The 1989 Act prohibits incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality. The prohibition includes the publishing and distributing of written materials and visual images, inciting speech and behavior, and activities in private residences. It criminalizes various means of disseminating and/or promoting materials, words, or actions that are threatening, abusive, or insulting, and intended or likely to stir up hatred (Section 2). The prohibitions do not apply to fair and accurate reports of proceedings in the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) or before a court or tribunal exercising a judicial function (Section 5). Gender discrimination outside of sexual orientation is not addressed in this law.
Women and Justice: Keywords
Legislation
Article 240 criminalizes discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among others. The sentence is imprisonment for one to eight years.
O artigo 240 criminaliza a discriminação e incitamento ao ódio e à violência baseado em raça, gênero, orientação sexual e identidade de gênero, entre outros. A pena é de prisão de um a oito anos.
Public Health Amendment (Safe Access to Reproductive Health Clinics) Act (New South Wales) (2018)
The Act amends the Public Health Act 2010 No 127. It provides for 150-metre “safe access zones” around reproductive health clinics, which are intended to protect the safety and well-being of people entering and leaving such clinics, including employees. The Act creates offenses punishable with imprisonment for interfering with access to clinics (§ 98C), causing actual or potential distress or anxiety to persons in safe access zones (§ 98D), or for taking/distributing photographs of people in safe access zones (§ 98E). The Act also contains exemptions under § 98F, which states that Act does not prohibit conduct in a religious building, near Parliament House in Macquarie Street, Sydney; or “the carrying out of any survey or opinion poll by or with the authority of a candidate, or the distribution of any handbill or leaflet by or with the authority of a candidate, during the course of a Commonwealth, State or local government election, referendum or plebiscite.” In enacting the Act, NSW joined other Australian states and territories, which had already enacted laws banning the harassment of women seeking abortions.
Domestic Case Law
McGee v. Attorney General and Revenue Commissioners Supreme Court of Ireland (1973)
The plaintiff was a mother whose second and third pregnancies were complicated by medical issues and resulted in her suffering from a stroke and temporary paralysis. She was advised that her life would be endangered if she became pregnant again. As such, she sought to obtain contraceptives, but their sale and importation was prohibited by Irish law. The Supreme Court held that a law prohibiting the importation, sale or advertising of contraceptives was inconsistent with the plaintiff’s right to privacy in marital affairs, an unenumerated right in the Irish Constitution. Although the Court left undisturbed the then-existing ban on sale of contraceptives in Ireland, the use and importation of contraceptives was not prohibited based on the law’s inconsistency with the Constitution.
Bigelow v. Virginia Supreme Court of the United States (1975)
The plaintiff, a newspaper editor, was convicted under a Virginia law making it illegal for "any person, by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication, or in any other manner, [from encouraging] or [prompting] the procuring of abortion or miscarriage." The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of this law and argued that it violated rights protected by the First Amendment. The Court rejected the Supreme Court of Virginia’s ruling that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment, and further held that the Virginia Law violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. Supreme Court of the United States (1983)
A federal statute established in 1873 prohibited the mailing of unsolicited pamphlets regarding contraceptives. Filing a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of this statute, alleging that it violated the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech. Applying the test regarding commercial speech established in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the Court found that based on the economic motivation of the sender, the advertising content of the pamphlets, and their reference to a specified product, the mail could be classified as commercial speech. The Court also held that the governmental interest in prohibiting the pamphlets was insufficient as recipients could easily discard the information if they wished.
