I strongly oppose prejudice and bigotry and discrimination against anybody based on their personal identity. I strongly support fundamental human rights including freedom from discrimination and equality before the law. I encourage people to be kind, empathetic, ompompassionate, cooperative, reciprocal, just and fair in online discussions. I encourage people to criticise bad ideas robustly, while respecting the people who sincerely believe those bad ideas.

I also oppose casual defamation on the Internet, and the tendency to express every difference of opinion as a personal insult dialled up to eleven as an opening gambit. My latest experience of this is a comment that somebody posted on my blog that has been unintentionally misinterpreted, misreported, and blown up into a mythological moral panic that Tim Hunt would no doubt identify with.

Yesterday I got some coordinated emails and tweets that falsely allege that I am supporting trans-misogynistic hate speech in comments on my blog, “namely the myth that trans women are men who pretend to be women in order to rape women and girls.” These emails and tweets are from good people who sincerely believe what they are saying to be true, but they are mistaken. Such is the nature of the Internet, where misinformed group behaviour can quickly escalate.

I have now read through the various comment discussions, and I think I can see how the main misunderstanding began and escalated. As this particular issue is hard enough to follow even when you are involved in it, I have tried to outline it here in way that reasonable people can form reasonable conclusions. I have also noted some other comments that don’t follow my requests to treat people respectfully while criticising their ideas, and I will address that later.

Contents of this post

Part 1 — Overview

This part is all you have to read if you don’t want to know all of the nuances.

Overview of the main allegation Requests to delete other comments Some background context The idea of an ‘ally’ How this particular allegation evolved My blog comments policy Summary

Part 2 — Details

You can also read this part if you want more detailed information.

Aidan’s first correspondence with me The comments I removed after Aidan’s first email Next email exchange with Aidan The links that Cindy had posted Next email exchange with Aidan New allegation in Aidan’s blog post What is hate speech? Thresholds for prohibition of incitement to hatred Council of Europe Against Online Hate Speech Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime Aidan’s request for people to contact me Some of the messages I have got about this

PART 1 — OVERVIEW

1.1 Overview of the main allegation

Aidan Rowe contacted me on Thursday evening to say that:

“some of your supporters (are) putting forward the hateful position that trans women are men pretending to be women in order to enter women’s spaces and rape women and girls.”

and that:

“the comments section of your post is being used to promote anti-trans hate speech, namely the myth that trans women are men who pretend to be women in order to rape women and girls.”

I was of course concerned by Aidan’s allegations. However, neither of these allegations were true. Aidan had, no doubt unintentionally, misread a comment and translated it into something different. Nevertheless, I deleted some comments that violated my comments policy, and told Aidan that I would look over the full comment thread after a conference the next day.

Here is a summary of the relevant parts of the deleted comments:

Cindy posted a comment saying that Aidan harasses women online, and linked to a page on a website called Name The Problem.

Aidan replied saying that the website Name The Problem was run by a named women who Aidan said was an anti-trans bigot who tries to associate the names of trans people with rape and abuse. Aidan said that this woman had smeared Aidan by calling them a rapist because Aidan had called her out for repeatedly calling a trans woman friend of Aidan’s a man.

Cindy replied asking if the woman who Aidan was calling a bigot was the woman who had questioned whether [a named 52 year old person with male genitals who identifies as a six year old girl] should use the girls changing room in a swimming pool. Cindy also asked about a trans woman who gained access to a woman’s domestic violence shelter and raped a woman.

Aidan replied saying that they loved how people who say they are post-bigotry had nothing to say about Cindy’s ‘trans women want to rape women and children’ comments.

So this, then, is the origin of Aidan’s allegation. Cindy was saying that straight men could pretend to be women to access women-only areas, and Aidan translated that the other way around into a claim that trans women are men pretending to be women. Also, Cindy was referring to specific incidents, and Aidan translated into a claim about all trans women.

Cindy also referred to a trans woman who gained access to a woman’s domestic violence shelter and raped a woman. Cindy later linked to two newspaper articles about this claim: one was about a man who assaulted a woman after falsely pretending to be a trans woman to access a women’s domestic violence centre, and the other was about a trans woman who had raped a woman before she had transitioned.

Whatever genuine misinterpretation Aidan made, based on any ambiguity in Cindy’s wording, Cindy has since clarified unambiguously what she was conveying. Today Aidan commented on my blog:

“Do you think any reasonable definition of hate speech would not include claiming that trans women are men who want to rape women and girls?”

