans’ advantages in sport and female changing rooms can be dealt with forensically and sensibly. They do not cut across the overriding principle for society that the majority should not interfere with a minority that is doing no harm. So, if this government has done little else that appeals to this magazine, we commend its determined backing of new Hate Legislation currently nearing passage by the Seanad. The Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 will amend the law on the prohibition of incitement to violence or hatred against a person or a group of persons on account of certain characteristics: (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. In our experience, however, many of the difficulties in enforcing Hate crimes at the moment – under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 — derive from inadequate training and enthusiasm from the Garda in pursuing those who harass or abuse others because of characteristics like race or gender. A changed ethos will be necessary. There has been dissent: some malicious, some thoughtful. Concerns have been expressed that Hate has not been defined. People Before Profit want the legislation to specify “intimidation, hostility or discrimination”. However, the judiciary is at least as well placed to ascertain the context and nuance of the motivation behind Hate Crimes as the legislature; perhaps marginally better placed because complexity requires discretion. And the usual suspects are up in arms that the legislation opens up the current binary of gender, so risking the prosecution of those who, for example, assert basic gender simplicities. But in fact, it is not the assertion of the simplicities that grounds a crime. It is the provocative assertion of them in ways that intimidate or humiliate. The Bill requires “intent [or recklessness] to incite violence or hatred against such a person or group of persons on account of those characteristics”. Irish people should reflect on the fact that advertising ‘No dogs, No Irish’ should have been a crime. Concern has also been expressed that the legislation opens up the possibility of a person “being criminalised purely for having material that is hateful, without that material being communicated to the public”. But the Bill makes it clear that the material must have been “made available on a platform that is or may be accessible by the public or a section of the public” and that, only then, will there be a presumption, that can be rebutted, “that the person intended to communicate the material to the public or a section of the public”. In short, most of the objections to the Bill are illusory. Few of them are offered by the vulnerable people who have asked for its protections. We live in a world of increasing economic inequality but in this country, we are moving against the tyranny of the majority imposing its mores on vulnerable minorities. It is progress worth fighting for.