釋字第623號 J.Y. Interpretation 623 Taiwan Constitutional Court (1996)
In this interpretation, the Taiwan Constitutional Court upheld a criminal penalty provision of the Child and Juvenile Sexual Transaction Prevention Act (subsequently amended and retitled as the Child and Youth Sexual Exploitation Prevention Act, or “CYSEPA”) that provided for imprisonment and monetary fines for parties publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise spreading information that may by any means induce a person to engage in an unlawful sexual transaction. The Court cited its earlier precedents holding that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech was not absolute and that lawmakers may impose restrictions through clear and unambiguous laws. With regard to the Constitution’s Article 23 proportionality principle, the Court addressed the broad scope of the criminal penalty provision, which did not require that the information in question specifically involve or result in underage sexual transactions or inducement of children or juveniles to engage in sexual transactions. The Court noted that children and juveniles are still in danger of becoming objects of sexual transactions because of the wide distribution of such information and, therefore, distribution of such information constitutes a crime. The Court held that the criminal penalty provision in question was a rational and necessary means of achieving the significant state interest of protecting children and juveniles from becoming objects of sexual transactions and therefore was consistent with the principle of proportionality. The Court nonetheless directed competent authorities to design a “classified management system” so that readers and viewers of such information “can be strictly differentiated in light of the technological developments so as to comply with the principle of proportionality.” The current version of this criminal penalty provision, as reflected in the CYSEPA, has a narrower scope and applies to “messages that are deemed to be sufficient to seduce, arrange, suggest, or cause a child or youth to be subjected” to sexual exploitation. English translation available here.
Clubb v. Edwards (2019)
The appellant challenged section 9(2) of the Tasmanian Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013 which prohibits protests that can be seen or heard within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. The appellant was convicted under the Act after standing on a street corner within the protest zone, holding placards with depictions of fetuses and statements about the “right to life.” He sought review of the conviction on the grounds that the law impermissibly burdens the freedom of communications on governmental and political matters, a right implied in the Australian Constitution. The High Court dismissed the appeal unanimously holding that the statute aims to protect the safety, wellbeing, privacy, and dignity of women, and in doing so, adequately balances the right to political communication and protection of those in need of medical assistance. Because the statute is limited in geographical reach and does not discriminate between sources of protest within the protected zone, the burden upon political communication within the Act is minor and proportionate.
International Case Law
Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland European Court of Human Rights (1992)
In a case referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights, the applicants complained of an injunction imposed by the Irish courts to perpetually restrain them from providing certain information to pregnant women concerning abortion facilities outside Ireland. The majority of the Court found the injunction to be over-broad and disproportionate to the aims pursued. It noted that the applicants provided the counseling to pregnant women without advocating or encouraging abortion; and that information on abortion facilities abroad could be obtained from other sources in Ireland, such as magazines and telephone directories. The Court also noted that there was no definite link between the provision of information and the “destruction of unborn life” as contended by the respondent, given that some women who availed of the counseling services elected not to obtain an abortion. As such, the majority of the Court found that the restriction breached the applicants’ right of free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The continued relevance of this case is affected by subsequent events: first by the Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Act 1995, which was superseded by the 2018 Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act, which allows abortion (i) during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, (ii) when the fetus has a condition that is likely fatal, or (iii) to protect the life or health of the woman.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v. Stephen Grogan and others Court of Justice of the European Union (1991)
Pursuant to Article 177 of the European Economic Community treaty (“EEC treaty”), the High Court of Ireland requested a preliminary ruling on (i) whether abortion comes within the definition of “services” in Article 60 of the EEC treaty; (ii) whether a Member State can prohibit the dissemination of information about the identity, location, and means of communication with an abortion clinic in another Member State; and (iii) whether there is a right at Community law level to distribute such information. The underlying case was brought by an anti-abortion NGO against officers of student associations regarding the latter’s distribution of information on abortion clinics in another Member State in Ireland. The Court of Justice held that while medical termination of pregnancy, performed in accordance with the law of the State in which it is carried out, constitutes a “service” within the meaning of Article 60 of the treaty, Article 59’s prohibition of restrictions on the supply of “services” did not apply to the information-dissemination activity of the student associations (which was not done in cooperation with the clinics). The Court reasoned that the link between the dissemination of information with the clinics’ services was too tenuous for the prohibition on distribution of information to be regarded as a “restriction” on the provision of the services. In 2018, Ireland enacted the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act, which allows abortion (i) during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, (ii) when the fetus has a condition that is likely fatal, or (iii) to protect the life or health of the woman.