Barbados debates criminal law carrying 7-year prison sentence for online content causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress”

  • « The government aims to intimidate us into forced silence,” concerned citizens appeal to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

  • Cybercrime Bill before Barbados Senate would impose $70,000 BBD (approximately $35,000 US or £27,000) in fines and 7 years in prison for citizens that “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” for the purpose of causing “annoyance, inconvenience,” “embarrassment, anxiety” or “substantial emotional distress. » 

ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl alongside Barbados citizens and presenters at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights hearing, including Donald Leacock, Shaquani Hunte, Timon Howard, and Ferdinand Nicholls 

WASHINGTON, DC (14 November 2024): A cybercrime bill currently being debated in the Barbados Senate threatens to significantly undermine freedom of speech in the country, so testified concerned citizens during a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C. on Monday, 11 November.  

The proposed law would make it a crime to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” or disseminate images or words that are “likely to cause or subject a person to ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment.” The bill lists “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, embarrassment, insult, injury, humiliation, intimidation, hatred, anxiety or causes substantial emotional distress to that person” as criteria to be found guilty of an offence. 

Citizens convicted of these crimes could be subject to $70,000 BBD (approximately $35,000 US or £27,000) in fines and a 7-year prison sentence.  

Its adoption by the House of Assembly generated national criticism, prompting the bill to be sent to a Joint Select Committee for further review. Rather than improve the bill, the Committee recommended the penalty be increased up to 10 years and $100,000 BBD (approximately $50,000 USD). 

The bill introduces the ambiguous crimes of “malicious communications” and “cyberbullying,” weaponizing the state security apparatus to criminalize peaceful expression in the name of “cybersecurity”. 

At the hearing on the problematic elements in the legislation, Donald Leacock, a citizen of Barbados and social media influencer, stated: “Freedom of expression is blatantly being stripped from us in this draconian cybercrime bill that the government of Barbados is forcing onto the citizens. This is evidenced by the fact that section 20 of the bill seeks to criminalise internet use that is considered to have caused anxiety or emotional distress with potential fines of up to $50,000, prison terms of up to 10 years, or both. Should our citizens be thrown in jail for a decade simply for posting something online that the political elite can claim makes them ‘anxious’ or ’emotionally distressed’? »  

Leacock continued, stating: « The law’s deliberately vague language leaves it open interpretation, and therefore, abuse… the government aims to intimidate us into forced silence. The objections to this bill are evident and widespread. » 

Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International, stated: “Any law that seeks to criminalize online content that is subjectively deemed annoying, embarrassing, or anxiety-inducing is absurd in a free society. Core to the free interchange of ideas is the ability to voice views in the digital marketplace that may offend someone. The sweeping criminalization of online expression will engender large-scale free speech violations for Barbados.” 

“While the Barbados government should protect its citizens from real issues online such as hacking and incitement to violence, it should not be wielding the state’s authority to police security online to restrict free speech in order to spare people from ‘annoyance’. Article 19 and 20 of the Cybercrime Bill violate the basic human right to freedom of speech, enshrined in international law and the Constitution of Barbados,” added Pohl. 

ADF International is conducting international advocacy, including at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to oppose the adoption of the censorial bill.  

The bill has passed through the House of Assembly and is under consideration in the Senate. It defines criminal conduct in vague, broad, and indeterminate terms, making it a crime to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data” that is subjectively deemed offensive. Such an ambiguous definition of criminal conduct violates international human rights protections for free speech, including the American Convention on Human Rights. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Algerian pastor convicted of “illegal worship” shares his story, advocates for re-opening churches

  • Christian convert and pastor Youssef Ourahmane shared the story of his arrest, conviction, and court appeals for “illegal worship” this week in Washington, DC, and called for the re-opening of evangelical churches in Algeria.   
  • An Algerian appeals court earlier this year upheld Pastor Youssef’s conviction and prison sentence for the so-called crime of “illegal worship” for leading his church.    
  • ADF International is advocating for his acquittal, supporting the legal defence of the persecuted across the globe.  

WASHINGTON, DC (18 October 2024) Pastor Youssef Ourahmane, a Christian convert and pastor in the Protestant Church of Algeria, has been sentenced to heavy fines and a prison sentence for the so-called crime of “illegal worship” for leading his church.  