And Cindy replied:

“Except nobody said that. No one said, specifically, that ‘trans women are men who want to rape women and girls’. It was pointed out that women and girls have the right not to be perved at and/or raped in their private spaces, by men who LIE and claim to be women based on nothing but feelz. In other words, if a law is written concerning nothing but gender identity (as opposed to gender expression), STRAIGHT CIS MEN who are PREDATORS will LIE ABOUT BEING TRANS WOMEN, GAIN ACCESS TO WOMEN’S PRIVATE SPACES AND ASSAULT THEM…. You misread, and chose to take the statement as a smear against all trans women.”

Despite this unambiguous clarification, a defamatory myth has evolved in a matter of days, to the effect that I am “supporting trans-misogynistic hate speech, namely the myth that trans women are men who pretend to be women in order to rape women and girls.”

1.2 The request to delete other comments

The next morning Aidan published, on their own blog, some of the comments that Aidan had asked me to remove from my blog, and that I had actually removed, and Aidan strangely complained that:

“the only anti-trans post he deleted was the one I directly linked to him”.

Aidan and others are also asking that I remove other comments on the basis that they are hate speech. Aidan and others seem to have their own definition of this, which Aidan has not chosen to share despite being repeatedly asked, but which allows them to assume that certain comments are so obviously hate speech that everyone else should automatically agree with them. But this is not the case.

The policing of hate speech is a restriction on freedom of expression, and that requires a high threshold to qualify. Simply declaring something to be hate speech, and then demanding that other people moderate the comments in their blog to match with your own undefined opinion, is not a reasonable way to navigate the balance between freedom of expression and other rights.

I have outlined in Sections 1.7 to 1.10 below some examination of this balance, based mostly on exchanges of comments between Aidan and Jane Donnelly, who is currently conducting research on hate speech for a panel discussion in a conference about blasphemy and hate speech.

1.3 Some background context

This situation has evolved because three people chose to initiate encounters with me (Paul McAndrew) and to publish defamatory allegations about me (Aoife and Aidan). I did not initiate any of these encounters, and I have behaved reasonably throughout them, despite increasingly provocative smears about me. This is in the context of a litany of other recent outrageous smears linking me with fascists, Nazis, pedophiles, and Leeds United football club.

Another related allegation is that I have been threatening people with legal action. That is also untrue. I have been trying to deal with all of these casually delivered outrageous smears by reasoned discussion. However, I may eventually reach the stage that a defamation case may be the only way to bring some finality to the absurdity. I hope that I do not have to this. This post is another attempt to address the allegations with reasoned discussion.

I would like to thank everyone who has emailed me, or tweeted publicly and privately, to defend me against recent smears. You know who you are! I would particularly like to thank Jane Donnelly, David Hall, Ashling O’Brien, Derek Walsh, Max Krzyzanowski, Carolyn Compelli, Peter Hinchliffe, Siobhan O’Brien, and various people who prefer to remain anonymous because they don’t want to be next in line for smears. The last few weeks of escalating smears have been tough, and your solidarity has been very helpful.

I ask both Aoife and Aidan to withdraw and apologise for these smears. I am not generalising the behaviour of Aoife and Aidan onto other LGBT people, and I thank the LGBT people who have been supportive of me about this. We should treat each other with equal respect as individuals, and not assume things about each other based on aspects of our personal identities.

1.4 The idea of an ‘ally’

Some people seem to see the word ‘ally’ as a relationship that a straight person has to LGBT people, with different standards of reciprocity, in which the straight person is expected to support the LGBT people but not vice versa. I don’t use that interpretation of the word ‘ally’. I see allies as equal partners with a shared goal and equal standards of reciprocity. If you expect me to defend you against injustice, then I expect you to also defend me against injustice.

For example, I and Atheist Ireland work together with many people and groups as allies, regardless of our gender or sexual orientation or perceived race, or religious or nonreligious belief, with the shared goal of an ethical secular society where each individual is treated with respect and without discrimination. I have done the same in campaigns against IRA and loyalist terrorism, against miscarriages of justice by the State, and for assisted dying.

If someone criticises you or discriminates against you for being for being male or female or transgender, or for being gay or straight or any other gender orientation, or for being black or white or any other perceived race, then I will defend you against those criticisms. Criticising people for who they are is prejudice and/or bigotry. In this context, I condemn any prejudice, bigotry or discrimination against Paul, Aoife, Aidan or any of their friends that is based on their identity.

