Free Speech Vs Anti-Racism Rallies and My Response to Department of Justice

Protest against new Hate Speech Law and Counter-Demonstration by Anti-Racism groups

On Saturday 14 December I attended a protest rally against a proposed new "hate speech" law that had been planned weeks ago, to take place outside the Dail on that date. In the meantime a counter-demonstration was organised by unions, "anti-racism" groups and NGOs including Trocaire - the Catholic Church's overseas development agency! The "anti-racism" groups included some protesters dressed in black and masked who chanted slogans like "Nazi scum" at us. (Will this qualify as "hate speech" under the new legislation?). They also launched an attack at one stage that was held back by the Gardai and their own rally stewards.  I presume these are the Irish equivalent of AntiFa who have made such a name for themselves in the USA and elsewhere. (According to the Irish Times, three people were arrested by Gardai following minor scuffles; very one-sided scuffles!)

 I am the white haired guy at the back right in the above photo. On 12th and 13th December I had engaged with the the Department of Justice by sending two Emails in reply to their requests for comments from the public on the proposed new legislation.

Rory Connor

17 December 2019

Hate Speech Public Consultation - Follow Up to 5 Question Survey [2]

13 December 2019

Department of Justice and Equality
51 St Stephens Green
Dublin 2

I sent a submission regarding the above yesterday night. It included a copy of my previous online response to the 5 Question Survey.

 I mentioned that about 2003/04 I made two complaints to the Gardai under the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act regarding false allegations of child murder, one published by the Irish Times, the other broadcast by TV3. They are items 1 and 2 in my Blog article
Blood Libel in Ireland - directed against Catholics not Jews!

I could have made a third complaint to Gardai when Alan Shatter (and the late Gerry Ryan and others) made similar claims against the Church in 2009 but it was obviously futile. I also refer to that case (the murder of Bernadette Connolly) in the above article.

As to my motives - and qualifications - to comment on proposed Hate Speech legislation. I was a De La Salle Brother from 1966 to 1969 and details of my background are in the "About Me" section of my old website IrishSalem.com [see PS at end of letter]

I believe that nearly every one of my former colleagues who worked in an Industrial School or similar institution was accused of child abuse and if I had done so myself, I'm sure I would have been accused also. Hate Speech from the media plus the almost evidence-free payouts from the Redress Board, encouraged people to lie. The media Hate Speech is especially relevant to the allegations of child murder against the Christian Brothers - at times when no boy died of ANY cause! (I refer to these as "Murder of the Undead" and "Victimless Murders" and I went to the Gardai about two such cases.) Presumably the so-called victim accusers didn't get "compensation" for claiming that someone else was murdered so this type of claim was caused by media Hate Speech and not greed!

I corresponded for years with the late UK cultural historian Richard Webster and two fruits of that collaboration are his essays 
"States of Fear, the Redress Board and Ireland's Folly"

AND "The Christmas Spirit" in Ireland"

I also have an article on my current Blog IrishSalem.Blogspot.com regarding Richard Webster
"Richard Webster, the Idea of Evil and Operation Midland"

Finally I gave evidence to the Ryan Commission on my own behalf and as a member of the group "Let Our Voices Emerge" that represented victims of false allegations. I had a letter in the Irish Examiner on 7 November 2011
"Ryan Report Did Not Deal with False Allegations"
that summarizes our experience.

Regards


Rory Connor
11 Lohunda Grove
Clonsilla
Dublin 15

Hate Speech Public Consultation - Follow Up to 5 Question Survey [1]

12 December 2019

Department of Justice and Equality
51 St Stephens Green
Dublin 2

A few weeks ago I submitted an online reply to the quick "5 Question Survey on Hate Speech". I am including a copy of my original submission below. I added 2 links to the very end which relate directly to Minister Charlie Flanagan - I think I forgot to include them with my original reply.  I will now answer the 5 other questions contained in the Public Consultation Document

Question 1.  Are there other groups in society with shared identity characteristics, for example disability, gender identity, or others, who are vulnerable to having hatred stirred up against them and should be included in the list of protected characteristics?

