We have to wise up to the drift of events across the European Continent. There are many in our establishment who make the argument that Ireland needs to be at the centre of EU affairs where we can aspire to “punch above our weight”. They argue that unless we are at that centre we will become marginalised in diplomatic terms.
That argument may have some force. But it may also be code for playing the diplomatic game and keeping ourselves quietly in the slipstream of more powerful players rather than putting our heads above the parapet on any issue where our view might be a minority one. Ireland is not a contrarian by inclination and the centre of political or ideological gravity here is not substantially different from other European countries.
Indications that some US politicians are putting Ireland under pressure in relation to the Occupied Territories Bill is a case in point. That Bill began its life in the Seanad during the period where Fine Gael was in office thanks to a confidence and supply arrangement with Fianna Fáil. In the Seanad, the Government-supporting senators were in a minority and the Bill was passed against the wishes of the then Fine Gael government.
The International Court of Justice has effectively held that States accepting its jurisdiction are obliged (as distinct from entitled) not to co-operate economically with those engaged in de facto illegal annexation of territory such as the West Bank. US opposition to the Occupied Territories Bill is nothing new. One Irish senator who supported the Bill had almost instant cancellations by Israeli-supporting customers of businesses in which he has interests in the US.
READ MORE
It can be argued that the practical effect of the Occupied Territories Bill as it affects the West Bank is minimal. Identifying goods and, indeed, services as emanating from illegal settlements in the West Bank is extremely difficult in practice, because of concealment or a mixture of sources.
But even so, is it really the case that a majority of US Congress members want settlement goods and services to be freely traded with EU countries? Nobody has yet proposed a statutory trade or services embargo on Israel proper by Ireland. At EU level there have been moves to curtail the EU-Israel trade agreement to force an end to the slaughter and expulsions in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Trump peace plan for Gaza now proposed may bring a temporary end to the genocide taking place there. If it does, that is good. However, if it ultimately only provides cover for a renewed military campaign once all the hostages and the bodies of hostages are released, and if the Israeli government continues to extinguish any prospect of a Palestinian state by creeping annexation of the West Bank, the occupied territories legislative commitment, in whatever form it takes, remains centre stage in the minds of most Irish people. Under Article 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann Ireland is committed to the principles, practice and implementation (including judicial determination) of international law.
Where does that leave us with regard to renewed American pressure in respect of its freedom of speech law as that law interacts with legal protections preventing the propagation of race and social hatred? It has been reported that the Trump administration wants the Government to urge the EU to allow member states to address hate speech as each “sees fit”. The US also wants Ireland to press Brussels to review the implementation of existing regulations to provide better protections for freedom of expression, “including political speech”.
[ A Tricolour patriot goes to hospital. Would he insist on a white Irish doctor?Opens in new window ]
We cannot, as a sovereign State, be obliged by hard-right political pressure to import US free-for-all entitlement to propagate race hatred. Nor should any European State (whether or not it is in the EU) face such political or economic coercion. By the same token, we should not accept the alternative proposition – that freedom of speech in Ireland must in future be defined and controlled by EU legislation as interpreted by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Striking a legitimate balance between the interests of constitutional freedom of expression, on one hand, and preventing the evil of race and sectarian hatred propagation, on the other, is a matter for each EU member State to decide for itself. Each needs to find the correct balance according to its own legal and constitutional traditions.
Put bluntly, Ireland does not need to be told from Brussels or Luxembourg what it must do. As with asylum law, the EU demands competences, which it is incompetent to implement or control.
[ Ireland faces a stark choice in the face of the threat from RussiaOpens in new window ]
The UK offers an example of how hate speech laws can be abused to suppress freedom of expression. The arrest and prosecution of biblical fundamentalist street preachers condemning sodomy in England is wrong, even where it ultimately results in acquittal in court. In 2023 we saw a Canadian sandwich-board street campaigner against gender transitioning of children spoken to, but ultimately not arrested, by gardaí in Ireland.
We ought not permit ill-thought-out laws to be enacted to curtail or suppress freedom of speech. Nor should we be bullied by American politicians on the issue. That is why we are an independent State.