However, if someone criticises you for what you say or do, then I will examine that on its merits. If I agree with your behaviour, I will defend you. If I disagree with your behaviour, I will criticise you. But I will do so on the basis of my analysis of your ideas and behaviour, regardless of your gender or sexual orientation or other such criteria. In this context, I am critical of some of the ideas and behaviour of Paul, Aoife and Aidan, including some of their allegations about me.

Criticising your ideas or behaviour is not the same thing as criticising all people who share an element of your identity. If you are looking for someone who will tend towards defending your ideas or behaviour, regardless of whether they are good or bad, on the basis that your personal identity makes you more likely to be correct, then you are not looking for an ally. You are looking for a supporter of your good ideas and behaviour, and an enabler of your bad ideas and behaviour.

1.5 How this particular allegation evolved

This particular strand of the smears against me began when Paul McAndrew approached me at the Atheist Ireland information table in Dublin. I didn’t approach him. He confrontationally asked me several questions about Islamophobia, atheist States, the veil in France and Richard Dawkins. I responded reasonably to each question until he flounced away. The only reason that Paul’s sexual orientation was involved in this discussion was that he chose to announce that he was an openly gay man. Had Paul not said that, I would not have known or cared about his sexual orientation, and it did not change how I interacted with Paul once he told me.

Aoife Fitzgibbon O’Riordan then made a defamatory smear on her Facebook page, saying that I was using dog whistle homophobia to defend dog whistle misogyny. Dog whistle homophobia means being homophobic and sending secret homophobic messages to other homophobes. Aoife knows me personally, and she knows that this is not true. Not only did I not initiate this disagreement, but Aoife had intended that I would not even know that she was making defamatory allegations about me. Aoife seems to be under the impression that this makes her smearing of me ethically better rather than worse.

Aidan Rowe then made some comments on my blog, and chose to say that they are an Assigned Male at Birth transgender queer. Had Aidan not said that, I would not have known or cared about Aidan’s gender or sexual orientation, and it did not change how I interacted with Aidan once they told me. Aidan then sent me an email about some other comments on my blog. I removed comments that linked to a site that made defamatory allegations about Aidan and others, and I said I would look at the other comments later. Aidan then published a blog post titled: “Michael Nugent (Atheist Ireland) supports trans-misogynistic hate speech.”

1.6 My blog comments policy

Some people seem to think that I have ‘supporters’ on my blog. I don’t. People choose to comment on my blog based on their own agency. Sometimes they support things I say, sometimes not. These people include Paul, Aoife and Aidan, and people who disagree with them. I am not responsible for the ideas that they convey on my blog, whether they are Paul, Aoife or Aidan or people who disagree with them. I am even more obviously not responsible for what they do or say elsewhere, whether they are Paul, Aoife or Aidan or people who disagree with them.

I’ve published this before but here it is again:

“Many comments on my site represent robust debate that I think is useful, even if I strongly disagree with the ideas that the commenters are proposing. My comments policy allows robust debate, but there are certain things I do not allow. This includes accusing people of lying, and attributing malign motivations to other people. You can say that somebody has said something that is not true, but to say that they are lying is to say that they know that it is not true, whereas in reality they may simply be mistaken. My blog software, despite some glitches, is set to put certain words into moderation. I generally get around to checking published comments every few days, but sometimes it can take longer. Also, any comments with more than one hyperlink go into moderation. That is to avoid commercial spam, not to censor content, and I will approve those once I identify they are not spam. Generally speaking, if you are reading comments from the past couple of days, it is likely that you are reading comments that I have not yet checked. Here’s an oversimplified version of my comments policy. Please robustly criticise ideas and behaviour, by applying reason to the best available evidence. Please do not insult people as people, or express hatred towards them, or dehumanise them, or threaten them, or attribute malign motivations to them. Also, please try to follow the spirit of that policy, rather than try to find ways around it. I’m extremely unlikely to ban you, so all you are doing is creating more moderation work for me, typically in the early hours of the morning after a long day’s work.”

1.7 Summary

I have tried here and below to respond as comprehensively as I can to these developments. When people are smeared in the Internet, there are several common responses: to ignore the smears in the hope that they will go away, to return fire with more abuse, and to sue for defamation.

I have tried over the past few years to take a different approach when I am smeared, starting with PZ Myers’ allegation that I defend and provide a haven for rapists. I respond as comprehensively, as civilly and as reasonably as I can, providing evidence for reasonable people to come to reasonable conclusions.

This seems to work, over time, but it has its price in time lost that could be spent on directly promoting an ethical secular society or watching football or having a day off, and the personal toll on my emotional commitment to wading through shit to get to somewhere better.