This week, Pastor Youssef was in Washington, D.C. to share his story and advocate for religious freedom and the re-opening of evangelical churches forcefully closed in Algeria. In an event hosted by ADF International in Washington, D.C., Pastor Youssef appealed to the audience, saying “We have had a lot of opposition… by 2019 most of the Evangelical churches in our country had been shut down. When the churches were closed, a lot of the Christians felt that something was gone in their Christian faith because the building had been part of their identity.” 

When asked about why he is willing to go to prison for his faith, Pastor Youssef responded « God knows the number of my hairs on my head, and none fall without His will.” He continued, saying “We have to accept God’s will, and God’s sovereignty… I try by my best, by His grace, to be a good testimony to others.”  

In May 2024, the Court of Appeal in Tizi Ouzou, Algeria upheld the conviction of “illegal worship” against Pastor Youssef for leading the Emmanuel Church in Algeria. This was his second appeal in the case.  

Pastor Youssef, who was born into a Muslim home but converted as a student to Christianity, was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 Algerian dinars on 2 July 2023 for his involvement as the leader of his church, although authorities could provide no evidence of a crime. In November 2023, his prison sentence was reduced from 2 years to 1 year. Upholding his conviction in May of this year, the court added an additional 6 months of suspended prison time to his sentence of 1 year imprisonment and fines of 100,000 Algerian dinars.   

Also speaking at the event, Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Global Religious Freedom for ADF International, said “Despite their small numbers, Algeria has systematically been working to prevent the Evangelical community from being able to simply worship together…. Pastor Youssef’s case is one of roughly 50 spurious cases against Christians in the past few years…. His advocacy throughout the years on behalf of the entire evangelical church in Algeria, even in the face of potential imprisonment, is an inspiration.” 

Zorzi continued, saying “We stand with the persecuted Christians around the world, and especially those who are under such dire threat as the Evangelical community in Algeria. The United States and the international community must take a strong stand against the unlawful church closures and unjustified arrests and imprisonments of pastors.” 

ADF International is coordinating with other NGOs to support Pastor Youssef and his right to worship freely with international advocacy and to raise his case with government officials from over 40 countries.   

Video: remarks from Kelsey Zorzi

Background 

Pastor Youssef Ourahmane, who has been leading Christian congregations in Algeria for over 30 years, appealed his conviction for illegal worshipping in his church on 26th March 2024, the date of his 36th wedding anniversary.   

Pastor Youssef is one of the leading figures in the Èglise Protestante d’Algérie (EPA), the Evangelical Protestant group whose 43 churches have been forcibly closed by the Authorities since 2019, leaving only one with its churches open today. Over the past five years, security police in Algeria, with orders from the Ministry of Interior, systematically alleged that the denominations’ church buildings were in violation of various “health and safety” codes. These alleged building code violations, they claimed, justified putting locks over the doors and declaring worship inside the buildings to be illegal. In one case, they physically beat a Pastor in front of his young child because he was peacefully protesting the closure of his church.   

Pastor Youssef has faced baseless criminal prosecutions for his peaceful Christian activities since 2008. He is only the latest person out of 50 Christians to have been convicted by the Courts over the past few years, under the vague offenses of “shaking the faith” of Muslims, illegal worship, or embezzling of tithing donations. The convictions are thought to be a reaction to the large numbers of local Christian converts in the country. “In the 1970s”, Pastor Youssef said at the event, “the government gave out licenses to churches which were largely full of expats. Today, the government is concerned that our churches are almost entirely filled with large numbers of Algerian converts”.   

On 27 March 2024, a different Pastor and four Elders from the church also appealed their three-year prison sentences and fines of 200,000 Algerian dinars. 

Pictured: Pastor Youssef’s church in Algeria

Religious persecution in Algeria 

Algeria is home to nearly 43 million people, with 99% of the population identifying as Sunni Muslim. Christians fall into the 1% of religious minorities. Islam is the official state religion, but Algeria’s constitution recognizes the right of all to worship and speak freely. The Algerian government limits religious freedom and expression through the enforcement of laws, including egregious blasphemy and anti-proselytism laws, which intentionally target and violate the religious freedom rights of Christians and other religious minorities.    

