OPINION MATTERS: JUST WHAT IS HATE SPEECH?? The term hate speech is now bordering on being a cliché and is used almost ignorantly by a majority of the public. When a certain speech or discourse is termed as hate speech by an individual or a group, it elicits reactions from the opposing groups who try to justify why the discourse in question doesn’t amount to hate speech. This uncertainty surrounding just what constitutes hate speech is as a result of the vagueness of the term and the lack of clear parameters within which hate speech operates. Hence, many bloggers, politicians and other individuals who engage in controversial speeches shrug off any allegations of hate speech by providing excuses and justifications of why their speech is bereft of any hate. The electronic and social media is usually notorious for propagating hate speech and depending on which side of the political or ethnic divide you are in, any article or post that is considered sensitive draws positive and negative reactions in equal measure. This usually obscures any rational or productive comment by a neutral person. The author of the post thus subconsciously presumes that he/she is right as evident of the number of positive comments the post draws. The negative comments are dismissed as jealousy or purely defensive and sentimental. Others vehemently call upon their democratic right to freedom of expression and as such accuse any authority that tries to stifle their hate speech as dictatorial and repressive. Consequently, a whole new furor ensues when allegations and counter allegations of hate speech are traded between groups, politicians and even individuals. Hate speech is destructive and can precipitate a civil war and genocide as evidenced in Rwanda, Hitler’s Germany and even our neighboring Somalia. Hate speech motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some out-group. It instills suspicion and hostility between different political, ethnic, religious and social groups and thus acts as an impetus to violence and discrimination. In order to remove the shades of gray surrounding the concept of hate speech, or rather illuminate it and demystify what is perceived by many to be arcane, we have to first of all provide a precise definition of the term. The National Cohesion and Integration Commission, tasked with among other mandates to act as the watchdog against hate speech, defines it as “... a whole spectrum of negative discourse, stretching from hate, prejudice and inciting to hatred.” It further elaborates that hate speech is designed to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, language ability, or appearance. Therefore the intent and the consequence of a speech either exonerate the encoder of the message or make him/her guilty of hate and incitement. Some might argue that both the intent and the consequence of a speech are subjective and that no one can with accuracy measure them. Not all speech or expression with racial or ethnic perspectives amount to hate speech. In determining whether a certain speech is hate speech, or was intended to stir up or incite ethnic hatred, the enquiry is case by case and factually driven. The factors that may be taken into account when assessing if a speech falls under hate speech includes the language or expressions used in totality. The entire message should be scrutinized and then an analysis of the kind of language used made. Should the language be inflammatory and inciting or sensational in a way that is meant to pit two groups against each other, then such a speech is hate speech. The tone of the message is also important, if the tone is confrontational and violent, intended to fan emotions and is anchored on negative ethnicity, then it amounts to hate speech. However cherry picking of lines and sentences in order to justify that a speech propagates hatred is not allowed. The surrounding circumstances under which a statement was made could help define it. The purpose of a speech is also crucial in defining it. Where a statement was made may constitute hate but was made to show the audience the folly of their action or stand, then such a statement may not amount to hate speech. For example, if I educate a group of people on the need to embrace other ethnic communities instead of locking them out of the social and political spheres, and in doing so elicit hate and anger, then such a speech is not hate speech. The likely impact or danger that can be engendered by a speech is also critical in assessing its status. When a statement that borders on hate speech is made in the confines of a small group of intellectuals, it may be less likely to stir up mass hatred as such a group is knowledgeable enough to dismiss the speech and treat it with the contempt it deserves but if such a statement is made in a public rally in the villages where ethnic identity is considered the Alfa and omega of life, then it will stir up mass hatred and probably be the mad man’s shot that detonates a full blown conflict. According to Section 13 of The National Cohesion and Integration act, the threshold is underlined by proof that the speech or ex pression threatens, abuses or insults others based on their ethnicity, or must be intended to stir up ethnic hatred, or under Section 62, inciting ethnic hatred, hostility or violence. Use of Stereotypes and speech that dehumanizes such as was the case during the Rwandan genocide where the Tutsis were called Cockroaches also is an explicit hate speech. Finally, a speech can be termed as hate speech if it is misleading and deceitful in a way that portrays the out group as criminals. This misleading and malicious information that one relays or circulates among his in group inculcates deep resentment as the general public takes little time to think about the accuracy of such utterances and this acts as a prelude to bitter exchanges which eventually degenerate into a conflict. As the noble youth of our county, it is incumbent upon us to steer clear away of hate speech and demagoguery as these two are a hindrance to our development and well being as a community and as a society. Let’s be at the vanguard of peace making and constructive discourse. BY Abdikadir Mohamed (Khalif Goodman) The writer studies Diplomacy and Disaster Management. Email: abxika@gmail
Posted on: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:27:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015