For the time being I will maintain this approach, but as I said earlier, on some smear or other, I may eventually reach the stage that a defamation case may be the only way to bring some finality to the absurdity.

Also, I still like Aidan’s music 🙂

PART 2 — DETAILS

2.1 Aidan’s first correspondence with me

Aidan sent me these tweets on Thursday evening:

“Hi Michael, you may not be aware of this but the comments section of your post on the “flounce” incident has taken a nasty turn with some of your supporters putting forward the hateful position that trans women are men pretending to be women in order to enter women’s spaces and rape women and girls. I wonder would you consider either posting a comment denouncing those views and making clear that that kind of support is not something you want, or removing the comments. I’m sure you agree that those kinds of comments are dangerous and unacceptable, whatever our disagreement.”

Aidan also sent me this email on Thursday evening.

“Hi Michael, I’ve already tweeted you about this but I felt it would be a good idea to also contact you here to make you aware that the comments section of your post “The outrageous smear that I am using homophobia to defend misogyny” is being used to promote anti-trans hate speech, namely the myth that trans women are men who pretend to be women in order to rape women and girls. Your supporters are also deliberately misgendering me despite having been told several times to stop. I’m asking that you either delete the comments in question or post in the thread denouncing these views and making clear that this form of support is not welcome (or preferably both). I trust that whatever our disagreement you recognise that this conduct is unacceptable and that such views are vile and dangerous and will act swiftly to deal with them. Sincerely, Aidan Rowe”

I was obviously concerned by Aidan’s allegation. I would be strongly opposed to anybody commenting on my blog claiming that “trans women are men pretending to be women in order to enter women’s spaces and rape women and girls.”

I would be strongly concerned if the comments section of my blog was being “used to promote anti-trans hate speech, namely the myth that trans women are men who pretend to be women in order to rape women and girls.”

However, neither of these allegations were true. As I described in Section 1.1 above, Aidan had misread a comment about specific incidents, mostly about men who are not trans women, and translated it into a generalised allegation about trans women.

2.2 The comments I removed after Aidan’s first email

I looked briefly over the 250+ comment thread, and discussed it for an hour with Jane Donnelly. We concluded that the overall allegation warranted careful consideration rather than a quick response while tired. We did find one discussion that contravenes my comment policy. I removed the relevant comments, and published the following explanation:

“I have removed some comments that linked to a website where a named person was accused of harassing feminists, and/or that discussed that website and other accusations made on it, and/or that referred to named people as having had rape allegations made against them.” If anyone wants me to email them any comments that they made which I have deleted, I’d be happy to do so, if you want to edit them to exclude such allegations while keeping any other points you made. Also, as per my preferences for this blog, can you please try to criticise ideas rather than the people who are communicating the ideas? Thanks.”

I have described the relevant comments that I deleted in Part 1.1 of this post above.

2.3 Next email exchange with Aidan

This is my next email to Aidan:

“Hi Aidan, I’ll look over those comments tomorrow. I’ll be at a conference all day, so I’ll look at them in the evening. In the meantime I have removed some comments that linked to a website where you were accused of harassing feminists, and other related allegations. I’m sorry you had to go through such smears. Michael. PS I like your music 🙂 ”

This is Aidan’s next email to me:

“I think the appropriate thing to do if you don’t have time to moderate the discussion properly would have been to leave Cindy’s comments “proving” that trans women are rapists in the moderation queue. Instead what you have done is allow her to publish a slew of links to an anti-trans hate site on your site.”

2.4 The links that Cindy had posted

What Aidan was referring to here was a comment including some links that Cindy had posted and that had been caught in my moderation queue because it included more than one hyperlink. That moderation rule is to avoid commercial spam, not to censor content, and I approve such posts once I identify they are not spam.

Putting aside that Aidan was still under the mistaken notion that Cindy’s earlier comments were about trans women generally, Aidan described Cindy’s links about this issue as “a slew of links to an anti-trans hate site.”