I think the main problem with the existing situation is that bogus allegations of child rape and murder are not counted as Hate Speech when directed against Catholic clergy or religious. The few prosecutions seem to be for wasting Garda time not hate speech. The main priority should be to enforce the existing law against Incitement to Hatred  rather than add more protected groups. 

Question 2. Do you think the term “hatred” is the correct term to use in the Act? If not what should it be replaced with? Would there be implications for freedom of expression?

Indeed. I got the impression that the two cases I referred to the Gardai (regarding Irish Times and TV3 claiming the Christian Brothers murdered boys) were turned down by the DPP because these false murder claims did NOT prove that the Irish Times and TV3 personnel were motivated by hatred. From that point of view, it might be best to substitute "Hostility" or "Prejudice" for "Hatred". HOWEVER I am very conscious of the danger that vicious and dishonest politicians could misuse such a change in order to target their own ideological enemies. For example when the Sunday Times fired Kevin Myers on a bogus charge of anti-Semitism, this decision was loudly applauded by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and then Tanaiste Frances Fitzgerald. I wrote about this in a blog article:
"Kevin Myers and the Age of De Valera and McQuaid"

I think the term "Hatred" is OK as I would not wish to make things easier for dishonest or bigoted politicians!

Question 3. Bearing in mind that the Act is designed only to deal with hate speech which is sufficiently serious to be dealt with as a criminal matter (rather than by other measures), do you think the wording of the Act should be changed to make prosecutions under for incitement to hatred online more effective? What, in your view, should those changes be?

Regarding application of the law to online speech, I think the law already gives enough power to the State and I would be dubious about giving the State more power to silence online speech than it already has. For example would the State have used this power to prevent the obscene online attacks on Kevin Myers OR - more likely - to silence anyone who tried to defend him (e.g. by accusing his defenders of anti-Semitism)??

Questions 4. In your view, does the requirement that an offence must be intended or likely to stir up hatred make the legislation less effective? AND
Question 5.  If so, what changes would you suggest to this element of the 1989 Act (without broadening the scope of the Act beyond incitement)?

I believe it was the issue of proving "intention" to stir up hatred that caused the DPP to refuse to prosecute the Irish Times or TV3 for stirring up hatred against the Christian Brothers when both accused the Brothers of murdering children. From that point of view, I should welcome an extension of the Act to include circumstances where politicians, journalists,  broadcasters etc are reckless as to whether their actions stir up hatred. BUT again I'm dubious of giving too much power to politicians who may use this to silence their own ideological enemies. Maybe it would be sufficient to list certain actions  where the intention to stir up hatred is assumed  e.g false allegations of Rape, Paedophilia or Child Murder directed against a religious (or other) group?

There  is a copy of my previous answers to the "quick" online survey below. I may send additional material tomorrow Friday regarding my background and qualifications to comment on this issue but this is a sufficient response in itself.


Rory Connor
11 Lohunda Grove
Clonsilla
Dublin 15

5 Question Survey - Copy of Answers Previously Submitted

Hate Speech Consultation
Introduction
The Minister for Justice and Equality is reviewing Ireland’s law on criminal hate speech. The existing law, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, is being revised and updated to ensure it meets the needs of a modern, democratic society......

You can share your views by completing the text boxes below, or by sending a written submission to HateSpeechConsultation@justice.ie before the closing date of 13th December 2019.


1. In your opinion, what groups or communities of people in Ireland are targeted by hate speech?

The Catholic Church especially priests, brothers and nuns. I was a De La Salle Brother myself. I have never disclosed my name in religion, or any place I was (apart from the Castletown novitiate) because I suspect I could attract a false allegation of child abuse.

2. Please describe the kinds of hate speech that you think are (or are not) serious enough to be a criminal offence.

Making false allegations of child rape and child murder. Many of the latter claims relate to periods when no child died of ANY cause, so I coined the phrases "Murder of the Undead" and "Victimless Murders" (try Googling them). 
 I have an online article on this subject "Blood Libel in Ireland - directed against Catholics not Jews!" 

3. Is it necessary or right to place limits on freedom of expression by making some forms of hate speech a crime? If so, what protections do you think the law on incitement to hatred should offer?