Algeria’s penal and information codes criminalize blasphemy, with punishments including imprisonment for up to five years and fines. The Criminal Code also censors publications by prohibiting content that is “contrary to Islamic morals”. In particular, the government has systematically cracked down on the Evangelical Protestant Church through church closures and raids.   

Violations of the rights of religious minorities are in violation of both international and domestic law. Algeria is a signatory to major human rights treaties, committing it to upholding the rights to freedom of religion and expression.    

Governments and the international community have highlighted the ongoing plight of religious minorities in Algeria. The U.S. Department of State has placed Algeria on its “Special Watch List” since 2021 for its severe violations of religious freedom, and USCIRF advised in its 2024 Annual Report that the country be once again included on the State Department’s “Special Watch List”. In 2021, several U.S. Senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling on him to address the increased persecution of religious minorities in Algeria.   

In addition to Pastor Youssef, ADF International also advocated for the release of Hamid Soudad, a Christian-convert in the Evangelical Church of Algeria, who was finally released from prison following a five-year ordeal. In January 2021, Soudad was arrested, convicted, and sentenced in an expedited trial to five years in prison for allegedly insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad in 2018. He was finally released from prison in 2023 following advocacy from religious freedom leaders from across the globe, including ADF International.    

Pictured: Pastor Youssef

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Collegiate and Olympic athletes, global human rights leaders call on UN to protect safety and fairness for women in sports

Save girls' sports
  • Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, U.S. collegiate athlete Lainey Armistead, Alliance Defending Freedom CEO Kristen Waggoner and global leaders appeal to UN to keep women’s sports fair and female-only. 
  • ADF International convenes UN event alongside Paraguay, Cameroon, Morocco and Malaysia to advocate for human rights of female athletes across the globe.  
Save girls' sports

NEW YORK CITY (17 October 2024): At United Nations Headquarters in New York City yesterday, female athletes and international leaders called on the international community to preserve and protect fairness and safety in sports for women and girls.  

Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, U.S. collegiate athlete Lainey Armistead, and ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner, UN Rapporteur Reem Alsalem, were among those that addressed government and UN officials during an event convened by ADF International as part of the ongoing 79th session of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, 16 October.  

In her address, Armistead, a former West Virginia collegiate athlete represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, shared: “West Virginia has a law that ensures that only biological women can compete in women’s sports. Yet during my time as WVSU, I began to hear stories of women getting sidelined – and even getting hurt – while competing against males in women’s sports. In just the last three years, the one male athlete who has been allowed to compete against girls in West Virginia has already displaced nearly 300 girls. And that’s just one athlete.” Armistead’s lawsuit to defend West Virginia’s protections for women in sports has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  

Armistead continued, saying “I’m here today because we’ve all seen what happens when males are allowed to compete on women’s teams… it’s demoralizing and unfair, and just plain wrong.”  

“Females are at a physical disadvantage. This doesn’t mean that we’re worse or better, it just means that we’re biologically different,” said Davies, who competed as a swimmer at three different Olympic games and addressed the gathering virtually. “I don’t know a single person that wants to exclude anybody. However, we do want to see women have fair and safe sport. And we cannot wait until a woman is seriously injured or worse still, killed, to be able to deal with the science and the obvious and the common sense.”  

Video: Sharron Davies’ virtual remarks

The U.S. and International playing field 

Kristen Waggoner, CEO, president, and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom and ADF International, joined the athletes on the panel, testifying to the work being done by the organizations to protect women’s sports: “International law has long recognized equality and non-discrimination – including on the basis of sex – as a fundamental pillar of human rights. Unfortunately, many countries have fallen short of their human rights obligations toward women and girls in sports. We’ve learned the hard way that if female sports aren’t protected, it does grave harm to women and girls.”  

Waggoner continued, saying “Our hope at ADF is that the international community will turn its attention to this critical issue – ensuring women and girls can pursue sporting opportunities should they desire AND protecting female athletes from harm and indignity. Our plea to the world is to learn from the mistakes that have been made – and that are now being corrected – so that your daughters can walk into a future of fair and safe sports.” 

In addition to advocacy in the international community by ADF International, Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Lainey Armistead and other female athletes who are looking to protect women and girls from having to compete against males. The Alliance Defending Freedom is also challenging the Biden-Harris Administration’s rewrite of Title IX protections for women and girls.  