The links that Cindy had posted were to articles in three newspapers:

New York Times — Seattle man undresses in women’s locker room at local pool to test new transgender bathroom rule

From the article: “We’re not here saying that the transgendered community are predators,” a woman who was a victim of sexual assault told KING-5 TV, “We will never say that because we don’t believe that. What we do believe is that this code is so poorly written that predators will abuse. We know it because we have lived it.” Toronto Sun — A sex predator’s sick deception

From the article: “A convicted sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters could be declared a dangerous offender this month… He pleaded guilty in February 2013 to two counts of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment involving two women — a deaf and homeless Quebec woman and a Toronto survivor of domestic violence — while he was living at a Dundas St. W. shelter and the Fred Victor women’s shelter.” The Guardian — Transgender woman who raped girl before transition sent to male prison

From the article: “A transgender woman, convicted of carrying out a rape when she was a man, has been remanded to a male prison… The justice minister Caroline Dinenage said: “Transgender adult prisoners are normally placed according to their legally recognised gender. However, we recognise that these situations are often complex and sensitive.”

These articles support the points that Cindy was actually making, and unsurprisingly do not support the point that Aidan mistakenly misread Cindy as having made. Cindy wrote this about these links:

“Are trans women generally great people? Sure they are. But laws which permit a be-penised person to enter a woman’s changeroom or domestic violence shelter based on nothing but gender identity alone simply opens up the doors for abuse. Perverts who pray on girls and women will abuse this loophole.”

On my reading, this is not a concern about trans women, who are not men. It is a concern about protecting women from men who could abuse laws that enable them to access women only spaces by pretending to be a woman. I don’t know to what extent it is a problem beyond the linked stories. Most reasonable people would agree that the reasons that most trans women want to access a women only area, are the same reasons that most women want to access a women’s only area, that is, to go to the toilet or change their clothes or seek refuge in a women only domestic violence refuge. However, given all of that context, it is a valid concern to discuss.

Also, the New York Times, the Toronto Sun and the Guardian could hardly be classified as hate sites, so I decided to clarify further with Aidan.

2.5 Next email exchange with Aidan

This is my next email to Aidan:

“Aidan, Feel free to explain what you mean by a hate site, and how the links posted support that description, and I will take that into account. Michael”

This is Aidan’s next email to me:

“As I’ve already explained, those links are being proffered in support of the thesis that trans women are men who pretend to be women in order to enter women’s spaces and rape women and girls. If it isn’t obvious to you that that’s hate speech then you have no business calling yourself an LGBT ally.”

We are now at 1:20 am on Friday morning. At this stage, Aidan still mistakenly believes that a general allegation has been made, and is being defended, “that trans women are men who pretend to be women in order to enter women’s spaces and rape women and girls,” Again, this allegation was never made.

I had intended to examine the entire comment thread again on Friday evening. Jane and I had also discussed the idea of asking Aidan to write a guest post on my blog outlining their concerns. I then retired for the night, and woke to find a link in my email to a blog post by Aidan.

2.6 New allegation in Aidan’s blog post

On Friday morning Aidan published a blog post titled “Michael Nugent (Atheist Ireland) supports trans-misogynistic hate speech”. In this, Aidan again misunderstood Cindy’s comment and links on my blog, saying:

“Cindy then attempted to post a series of links in support of the thesis that trans women are men who pretend to be women in order to gain access to women’s spaces and rape women and girls… “

Aidan also added a new allegation, which they had not made in any of the correspondence the previous night, by saying:

“Cindy then made a number of comments alluding to the trans-misogynistic conspiracy theory that trans women use accusations of transphobia to try and force lesbians to have sex with them.”

Cindy provided some links in support of this argument, and wrote:

“Is this the definition of transphobic? Trans women shaming lesbians, in their own words, for not wanting penises inside them? I was very very careful with my links. The words of actual trans women, fighting for their *right* to have PIV sex with lesbians. If anything, it’s pro-trans. In fact, it is 100% pro-trans according to the trans women who wrote those comments. Not my fault if you all are so embarrassed by the words of trans women that you have to accuse the rest of us of being transphobic.”

I’m not sure of the extent to which this attitude exists. I assume it does not represent the views of most trans women, because most trans women are as reasonable as most people generally. However, it doesn’t seem to be a conspiracy theory to suggest that such attitudes exist. I followed one of Cindy’s links beyond the first link to the original source, and it seems to be based on opinions that actually exist among at least some trans women.

I have also found several sincere discussions about this issue online, with people arguing either side while remaining civil to each other to each other. So, if you disagree with Cindy, then feel free to counter her argument. But do not misread it as hate speech against all trans women, because that is not a reasonable interpretation. And do not try to close down conversation about it on somebody else’s blog, based on your misreading of it.

2.7 What is hate speech?

I now want to discuss the idea of hate speech. Aidan and others seem to have their own definition of this, which Aidan has not chosen to share despite being repeatedly asked, but which allows them to assume that certain comments are so obviously hate speech that everyone else should automatically agree with them. But this is not the case.

