Combating Hate Speech With Death Penalty?

Hate speech is an inevitable tool where democracy thrives. It is a means to bring to the fore opponents ineptitude in providing good governance. Even strong democracies are not spared of this devise. In recent years, hate speech has heightened with the advent of the social media. A significant reason is because activities in the cyber space are unregulated thereby spurring hate speeches, people are unmindful of what they say and post and do not take responsibility for their actions which sometimes incite conflict that could lead to a civil war.

To combat hate speech in any form it may appear, the Nigerian government put in place various disciplinary measures through its agencies such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Nigerian Communication Commission, (NCC) and National Broadcasting Commission, (NBC).  She is also a party to international instruments such as: UN charter on freedom of expression, AU charter, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These instruments have situated within them hate speech regulations, Articles 19 and 20 are examples. The Nigerian Constitution also relates to this; Section 36 on Right to freedom of expression and the press; Section 4 (a &b) on restriction on/and derogation from fundamental rights. Law of Defamation; libel & slander, also deal with issues relating to hate speech.

However, the National and integration bill; simplified as the Hate Speech Bill, currently before the National Assembly has been arousing national debate on its necessity, especially on an embedded law which carries maximum jail and death sentence for any perpetrator of hate speech. The Bill also seeks to establish an Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches. In as much as this Bill seeks to douse ethnic, tribal, religious and political strife, it could also be open to abuse.  Critics have argued that the Bill is a strategy of political ruling elite to silence the opposition and critical non-state actors. Nigeria has sufficient extant laws that can be amended to deal with hate speech, critics are then asking why a new Bill to form a law carrying death sentence. The hate speech law it is believed tends to prevent freedom of expression that took years of civil struggle to achieve.

Hate speech has been defined as any speech that employs discriminatory epithets to insult and stigmatize others on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other forms of group membership. Another definition says: any speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display which could incite people to violence or prejudicial action. With these definitions, significant questions have been raised in public discourse as to what constitutes a hate speech. How does one differentiate hate speech from abusive or offensive speech?

What happens if an opinion or abuse or even a fact is construed as an incitement? Who superintends hate or offensive speech? Will death penalty also be meted out on erring public office holders who are shielded by immunity? And who in the past has been guilty of hate speeches? If protected by immunity will it not appear that the law as always is targeted at the hapless commoners who do not have the privilege of constitutional immunity? These critical questions pose a threat to the hate speech bill. Decision on what could be regarded as hate speech appears vague and will largely depend on the context of usage and intention.

So, to raise a wider sensitization and awareness campaign on the Hate Speech Bill, the Human Rights Law Service (HURILAWS) has organized OneVoice CSO-Media parley. OneVoice is a voice and accountability coalition of select non-governmental organizations in Nigeria. The group has proposed self-regulatory system and moral suasion to stop hate speech rather than death penalty which it compared to killing an ant with a sledge hammer.

Many countries are known to criminalize hate speech but not to the extent of convicting offenders to death. Oppositions of the hate speech Bill have consistently cited Rwanda as a country whose civil war was instigated by a hate speech, yet, she does not wield death as penalty to guilty persons. It is imperative, however, to find effective solutions to curbing hate speech that incite violence especially now that election year is near bearing in mind it usually exacerbate at this period.

WAYS TO COMBAT HATE SPEECH  

Good governance: Since most hate speeches detrimental to governance and national security most times spurt from and revolves around perceived or real neglect of government’s responsibility to the people, government should tackle issues brewing hate speeches. When fundamental reasons why hate speeches abound such as lack of or inadequate provision of basic amenities and services is dealt with, critics who hold strong unacceptable views inciting conflict will be compelled to stop.

Awareness and Sensitization: Massive continuous campaigns by government, CSOs and media will effectively curb hate speeches. Increased teaching in schools and communities on the implications of hate speech is a good tool to combat the problem. Entertainers; particularly comedians who are known to jibe over issues that can be offensive should be sensitized and encouraged to promote peace and development through their jokes.

Enforcement of existing laws: Existing laws that take care of hate speeches can be implemented on perpetrators of the act without interfering with their constitutional rights to freedom of expression.

Media reporting and regulations: Robust media reporting can curb the use of hate speech. The media can regulate hate speech by placing sanctions through their associations on journalists who broadcast or publish hate speeches.

Synergy among government agencies: Government agencies such as: National Human Rights Commission (NCC); Nigerian Communication Commission (NCC), National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), saddled with hate speech responsibilities should work together in a coherent manner that will result in effective outcome.

Engagement with political parties: Since another year of election process is approaching, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and the media should engage political representatives in talks on hate and offensive speeches. Sensitization on moral and ethical standards of speech is highly salient for them.

 

Story by Dami Adeoye