Pictured: Lainey Armistead & Kristen Waggoner

Global protections for women and girls 

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, joined the calls to protect female-only sports at the event, remarking that,“Women and girls in sport are experiencing new forms of discrimination based on their sex. One glaring example is the opening the female category of sports to males, further undermining their access to equal opportunities and the right to participate in safety, dignity and fairness. In fact, I do not hesitate to say that the failure to protect the female category is one of the most egregious forms of violence against women and girls as the essence of being ‘female’ is willfully pushed aside and ignored resulting in distress, pain, humiliation, frustration, and anger at the loss of dignity and sheer injustice confronted.”  

In December 2023, Alsalem publicly warned the Biden Administration that altering the definition of women in “Title IX” would result in “loss of privacy, an increased risk of physical injury, heightened exposure to sexual harassment and voyeurism, as well as a more frequent and accumulated psychological distress due to the loss of privacy and fair and equal sporting and academic opportunities.”    

Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy for ADF International, said: 

“Female sports and spaces belong to women and girls. Under international law, States have an obligation to prohibit and prevent discrimination on the basis of sex. The voices of women and girls whose achievements have been directly affected by male participation in female sports categories can no longer be ignored. It is past time for States and sports bodies across the globe to follow the science and uphold safety and fairness in female sports.” 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

𝕏 back online in Brazil after a 39-day blockade

  • Justice Alexandre De Moraes lifts ban on social media platform following conclusion of national elections
  • Brazilians prevented from engaging in online conversations during election period
  • ADF International, who have filed petition before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, highlight a “breach of human rights »

Brasília (8 October 2024) – After a 39-day blockade, social media platform « 𝕏 » is back online in Brazil.

Justice Alexandre De Moraes, who controversially banned the platform in August, has lifted the blockade following the conclusion of national elections.

The stated objection of the ban was to prevent « misinformation » and « hate speech » ahead of the election. Free speech advocates at ADF International described the censorship of Brazilians as « a breach of human rights ».

ADF International has filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in relation to the social media ban, representing five Brazilian legislators who were obstructed from communicating with their audience of millions ahead of a national election.

The legislators – Senator Eduardo Girao & Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques & Ricardo Salles – claim severe violations of their free speech rights from persistent state censorship, dating back to 2019, reaching a head with the 𝕏 ban.

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General and Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil.

Reacting to the end of the 39-day blockade, Tomas Henriquez, ADF International's Director of Advocacy for Latin America said:

« That people can freely exchange ideas is a good thing. In that sense, that X is back online in Brazil is good, though let’s not forget that de Moraes’s demands were and remain unlawful.

« De Moraes is only now agreeing to lift the blockade, after the elections are over. Censorship has been a persistent and escalating problem in Brazil since 2019. We will continue to make the case that the actions of De Moraes and the greater climate of censorship are unacceptable, until the day that freedom of expression and information are once again secured for all in Brazil. »

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

PICTURED: Tomas Henriquez, ADF International’s Director of Advocacy, Latin America

Swiss Supreme Court suspends threat of criminal charges for parents who refuse to enable daughter’s “transition”, following appeal filing 

  • In July, Geneva’s highest court demanded parents, under threat of criminal charges, enable child’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents 
  • Swiss Supreme Court has “frozen” threat of criminal charges following parents filing appeal in court last week, pending outcome of case 
  • ADF International backs parents’ legal challenge, which can be supported HERE

Basel (25 September 2024) – The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has suspended the threat of criminal charges against parents separated from their daughter for refusing to enable her gender “transition”.  

The decision was made following the parents filing an appeal at the court (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht) last week. The parents, with the legal support of ADF International, are appealing a ruling ordering them to facilitate their 16-year-old teenager’s legal “sex change” by handing over her identity documents.  

“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child."

- Father

The parents, whose identity is being kept anonymous, were separated from their daughter over a year ago by court order after they objected to their child’s “transition”, in a case that has garnered  worldwide attention. A video of the parents explaining their harrowing story has been viewed over 66 million times.  

Speaking about the appeal, the father said: “Our hope lies now with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

“As a parent you want to protect your children. The state should not have the power to criminalise loving parents who want the best for their child.” 

The parents are appealing a July ruling from the highest court in the canton of Geneva, the Court of Justice.  