The policing of hate speech is a restriction on freedom of expression, and that requires a high threshold to qualify. Simply declaring something to be hate speech, and then demanding that other people moderate the comments in their blog to match with your own undefined opinion, is not a reasonable way to navigate the balance between freedom of expression and other rights.

As it happens, Jane and I are already researching the idea of hate speech for a panel discussion that we will be talking part in, in an upcoming conference on blasphemy law and hate speech. As Jane has said in the following exchanges (between Jane, Aidan and Ashling O’Brien), we would welcome any suggestions of sources for useful information about this.

Jane Donnelly:

“If you are getting into the definitions of how different people define ‘hate speech’, then we could be here for a while. It means different things to different people. I don’t think it is wise to just accept such an accusation without looking at the details. If you think that it is an easy thing to get your head around what constitutes hate speech, then think again. I would be very reluctant to accuse anyone of hate speech and /or supporting hate speech without examining everything and in detail. Not only do people define hate speech in different ways but so do different countries. The UN/Council of Europe are working to define what constitutes hate speech, it is not an easy subject. Hate speech is linked to ‘freedom of expression”. The are restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and it is obvious that we are discussing those restrictions. It is clear that some people have made up their mind and are clear in defining hate speech. They could be correct in that assessment. I just need more time to examine this before I could agree that what was said constitutes hate speech.”

Aidan Rowe:

“Sorry no I’m not going to allow you to relativise this, when precisely these kinds of trans-misogynistic fantasies are being used by rightists in the US and elsewhere to mobilises movements aimed at excluding trans women and girls from public space and services, not to mention encouraging violence against a population who are already beaten, raped and murdered at a far higher rate than the general population (particularly those who are non-white). You are either with us in naming this as hate speech, or you’re against us, apologising for, minimising and obfuscating calculated strategies aimed at our marginalisation. And as Sarah has already pointed out, these strategies should be wholly familiar to those who fought for gay rights in much more hostile times, where gay people were routinely insinuated accused of being paedophiles in order to mobilise people against them. (It’s also one of the signatures strategies of fascists in building support for racism and genocide, something we are seeing re-emerging today in opposition to the human rights of refugees.)”

Jane Donnelly:

“I’m very glad that you referred to human rights in your response to my comment. Let me reassure you that I am looking at the research, published documents, general comments, guidelines and case law with regard to hate speech of the UN, COE and OSCE. If you have links to any research/documentation from any of these bodies or published research regarding hate speech please let me know. I have discovered a lot of research and guidelines but you might like to draw my attention to a particular piece given that you seem to know a lot about it.”

Aidan Rowe:

“I expect Michael to exercise the capacities he has in solidarity with transgender people against hate speech. The critical claim I make is that allowing clear hate speech to be transmitted on a platform you control is a form of material support for hatred and therefore can legitimately be discussed as support for that hatred. ”

Ashling O’Brien:

“Aidan, as already mentioned in an earlier comment by Jane, hate-speech is not necessarily a straightforward concept to define. Could you give us the definition you would use, so that we can make sure we are all on the same page here. Thanks.”

Jane Donnelly:

“Aidan, I’ll ask again, Can you please let me have your definition of hate speech? You have referred in a comment to human rights, am I to take it that your definition is based on human rights? Can you please provide a link to any research, document or guidelines that you would like me to take into account? I have published research here from the UN, COE Guidelines and case law at the ECHR but I would like your input into this.”

Aidan Rowe:

“Do you think any reasonable definition of hate speech would not include claiming that trans women are men who want to rape women and girls?”

Jane Donnelly:

“I’m still looking for any human rights based research or documentation that you want me to take into account here. I really would appreciate your input. You have referred to human rights with regard to this subject and that is what I am looking at.”

So Aidan has no definition of hate speech, other than suggesting that Jane is relativising. Actually, the opposite is true. Jane is trying to come to an objective definition, or as close as one can to this, and Aidan is relativising it to coincide with their own undefined opinion.

