Ireland’s 72-Gender Hate Crime Law: The Globalist Push to Muzzle Free Speech and Erode Tradition!

by – L. Richardson

The Irish parliament stunned the nation by rushing a controversial hate crime law through legislation that acknowledges 72 different gender identities and puts fundamental free speech rights at risk. Lawmakers needed just six hours to pass the Criminal Justice (Hate Offenses) Act through the Dáil. This radical alteration in Irish law has prompted critics to warn that ordinary citizens like you and me could face criminal charges for expressing traditional views. Many see this dramatic change as a sign of growing globalist influence over national sovereignty.

Several opposition leaders have voiced their strong concerns about this hastily enacted legislation. Deputies Mattie McGrath and Danny Healy-Rae highlighted the law’s ambiguous definitions that could lead to potential abuse, a prospect that should alarm every citizen. The potential for misuse of this law, as demonstrated by Senator Sharon Keogan’s reading of all 72 gender definitions during parliamentary proceedings, seriously threatens Ireland’s freedom of expression. The combination of rushed implementation, broad scope, and unclear enforcement guidelines has raised serious doubts about the law’s true intent and impact on Ireland’s democratic rights.

The Rushed Legislation:

Red Flags and Power Plays

The Irish government’s lightning-fast passage of multiple bills, including the controversial Criminal Justice (Hate Offenses) Act, was a remarkable display of legislative force in under six hours. This process, which usually requires weeks of careful consideration, has raised severe concerns about the erosion of democratic integrity. The five bills that steamrolled through the Dáil on October 23rd further underscored the issue, leaving citizens feeling a lack of respect for their democratic rights.

The government’s decision to schedule the final vote at an unusually late hour of 10:10 PM was a strategic move. This rushed timeline, designed to serve a purpose before a planned general election, showcased a calculated power play to pass contentious legislation.

Justice Minister Helen McEntee played a central role in this legislative drama. Her critical amendments in the Seanad to remove references to incitement to violence or hatred were pivotal. McEntee aimed to ‘communicate that hatred and violence are not tolerated in our society.’ President Michael D. Higgins signed the bill into law on October 29th, the final step in this rushed process.

Critics responded swiftly with strong condemnation. The controversial bill’s progression included:

Passed through Dáil with 78 votes in favor and 52 against 1
Amended in a rushed Senate debate
Signed into law despite strong opposition
Implemented before the proper democratic process

Independent TD Mattie McGrath voiced one of the strongest criticisms: “Why the rush? Rushed legislation is often, nearly always, bad legislation” 1. McGrath accused the government of trying to “intimidate ordinary citizens from having their voice heard” and called the current administration “the most anti-ordinary people” government in his experience 1.

The bill’s rapid movement through Ireland’s legislative chambers damaged the democratic process 3. This haste, combined with the law’s broad implications, points to a troubling transformation in how fundamental changes happen in Irish society. The legislation adds Section 7A to the Criminal Justice Act. It makes it an offense to distribute or display material deemed “threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene aggravated by hatred” 4.

Critics point out that this rushed approach creates procedural problems and is a calculated strategy to minimize public scrutiny and debate. The government’s push to implement such crucial legislation before an election cycle raises serious questions about its motivation and transparency. Opposition leaders emphasize that this goes beyond accelerated lawmaking—it fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and the state, which could lead to collateral damage for free expression and democratic discourse. This could mean that laws are being passed without the proper checks and balances, potentially leading to unintended consequences for all of us.

72 Genders:

A Trojan Horse for Control

This controversial legislation’s most concerning aspect stems from its unprecedented redefinition of gender identity. The law defines gender as “the gender of a person or 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” 5 [15].

Senator Sharon Keogan demonstrated the law’s absurdity through an extraordinary 25-minute Senate floor session. She read through all 72 gender identities that now have legal recognition: 1. Her marathon reading effectively showcased the legislation’s complexity and overreach.

The law’s gender framework has:

Protection for an unlimited range of gender expressions 5
Recognition of non-binary identities 5
Provisions for “evolving language” in gender Definitions 5
Inclusion of transgender and undefined “other” genders 5

Minister for Justice Simon Harris stated, “The language is constantly evolving,” to justify these sweeping definitions 5. His admission reveals the legislation’s true nature – a fluid framework that expands government control over speech and identity expression.