Before the intervention of the Supreme Court, the ruling meant the parents could have been criminally charged if they did not hand over their daughter’s identity documents for her recorded sex to be changed from female to male in the civil registry records, in a legal “sex change”. 

A legal “sex change” could lead the daughter down the path of harmful physical interventions of puberty blockers, “cross-sex” hormone drugs, and, ultimately, body-altering surgeries. 

Case background 

The case centres on parents who responded to the mental health struggles of their daughter, who expressed “gender confusion”, with care and support, including obtaining mental health care for her.   

Concerned their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and potentially irreversible decisions, the parents declined puberty blockers and explicitly rejected her school’s attempt to “socially transition” her.  

The school disregarded the parents’ wishes, “socially transitioned” the daughter and liaised with the state child welfare agency Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI), in a situation which led to a court ordering that the daughter be separated from her parents. 

The daughter now lives in a government shelter and the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state. 

Billboard Chris, a father of two who campaigns to defend children from gender ideology, today mentioned this case in a speech he gave at the UN, where he was hosted by ADF International, about the harms of gender ideology on children. 

Further case details can be found here. 

Appeal filed at Supreme Court 

In the appeal filed with the support of ADF International, the parents argue their daughter is not able to discern the implications of a so-called “sex change” under the law, which would make her vulnerable to an array of dangerous physical interventions, including puberty blockers and surgeries.  

Furthermore, they argue the long-term health consequences of “transitioning” cannot be fully assessed by a teenager, especially considering the outside influences, including from her school, to which she continues to be subjected. 

According to the parents, no psychiatrist or other medical professional has provided a conclusive assessment of their daughter’s ability to understand the consequences of her decisions, which is a fundamental requirement under the law.  

Additionally, they highlight that the daughter’s state-appointed lawyer failed to submit any medical certification regarding her capacity to discern the implications of her decision.  

The parents believe their daughter’s well-being, both mentally and physically, is in danger as she continues to reside in the government youth shelter. 

“Children who experience discomfort with their biological sex deserve to be treated with dignity and need compassionate mental health care, which these parents have gone to great lengths to provide. 

“Not only have these parents not had their concerns addressed by the court, but they have also endured a severe violation of their rights as loving parents, with the court transferring authority over their daughter’s medical care from them to the state, in addition to ordering that she reside in a government shelter. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to correct this grave injustice,” commented Dr Felix Boellmann, lead lawyer on the case for ADF International. 

The court is expected to take up to six months to reach a decision.  

Lower court judgment 

The decision in July by the Court of Justice confirmed a lower court’s ruling that the parents must hand over documents to enable their daughter’s “sex change” under the law.  

The Court of Justice based its ruling on Article 30b of the Swiss Code Civil, which does not require parental consent when a child capable of discernment is over 16 years of age.  

During the trial, the state child welfare agency failed in its duty to raise concerns about the child’s decision-making capacity.   

The court held a legal “sex change” could be considered in isolation from other steps to physically “transition”. However, the recent Cass Review in the UK demonstrated there is a clear path from “social transition” to irreversible medical interventions.  

Protecting children requires respecting families  

The parents’ legal team asserts that the ability to withhold the personal documents required for the daughter’s legal “sex change” is crucial to protect her from further harm posed by so-called “gender affirmative treatment”.  

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court is the last domestic recourse for the parents.  

Dr. Boellmann stated: “Safeguarding children from harmful agendas requires respect for the rights of parents. No child should be separated from their loving parents by the state. It is imperative that the Court recognizes, clearly and decisively, that the parents are the primary decisionmakers when it comes to the best interest of the child.  

“Now the court needs to step in to defend the wellbeing of this child, and in so doing, all other children in Switzerland. The Court must abide by Switzerland’s international human rights obligations to protect both the child and parental rights.” 

Read more about the background of the case here.  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

« Hate Speech » Element Dropped from Censorial Irish Bill

What's the purpose of "hate speech" laws? Text with Irish flag. "Hate speech" elements were dropped in Sept. 2024.

Inform yourself about the Irish “hate speech” bill, and you’ll find the censorial truth.

UPDATE 21 September 2024: In a win for free speech, the Irish government dropped « hate speech » from proposed legislation. ADF International briefed Irish lawmakers on the dangers and, in June, gathered free speech advocates in Dublin to oppose the draconian “hate speech” bill.