2.8 Thresholds for prohibition of incitement to hatred The organisation Article 19 prepared a report on Thresholds for the prohibition of incitement to hatred, for a regional expert meeting organised by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Here are some excerpts from this report:

“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights places an obligation on States Parties to prohibit hate speech. Article 20(2) provides that: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law… The majority of states under consideration recognise intent or intention as one of the defining elements of incitement. In the UK (in relation to religious speech), in Ireland and in Canada, the criterion of intention is a specific and necessary element of the legislation. For example, it is a defence under the Irish Prohibition of Incitement Act 1989 for the accused to show they had not intended to stir up hatred or not have been aware that the words, behaviour or material concerned might be threatening, abusive or insulting… The European Court has emphasised the importance of distinguishing between publications that exhort the use of violence, which are properly categorised as “hate speech”, and those that simply offer a genuine critique on a matter of public interest… In one case, the Court specifically stated: “It cannot be ruled out that such a text may conceal objectives and intentions different from the ones it proclaims. However, as there is no evidence of any concrete action which might belie the sincerity of the aim declared by the leaflet’s authors, the Court sees no reason to doubt it. The degree to which the speech involved advocacy is relevant. Advocacy is present when there is a direct call for the audience to act in a certain way… A call to such action which is unambiguous in as far as the intended audience is concerned and could not be interpreted in other fashion would suggest the possible presence of incitement under article 20.”

2.9 Council of Europe Against Online Hate Speech

Here is an excerpt from an expert paper titled ‘The Council of Europe against online hate speech: conundrums and challenges,’ written by Dr Tarlach McGonagle, Senior researcher in the Institute for Information Law (IViR) Faculty of Law at the University of Amsterdam:

“Unravelling “hate speech” “Hate speech” has not (yet) been defined in a watertight or authoritative way, either in international human rights law or in relevant scholarship. The term is a convenient shorthand way of referring to a broad spectrum of extremely negative discourse stretching from hatred and incitement to hatred; to abusive expression and vilification; and arguably also to extreme forms of prejudice and bias. Robert Post has posited that a certain threshold of intensity must be reached before a particular expression can be qualified as hate speech. He points to the Oxford English Dictionary entry for “hate”: “an emotion of extreme dislike or aversion; detestation, abhorrence, hatred”. For Post, the threshold or definitional prerequisite is the qualification, “extreme”, because ordinary “intolerance and dislike are necessary human emotions which no legal order could pretend to abolish”. From a legal perspective, the hate speech spectrum stretches from types of expression that are not entitled to protection under international human rights law (eg. incitement to various specified acts), through types of expression that may or may not be entitled to protection, depending on the existence and weighting of a number of “contextual variables” (eg. extremely offensive expression), to types of expression that presumptively would be entitled to protection, despite their morally objectionable character (eg. negative stereotyping of minorities). The right to freedom of expression necessarily covers expression that may “offend, shock or disturb” certain groups in society (which is not the same thing as a right to offend). Democracy is not without its rough edges and tough talk is part of the cut and thrust of public debate and discourse.”

2.10 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime

The Council of Europe has also published an Explanatory Report to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning racist and xenophobic acts committed through computer systems. This discusses the idea of incitement to hatred in a way that would also be relevant to trans-misogynistic hate speech. Here are some excerpts from this Report:

“Article 10 of the ECHR recognises the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. Article 10 of the ECHR is applicable not only to information and ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population… The definition contained in Article 2 of this Protocol refers to certain conduct to which the content of the material may lead, rather than to the expression of feelings/belief/aversion as contained in the material concerned. The definition builds upon existing national and international (UN, EU) definitions and documents as far as possible. The definition requires that such material advocates, promotes, or incites hatred, discrimination or violence. “Advocates” refers to a plea in favour of hatred, discrimination or violence, “promotes” refers to an encouragement to or advancing hatred, discrimination or violence and “incites” refers to urging others to hatred, discrimination or violence. The term “violence” refers to the unlawful use of force, while the term “hatred” refers to intense dislike or enmity… All the offences contained in the Protocol must be committed “intentionally” for criminal liability to apply. In certain cases an additional specific intentional element forms part of the offence. The drafters of the Protocol, as those of the Convention, agreed that the exact meaning of ‘intentionally’ should be left to national interpretation. Persons cannot be held criminally liable for any of the offences in this Protocol, if they have not the required intent.”

2.11 Aidan’s request for people to contact me

Yesterday Aidan asked their Facebook friends to tweet or email me, insisting that I do several things, including (1) making a public post denouncing the transphobia Aidan has had to deal with, (2) delete all of the hate speech on my blog and ban those responsible for posting, and (3) publicly apologise to Aidan.

Aidan again used the false description of “Michael Nugent’s supporters,” this time to describe people who are members of a different website called The Slymepit, which I have no association with.