Critics have raised serious concerns about the law’s implications. They warn that the definition “confuses gender, which is objective and has to deal with the male-female binary and gender identity and expression” 6. Critics point out that this “highly intentional new definition of gender has implications for women’s spaces, children’s safety, and many issues down the line” 6. This could mean that spaces traditionally reserved for women, such as bathrooms and changing rooms, could become less safe, and children could be exposed to confusing and potentially harmful ideas about gender.

Minister Harris’s claims about “future-proofing” gender provisions 5 reveal the government’s broader agenda. The legislation goes beyond protecting vulnerable individuals and establishes a framework for ongoing social engineering. Traditional gender understanding can now be redefined at the government’s discretion.

This vague and expansive approach to gender identity creates a powerful control tool. Authorities could potentially criminalize traditional views about gender and biological sex. Opposition leaders highlight how mixing objective reality with subjective identity sets a dangerous precedent for future legislative overreach.

The Suppression of Free Speech

Ireland’s new hate crime law contains vague definitions that suggest a calculated strategy to suppress dissent and control public discourse. The law centers on a circular definition of “hate” that opposition leaders believe could criminalize legitimate speech and traditional viewpoints.

Sinn Féin’s Deputy, Matt Carthy, harshly critiqued the bill’s core flaws. “The circular nature of these definitions isn’t accidental—it’s by design,” Carthy emphasized. He showed how the law’s structure lets authorities selectively enforce rules against specific viewpoints.

The law uses several intimidation tactics through its provisions:

Potential criminal charges for expressing traditional views
Undefined parameters for “hateful” speech
Broad interpretations of “offensive” content
Selective enforcement capabilities
No precise defense mechanisms for accused citizens

Independent TD Danny Healy-Rae’s challenge resonated throughout the chamber: “Why are we trying to shut people up? After 100 years of being a democratic state, why do we need this change now?” His warning strikes at the truth—this law aims to control the majority rather than protect minorities.

The law reveals its suppressive nature through enforcement mechanisms. Citizens now face pressure to self-censor because they fear crossing invisible lines that might lead to criminal charges. This chilling effect on free speech serves as the law’s primary goal.

“This government wants to intimidate ordinary citizens from having their voice heard,” opposition leaders declared. They emphasized how vague law rules create perfect conditions for selective enforcement. Almost any expression of traditional values or questioning of government narratives could fall under its reach.

These effects reach way beyond Ireland’s borders. This legislative framework provides a template for speech-suppressing measures worldwide. It shows how vague definitions and rushed implementation can silence opposition while maintaining a democratic facade. Critics point out that governments rushing to criminalize speech reveal their fear of informed public discourse and democratic debate.

The Real Agenda:

Globalist Influence and Social Engineering

A carefully arranged international agenda drives Ireland’s rushed hate crime legislation. The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) actively pushes Ireland to align with “international and European human rights standards” 7 [16]. This reveals how external influences try to reshape national policies.

Several vital developments show this globalist agenda clearly:

The Irish Human Rights Commission’s report to ECRI about “systemic gaps” 7
International bodies fund external organizations to push for legislative change 8
Reports point to an “international element” that shapes the proposed legislation 8
The EU wants standards met before upcoming elections 7

The legislation’s timing speaks volumes. Critics see it as a coordinated effort to roll out similar measures in multiple nations. Independent Senator Ronan Mullen raised concerns about the “international element” behind the proposed legislation 8. Grassroots organizations noted that “NGO groups funded by foreign billionaires, sometimes by bodies like the EU” 8 play a significant role.

This pressure goes beyond simple suggestions. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission asked ECRI to make Ireland “put its human rights obligations into practice” 7 [17]. They want compliance with standards set by outsiders. This challenges Ireland’s sovereignty as international bodies try to control domestic policy.

The government’s reaction raises red flags. Refined Gael party Senator Barry Ward claims the bill won’t threaten constitutional rights 9, but evidence suggests otherwise. The Department of Justice brushes off valid concerns as “erroneous” 8. This shows they favor external agendas over domestic interests.

The systematic implementation of this agenda should worry everyone. The Irish Human Rights Commission warns about countries “succumbing to populism” 7. This reveals their true goal – creating a standardized control system that weakens national sovereignty and traditional values.