Irish flag with text about its "hate speech" bill

Censorship. It’s an elusive term animated throughout history with growing relevance today. “Hate speech” laws loom large over Western political and social conversations. Blasphemy laws criminalize faith-based speech and belief in countries like Nigeria and Pakistan. By now, almost everyone is aware of censorship.

Some may think of George Orwell’s 1984; others, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Censorship takes many forms – like book burning and imposing “newspeak” – but Ireland now leads the dystopian cause with its hotly debated “hate speech” bill.

And so, as the state-driven tide of censorship sweeps the world, Europe stands at the forefront of the ongoing conversation. Why? Because almost every Western nation has introduced “hate speech” laws enabling authorities to enforce penalties for certain speech they deem unpopular or unorthodox.

These laws are introduced under the guise of combatting « a rise of hate », or offensive speech that can make people feel insulted or uncomfortable. But criminalizing speech is not the answer. Rather, allowing more robust speech that facilitates open debate instead. That’s why we stand against so-called “hate speech” laws like the proposed one in Ireland.

“Hate Speech” Dropped From New Law – What It Means

Thankfully, the Irish government has indicated it will not proceed with the most censorial elements of the proposed « Hate Speech » Bill.

With the world watching, the people of Ireland said ‘no’ to state censorship, and it’s working.

The Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences Bill 2022, currently stuck in the Irish Senate, will proceed without the draconian speech elements that had previously been advanced. Remember, incitement to hatred remains illegal under existing law.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee has recognized that there is a lack of consensus on the proposed bill’s « hate speech » restrictions.

The Minister for Justice is reported as saying: « The incitement to hatred element [of the bill] does not have a consensus, so that will be dealt with at a later stage. »

Pro-censorship actors may seek to bring in a separate new law in the future.

Vous êtes actuellement en train de consulter le contenu d'un espace réservé de YouTube. Pour accéder au contenu réel, cliquez sur le bouton ci-dessous. Veuillez noter que ce faisant, des données seront partagées avec des providers tiers.

Plus d'informations
Débloquer le contenu Accepter le service requis et débloquer les contenus

The Irish “hate speech” bill seeks to criminalize the possession of material “likely” to incite hatred. This includes memes and photos saved on devices, with up to five years of jail time. Yes, photos on personal devices. Yet, there is no clear definition of what “hate” entails.

Therefore, this is a dangerous trajectory. ADF International highlights the dangers of the “hate speech” bill while briefing Irish lawmakers on how to uphold freedom of speech.

What are “Hate Speech” Laws?

So-called “hate speech” laws are ambiguously worded laws that criminalize certain speech beyond what is acceptable in a democratic society.

Despite having no basis in international law, all European Union Member States have vague and subjective “hate speech” laws. The United Nations, EU, and Council of Europe concur that “hate speech” lacks a universally agreed-upon definition. Nonetheless, the European Commission seeks to make “hate speech” an EU-wide crime on the same list as trafficking and terrorism.

These laws, with the wrong police and prosecutor, can be weaponized against any person and any form of speech. Thus, explicitly violating the state’s obligation to protect free speech.

Do “Hate Speech” Laws Deter Hate?

The short answer is no. But because “hate speech” laws rely on vague terms such as ‘insult,’ ‘belittle,’ and ‘offend,’ they are inconsistently interpreted and arbitrarily enforced. Oftentimes, the threat of serious criminal penalties accompanies charges.

Rather than combat hate, the criminalization of speech based on subjective criteria creates a culture of fear and censorship.

An offence is considered hateful in reference to the hearer or reader, making it subjective with little to no regard for the content of the speech itself. They are incompatible with free societies. 

How the Proposed Irish "Hate Speech" Law is Different than Others

The Irish “hate speech” bill would move the needle further. If passed, we could expect commonplace prosecutions like Päivi Räsänen’s for posting a Bible verse on “X” in 2019 about her biblical worldview on marriage and sexuality. In fact, Ireland’s censorial law would go even further than Finland’s.

We’re ramping up public advocacy to expose the unprecedented dangers of what the Irish government is doing. All have the right to live and speak the truth without fear of censorship or retaliation. That’s why we’re asking Irish lawmakers to uphold their obligation to protect free speech under international human rights law.