About 2003/04 I made official complaints to Gardai under the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act concerning numbers (1) and (2) in my article "Blood Libel in Ireland". I believe Gardai DID take them seriously but Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute. They don't tell you why, but my understanding is that falsely accusing Catholic Religious of murdering children does not PROVE that the accuser is motivated by religious hatred. I think that new legislation should ASSUME that the motive for Blood Libel is religious hatred unless the accuser can prove otherwise!

4. Do you think those who are actively involved in publishing, spreading or distributing hate speech should be subject to criminal prosecution?

Yes. For tactical reasons I only targeted journalists and broadcasters, when I made my two complaints under the existing Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act. I believe that fake "victims" should be jailed as well - ESPECIALLY those who lead "Victims" organisations which are or were, funded by the Government. (Note that Carl Beech in UK got 18 years in jail. He was not the only accuser in "Operation Midland" but he was the most prominent. He also accused Tory MPs of murdering non-existent boys which is UK equivalent of Irish "Murder of the Undead" claims!) See Wikipedia article on "Operation Midland"


5. Is there anything else important we should take into account as part of this review?

(A) I have a separate online article 
"Eight Falsely Accused Bishops (and Archbishops) in Ireland"

One of the false accusers is Pat Rabbitte who in 1994 used Dail Privilege to slander Cardinal Daly and Harry Whelehan and now leads child protection agency TUSLA. I think this is wrong.

(B) Finally I have an article on current Minister for Justice and Equality Charlie Flanagan. I think that Minister Flanagan should request the Gardai to investigate the allegations he made in the Dail in 2009 against former Sister of Mercy Nora Wall (and those previously made by current EU Commissioner Phil Hogan who was Chair of FG Parliamentary Party at the time).
Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and Former FG Chair Phil Hogan Vs George Hook and Nora Wall

I may have forgotten to include the above link with my online submission. Please note I have another article on Charlie Flanagan alone.
Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall [1]

END OF SUBMISSION TO DEPT. OF JUSTICE

CONCLUSION

I also contributed to Hermann Kelly's 2007 book "Kathy's Real Story: A Culture of False Allegations Exposed" which deals mainly with fake abuse "survivor" Kathy O'Beirne but also goes into the culture of hysteria that made her own book "Kathy's Story: A Childhood Hell Inside the Magdalen Laundries" into a best-seller in 2005. I contributed to the second part of Mr. Kelly's book and especially to the section he which he discusses claims that the Christian Brothers had been responsible for the deaths of boys in their care. Because many of these claims refer to periods when no boy died of ANY cause(!), I coined the phrase "Murder of the Undead". Since Hermann Kelly is more moderate than I, he uses the subheading "Funerals of the Undead"   in his discussion of this issue! 

NOTE: There is a 2010 article by Mark Smith (currently Professor of Social Work at University of Dundee) "Two book Reviews:  Kathy’s Real Story by Hermann Kelly and The Secret of Bryn Estyn by Richard Webster" 
The above-mentioned article "States of Fear, the Redress Board and Ireland's Folly" is an extract from Webster's book "The Secret of Bryn Estyn"

The Reason Why?
As to the overall meaning of all of this, Arnold J. Tonybee was a British historian and philosopher of history who is best known for his 12 volume work A Study of History (published 1934-1961) that "examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders". Challenges and responses were physical, as when the Sumerians exploited the intractable swamps of southern Iraq by organizing the Neolithic inhabitants into a society capable of carrying out large-scale irrigation projects; or social, as when the Catholic Church resolved the chaos of post-Roman Europe by enrolling the new Germanic kingdoms in a single religious community.

Tonybee saw the growth and decline of civilizations as a spiritual process, writing that "Man achieves civilization, not as a result of superior biological endowment or geographical environment, but as a response to a challenge in a situation of special difficulty which rouses him to make a hitherto unprecedented effort."

According to an Editor's Note in an edition of  A Study of History, Toynbee believed that societies always die from suicide or murder rather than from natural causes, and nearly always from suicide.  And I believe that is the stage our society has now reached!