The rushed implementation follows patterns seen across Europe. External pressure groups utilize accusations of intolerance to force significant social changes. This goes beyond hate crime prevention. They want to set a precedent where outside forces control domestic policy, which weakens national sovereignty under the guise of progress.

How to Push Back:

A Call to Action

A recent national poll paints a troubling picture of Irish citizens’ freedoms. The data shows that 25% of people no longer feel free to speak their minds in social settings, workplaces, and educational institutions 10. This suppression of free speech needs swift and decisive action from citizens who care about their rights.

Key Public Opinion Statistics:

90% of Irish citizens think free speech is “critical” 10
Two-thirds of people surveyed want proper legislative review 9
45% of LGBTQI+ people don’t feel safe in public 11
Hate incidents rose by 7.5% compared to last year’s 12

The Coalition Against Hate Crime, representing 23 civil society groups, believes that while laws matter, a detailed national action plan is vital to creating real change 13. This shows why we need informed, mutually beneficial alliances to oppose excessive government control.

Stay Informed:

Arm yourself with knowledge about how rushed legislation serves hidden agendas.

The legislation’s implications are significant. The proposed hate speech bill would criminalize possession of undefined “hateful” materials and impose penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment 10. The bill’s more concerning aspect requires citizens to surrender their electronic device passwords when authorities request them 10.

Speak Up Like Mattie McGrath and Danny Healy-Rae:

Stand Against Rising Authoritarianism

5 Powerful Ways to Fight Back:

Record and expose any attempts to silence free speech
Back groups that protect your civil liberties
Spread the truth about how these laws affect everyone
Push back against unclear rules and twisted reasoning
Build bridges with people who think differently

Engage Locally:

Join local discussions, contact representatives, and be vocal in your support for preserving free speech and common sense.

Ireland’s Council for Civil Liberties states that authorities should limit free expression restrictions only to protect specific rights or public order 14. Local activism plays a vital role in upholding this principle.

We just need reliable frameworks to prevent abuse of hate crime legislation that claims to protect citizens 13. The Coalition Against Hate Crime acknowledges that “hate crimes are message crimes” and a single act can spread fear across communities 11.

Citizens must speak up against these issues to fight legislative overreach 13. They should report genuine violations while questioning vague, open-ended definitions that let governments overstep. University of Limerick’s research shows strong public support for well-laid-out legislation 12. This highlights why we need thorough democratic processes.

Free speech battles reach beyond Ireland’s borders. Ireland houses social media headquarters of all sizes, so its legislative decisions affect global online conversations 10. Resistance to censorial overreach serves both national and international interests.

Conclusion:

Defend Truth, Defend Freedom

The rushed implementation of Ireland’s hate crime law shows how legislation can reshape society through force. This law reveals its true purpose through strategic timing, vague definitions, and recognition of 72 gender identities. These elements create tools that suppress speech and allow selective enforcement. Several opposition leaders have pointed out problems with circular definitions and hasty implementation. Their warnings highlight how traditional values might face criminalization under the banner of progress. International bodies continue to pressure Ireland, which threatens the country’s sovereignty.

Irish citizens just need to spot these tactics and protect their fundamental rights. Recent polls reveal that 25% of Irish people cannot freely express their views. This statistic highlights why we must resist this growing authoritarianism now. Irish citizens can challenge this calculated attack on democratic principles by participating in local activities and having informed discussions. They can protect their nation’s independence from external control through their steadfast dedication to free speech. The fight for Ireland’s future requires complete commitment to the interests of truth and freedom.

FAQs

What does the Irish Constitution say about free speech?

The Irish Constitution, specifically Article 40.6.1(i), ensures the right to freedom of expression. However, this right is qualified by stipulations that it must not disrupt public order or morality, aligning with international and European human rights frameworks.

Does the new hate crime legislation in Ireland address incitement to violence or hatred?

The existing Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act from 1989 continues to be in effect, and the new Criminal Justice (Hate Offenses) Bill does not cover incitement to hatred [18]. Amendments to the 1989 Act, as required by EU law, are being considered and will be addressed separately in the future.

What constitutes an offense under the Incitement of Hatred Act in Ireland?

Under the Incitement of Hatred Act, it is illegal to distribute or communicate threatening, abusive, or insulting materials intended or likely to provoke hatred against individuals based on race, color, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership in the traveling community, or sexual orientation.