Consequently, the Irish “hate speech” bill has two major facets that other laws like Finland’s do not include. For example:
  • It leaves the issue of gender open-ended by including a list of “protected characteristics” allowing for unlimited “gender identities” like ‘non-binary’ and ‘two-spirit’. These self-identities would receive protection supported by criminal law.
  • It allows authorities to criminalize private possession of memes or any content “likely” to incite violence or hatred “…against a person or group of persons on account of their protected characteristics”.

This means “misgendering” someone could land you a criminal prosecution, fine or worse. If the Irish “hate speech” bill becomes law, Irish police would have the power to search phones, camera rolls, and emails for prosecutable content.

It’s paramount that we all spread awareness about the dangers of this bill.

Why Ireland is Pushing This Now

The Irish government claims that the law is necessary following rising incidents of violence in the country, which many tie to uncontrolled migration. But peace and security on the streets do not require “hate speech” laws suppressing peaceful speech.

With key terms deliberately undefined, how are we to know what kind of speech could be subject to prosecution? “Hate speech” laws are Western blasphemy laws by another name; both are state driven.

The thought of Irish police raiding homes and phones to seize banned books and memes invokes thoughts of Orwell and the darker moments of the last century. 

Our right to freedom of expression is protected by numerous international human rights treaties. The European Court of Human Rights even affirmed that the right to freedom of expression protects not just popular ideas but also those that shock, offend, and disturb.   

Yet, some argue that unpopular speech should be censored by the state. But where is the logical stopping point?

Have We Learned Nothing From Finland? 

“Hate speech” laws are detrimental to a society seeking to protect freedom of speech or thought. In Finland, we’ve supported Päivi’s defence for almost five years with two unanimous acquittals. She was charged with three counts of “hate speech” because of her “X” post, a pamphlet she authored for her church, and comments she made during a radio programme.

In January 2024, the state prosecutor appealed her case to the Finnish Supreme Court. On 19 April, the high court agreed to hear the appeal, so Päivi will face her third criminal trial in three years. However, the legal process is Päivi’s punishment because the state has unlimited funds to prosecute offenders of their “hate speech” laws. Prosecutions cost taxpayer funds, while reputations sometimes become irreparably harmed.

If Päivi’s now famous “hate speech” case took place in Ireland, she could be prosecuted for simply possessing the pamphlet she wrote for her church congregation on the biblical definition of marriage, even if it was never published online.

Ireland should be a place where important conversations about issues that matter – even about controversial and sensitive topics thrive. When these conversations are shut down, we all lose out.

Conclusion: Ireland Must Reject Its New “Hate Speech” Bill

In summary, “hate speech” laws leave the door wide open to state censorship and oppression. And yet, the Irish government has been moving forward with a new bill to criminalize “hate speech” since 2022.

This could be one of the most far-reaching clampdowns on free speech by a modern democracy. It implicates memes, jokes, and books. Instead of protecting free speech and public safety, this law is poised to set a draconian precedent of intolerance against those who express beliefs outside the state-approved orthodoxy. 

Unpopular speech needs the most protection, and in a free society, free speech is required. Individuals should be able to express their beliefs without fear or oppression. The Irish “hate speech” bill is a far cry from the liberal democratic ideals the Irish government claims to profess.

The Irish government has chosen to uphold freedom of speech.

TODAY: Trial begins for army vet who prayed silently near abortion facility

  • Father of two, who served in Afghanistan, faces criminal trial for praying silently in abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth – ADF UK supporting legal defence
  • Sir Edward Leigh, Miriam Cates react to « thoughtcrime » trial taking place at Poole Magistrates’ Court
  • UK Government to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide, imminently – human rights experts warn against plans to name « silent prayer » as a crime in buffer zone guidance

DORSET (17th September 2024) – Poole Magistrates’ Court will hear the case of Adam Smith-Connor, the father and army veteran criminally charged for praying silently near an abortion facility in Bournemouth, in a three day trial beginning TODAY – until 19th September.

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council filed the charges on the basis that Smith-Connor was praying within a censored “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying.

Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here. 

The defence contends that a mere thought cannot amount to a crime, and authorities must not criminalise citizens for the opinions or beliefs they hold in their minds on any given public street. 