Here’s an analogy, from a comment by Sarah Malone who was defending Aidan in a comment on my blog. I had mentioned that my email on Friday morning had contained link to Aidan’s defamatory blog post and to an unrelated abusive trolling comment about my dead wife. Sarah commented that:

“Furthermore, to write a blog post like this, where you detail both Aidan’s calling attention to the events concerning them last night and, the vile harrassing blog you also found in your email, as if they both represent unfair or cruel attacks on you in an even remotely similar way, is seriously low.”

Sarah’s point was that Aidan should not be associated, even indirectly, with comments published elsewhere. I agree with this. Indeed, my point was to highlight that Aidan’s post was considerably less bad than some unrelated abuse that I get. However, Aidan is associating me directly with comments published elsewhere.

I have repeatedly made it clear that I disagree with people on any website criticising other people for their personal identity or appearance on any website, and that I support the right of people on any website to use humour and ridicule about ideas and behaviour that they disagree with. I’m always happy to repeat that about any website. But I am not responsible for policing the Internet and, much as I might like to, I have no control over what happens on other websites.

If I did have control over what happens on other websites, then Aoife and Aidan would not be publishing defamatory smears about me. Nor would other people have been publishing that I am supporting and providing a haven for rapists, allowing feminists to hijack Atheist Ireland, being sexist and misogynistic, supporting feminists who are bullying people, being racist, a Fascist/Nazi/Neo-Nazi/Nazi sympathiser, an admirer of the pre-1990 Soviet Union, an Islamophobe, a creepy xenophobe, a champion of horrible people, a monster, an Irish wanker, a demented fuckwit, actually crazy, and to top it all, an allegation that people like me supported the Pedophile Information Exchange.

2.12 Some of the messages I have got about this

Here are some of the tweets and emails I got yesterday from friends of Aidan, along with my responses. To everyone who contacted me, I accept that you are good people who sincerely believe what you are saying to be true, and I respect that you are standing up for a friend who you believe has been unfairly treated. To those who have emailed, I will email you back with a link to this post.

Please note that the Facebook post that asked you to contact me contained remarks that would have prejudiced your opinion of me while you were writing to me, namely:

“Michael Nugent’s supporters seem to be largely drawn from an “anti-SJW” forum where they are calling me things like ‘it’… I particularly want cis people to step up on this as Nugent’s supporters are clearly the kind who will target those they recognise as trans.”

Firstly, I do not have supporters. Secondly, this implies that an attribute of supporting me would be targeting trans people. That is an outrageous smear against me and the people who are presumably mistakenly described here as my supporters.

Here are my responses to you:

@CuteCatriona, @Aline_Courtois, @KayACairns, @GuySerious, Chaka1987, SaoirseTV, @Sharmander, @Muir_maid, @Siobhan_Locke, @wantico, @TheDefiled666, @shaneocurry, — suggesting that transphobic comments on my site directed against Aidan are hate speech. My response: I don’t agree that they are hate speech, for the reasons that I have outlined above. I’m happy to look at it again after further study on the topic of hate speech. Also, I have a light moderation policy that encourages robust discussion about ideas, which some people may mistakenly conflate with the idea of hate speech. @shakesnDOGS, @DaithiHartery, @Anaemic_Royalty, @MarkHoskins — various comments to the effect that my “supporters” are doing various things. My response: I don’t have supporters. People are responsible for their own behaviour. @AdamDMurray — “By not denouncing these voices in YOUR community, you are endorsing them. Your silence is violence, @micknugent.” My response: This doesn’t make sense. People are responsible for their own actions. Also, I am not silent. @Theresa_O’Keefe, beardy911, shaksnDOGS — various comments to the effect that Atheist Ireland and/or Atheist Ireland supporters are responsible for various things. This issue has nothing to do with Atheist Ireland. @chaka1987 — asking me to delete the posts referring to a real breathing person as an “it”. My response: This did not happen on my blog. @sharrow_ie — asking me to set comments to moderation. My response: I’ve done that with some words. I’m reluctant to add trans to the list, as I think discussion of trans issues is valid. @nnisjanemoran, @AdamDMurray — comment about being an ally. My response: I have addressed this above. @ownomanny, @Bubblenoma — asking me to write a public post about this. My response: This is it. @mlennox — “can’t wait to read @micknugent 30,000 word screed on how this makes Mick Nugent the victim…” My response: Closer to 6,000. Why are you following the fake Twitter account set up to mock me that includes a tweet mocking people with autism? @AtheistVeuthan — Anyone who is that popular doesn’t need to deal in reasoned discussion on or off twitter surely? My response: Sorry, I don’t know what you mean.

Thank you to everyone who tweeted or emailed. I know that you did so out of good motivations.