Posted by 
MCGUIRK: McGregor hate speech? The state is dumb, but not that dumb
|
|
Listen to this article
If I was Conor McGregor, and genuinely harboured Irish political ambitions, then I would do something that I have never done in my life, dear reader: I would hope that the Irish Independent’s Ali Bracken was right about something:
The Director of Public Prosecutions is considering whether charges should be brought against Conor McGregor for his role in allegedly inciting hatred during the Dublin riots.
The Sunday Independent can reveal that specialist officers attached to the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation (NBCI) investigated and recently sent the completed garda file to the DPP outlining its case against the controversial fighter over his statements made on his social media accounts in November 2023.
The night before the riots, at 11.04pm, McGregor tweeted to more than 10 million followers: “Ireland, we are at war.”
These comments were in response to Ukrainians being allowed to vote in the local elections.
You might note two things here: First, that McGregor’s “Ireland, we are at war” tweet was explicitly not in connection to the stabbings that precipitated the 2023 Dublin riots. In fact, as Ms Bracken notes, it was in reference to voting rights in the 2024 local elections.
You will note something else: That were Mr. McGregor to be charged with inciting those riots tomorrow, then he will have faced charges before the alleged perpetrator of those stabbings has been tried in court. The justice system would arguably be moving more quickly to prosecute dubiously-related tweets than it would be moving to address the actual stabbing of children.
If you were McGregor, in those circumstances, you probably couldn’t either pay or pray for better publicity.
That said, I do not for one moment believe it will happen, purely on the grounds that the Irish state is dumb, but not this dumb.
First, even if you think you can get McGregor to trial, good luck finding a jury you can be confident would convict him. It would only take three jurors to think “he’s entitled to his opinion now, to be fair” to sink the whole thing.
Second, even if you could charge and convict him, the public relations impact internationally would be close to disastrous. This is a man – and yours truly is on record as not being a fan – who has tens of millions of devoted fans internationally. It is one thing to nab him were he convincingly suspected of an actual crime, but for Ireland to lock up one of its premier sportsmen (which he is, like it or not) on the grounds that he sent some politically-charged tweets would be an act of reputational self-combustion so explosive that even the most intellectually-challenged Irish official can probably spot it ahead of time.
They chose not to charge him for an alleged rape for which he was later found civilly liable. And we think they’re going to charge him instead for tweets? The left-wing feminists (both here and at home) will love that, let me tell you. Love it.
Third, what would be the central issue litigated in the most high-profile crime of the year? Well, to be convicted of hate speech and incitement, there must be evidence that your views were hateful and that they incited violence.
And what would Mr. McGregor’s defence be? I’m just going to throw out a possibility here: That Mr. McGregor would argue to the court (and the assembled media) that his words were substantially true in fact.
We know from Mr. McGregor’s ongoing saga in the courts with Nikita Hand that he has access to well-funded and highly capable legal counsel. He also has the funds to fly in, if necessary, expert witnesses. The trial might ultimately become a 12-person referendum, with the state trying to convince the Jury that McGregor’s tweet was wrong and dangerous, and McGregor’s legal team arguing that it was true and proportionate. What are the political implications if the state loses that argument?
What are the political implications from the Irish media having to cover that argument, and report the details of Mr. McGregor’s defence? We might suddenly have RTE having to somberly report on the situation in some small Irish town somewhere where the locals feel imprisoned (rightly or wrongly) in their own homes, if Mr. McGregor adduced that in evidence. If the prospect of a McGregor trial for this stuff bothers you, then just imagine how it is viewed in Montrose.
The politics of this are a lose-lose for the Government. Even were it somehow to prevail at trial (and colour me a skeptic) what would they achieve? They would simply have made a martyr out of Mr. McGregor amongst his fans, and they would have persuaded precisely nobody. They would also, I suspect, have incurred the wrath of the White House, home to a man who amongst other things is the world’s biggest MMA fan.
I am not suggesting here that such a trial would elect Mr. McGregor to anything – Nikita Hand has already seen to that, I imagine. But people are more than capable of believing two things simultaneously, for example that Mr. McGregor is not worthy of the Aras but not worthy of jail for tweeting either.
In the meantime, Ireland would play host to the biggest international circus in years. Irish politicians travelling internationally would find that they were asked about little else. An already radicalised pro-McGregor fringe would become more radicalised. There might even be further riots.
No, this will not happen. But the possibility of it sold a few copies of the Sunday Independent, and probably tickled a few left-wing libidos along the way. So, for Ali Bracken, job done.
In the meantime, if I’m wrong on this, I’ll eat my share of humble pie. But reader: On this one, I won’t be wrong.
Who Watches the Watchers? 