"It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."

- Adam Smith-Connor, facing trial on Tuesday for silently praying in a "buffer zone"

On the date in question, Smith-Connor prayed silently for approximately three minutes before being approached by police officers. The legal proceedings have continued for almost two years, and the trial is scheduled to take place for three days. 

The Council has so far run up legal fees – charged to the public purse – in excess of £34k to prosecute an offence carrying a maximum fine of £1k. 

"What is the nature of your prayer?"

Smith-Connor was issued a fixed penalty notice on 13th December 2022. The notice detailed that he had been “praying for his deceased son” a month earlier on 24th November 2022 near an abortion facility on Orphir Road in Bournemouth where an abortion facility censorship zone or “buffer zone” is in place. 

Vous êtes actuellement en train de consulter le contenu d'un espace réservé de YouTube. Pour accéder au contenu réel, cliquez sur le bouton ci-dessous. Veuillez noter que ce faisant, des données seront partagées avec des providers tiers.

Plus d'informations
Débloquer le contenu Accepter le service requis et débloquer les contenus

During their interaction with Smith-Connor, which was captured on video, officers asked the father of two, « what is the nature of your prayer? »

Smith-Connor, who now regrets having paid for an abortion for his ex-girlfriend in the past, was praying about his experience, about the child whom he lost, and for the men and women facing difficult decisions about abortion today. He prayed with his back to the facility to avoid any impression of approaching or engaging with women using the facility. 

A lack of clarity from police

Smith-Connor’s case has unveiled confusion amongst police officers regarding the permissibility of silent prayer in UK law.  

 In a filmed encounter with police on another occasion in which Smith-Connor had silently prayed in the same spot, officers had informed him that he was not breaking the law, remarking, “this is England and it’s a public place and you’re entitled to do that.” 

WATCH THE INTERACTION HERE.

“In various other circumstances, the police and the courts have made it clear that silent prayer is not a criminal act. And yet, BCP Council, which has already conceded that presence is not in itself an offence, has introduced a rights-restricting censorship zone, which they now argue extends to a ban on silent prayer,” said Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, supporting Smith-Connor’s defense.  

“In permitting the prosecution of silent prayer, we are sailing into dangerous waters regarding human rights protections in the UK. Censorship zones are inherently wrong and engender unhelpful legal confusion regarding the right to free thought. Both domestic and international law have long established freedom of thought as an absolute right that must not ever be interfered with by the state.

« The Telegraph recently reported that Ministers are considering naming « silent prayer » as a crime in their « buffer zones » guidance – to do so would not only be a legal error, it could open up the floodgates to human rights violations similar to those experienced by Adam Smith-Connor,” he continued.

A series of British "thoughtcrime" trials

Smith-Connor’s case will mark the third in a series of high-profile cases in which citizens have been tried in court for praying silently in their heads within abortion facility “buffer zones”.  

In March 2022, charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and Catholic priest Father Sean Gough, were both found “not guilty” after facing criminal charges for similar actions to Smith-Connor. Read more. 

Though being found “not guilty” of breaching the censorship zone or “buffer zone” with her thoughts, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested a second time in March after she prayed silently in the same spot near the abortion facility once again. Six police officers attended the scene. In August 2024, police paid Vaughan-Spruce a settlement of £13,000 for her two unlawful arrests. 

Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities. 

On 7th March 2023, the UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023. The Labour Government are expected to implement the zones imminently. Last month, the Telegraph reported that Ministers are considering naming “silent prayer” as a criminal activity within the guidance of the new law.

Ahead of the trial, Adam Smith-Connor commented:

“Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime.

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK. »

Smith-Connor’s trial was originally scheduled to take place in November 2023, but was delayed by the Court. At Poole Magistrates’ Court, Smith-Connor delivered an emotional address to supporters – see below.

Vous êtes actuellement en train de consulter le contenu d'un espace réservé de YouTube. Pour accéder au contenu réel, cliquez sur le bouton ci-dessous. Veuillez noter que ce faisant, des données seront partagées avec des providers tiers.

Plus d'informations
Débloquer le contenu Accepter le service requis et débloquer les contenus

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Adam Smith-Connor praying outside Poole Magistrates Court with Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Jeremiah Igunnubole, ADF UK