| by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
“Nahi verena verani – sammanti'dha kudacancam
Averenacasammanti – esa dhammo sanantano”…..Dhammapada
Hatred never ceases through hatred in this world; through love alone it ceases. This is an eternal law
( February 21, 2013, Montreal, Sri Lanka Guardian) I listened carefully to the speech of Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, delivered on 15 February in London. It was entitled “Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech: What International Human Rights Law Says”. Ms. Pillay was very eloquent on the legal foundation of freedom of speech and the legalistic nuances of hate speech. She presented her speech with erudition and aplomb.
Here’s my take on the subject.
 |
Truth and justice are unhappily mutually exclusive. While in legal terms, legislative parameters will define acts and qualitize their reprehensibility, in truth, speech and conduct that ingratiate themselves to a society have to be addressed politically.......
Inasmuch as there would be no peace if normalcy in daily human intercourse were not restored, it is incontrovertible that there will be no lasting peace if the attendant hatred that goes into human conflict is not eradicated and obviated. In this context, the classic meaning of the word “obviate” (which is to make unnecessary) is intended. Inherent in any process of racial or national hatred is a certain intellectual abdication of the values instilled in a society, through a democratic process, encompassing legal, philosophical and epistemological principles. Also endemic to hatred from a national perspective, is the preeminent role played by hate speech. It is therefore imperative that a peaceful society brings to bear an irrevocable resurgence calculated to apprehend this social phenomenon both in its individual and collective incarnations. Above all, the issue must as of necessity be addressed with an openness to unforeseen questions which may divide nationalities and races and estrange them from their foundational bases.
Hate speech may involve any word or utterance intended to injure, denigrate, degrade, humiliate or ridicule people on the basis of a distinguishing feature that is represented as inferior or unacceptable. The most insidious version of hate speech lies in hateful discourse which, if indulged in for sustained periods, will ensure its social acceptability. The inevitable corollary to this process is hate propaganda which often ingrains itself in a social system where the social degradation of the subject occupies the forefront of political discourse. Hate propaganda, spawned by hate speech, dehumanizes and depersonalizes the subject, degrading him to an imaginary persona and relegating him to the lowest depths usually assigned to a political enemy. The immediate reaction of a society to this phenomenon is the recognition of hate crimes which emerge from hate speech and propaganda as any other crime, thus obfuscating the hatred that inspired such crimes and trivializing their qualitatively different nature. The ultimate result is of course the social acceptability of hate crimes and their desirability. This odious conclusion to a parasitic process is almost ephemeral and pervades the intellectual consciousness of a society to its ultimate destruction. Extreme cases of hate speech often result in genocide, as in the Holocaust of the Second World War, and, more recently in Rwanda, Eastern Zaire, Tajikistan and certain parts of Eastern Europe.
The intellectual openness to questions that may arise from the debilitation of discrimination felt by a society of peoples has ineluctably to “meditate “on such extremities as genocide in order to avoid them. The juridical apprehension ingrained in a democratic system, admitting of “freedom of speech” has to be given cautious consideration so that safeguards are entrenched in a legislative structure in a “post peace” social setting that would prevent the use of hate speech and hate propaganda. The law must essentially distinguish between the classic dichotomy between speech and conduct, in order to arrogate a definitive place to speech that would tantamount to conduct based on the injury that the speech causes. Principles of causation must be identified in order to ensure that boundaries between speech and conduct are not obfuscated and purveyors of hate speech are not exonerated of their overall responsibilities to society. Social consciousness must transcend parochial considerations of legal dogma and embrace the compelling need to recognize and envision “clear and imminent danger” that hate speech may cause. A certain curative logic based on imputation must be ingrained in the legislative minds of a post-peace era. In a sense, this approach can analogically be likened to the preventive reasoning of risk management that is capable of conceptualising possible harm to national harmony.
Truth and justice are unhappily mutually exclusive. While in legal terms, legislative parameters will define acts and qualitize their reprehensibility, in truth, speech and conduct that ingratiate themselves to a society have to be addressed politically. This is the dilemma that legislators will face in dealing with racial hatred. Hate speech and hate propaganda primarily erode ethical boundaries and convey an unequivocal message of contempt and degradation. The operative question then becomes ethical, as to whether societal mores would abnegate their vigil and tolerate some members of society inciting their fellow citizens to degrade, demean and cause indignity to other members of the very same society, with the ultimate aim of harming them? Conversely, is there any obligation on a society to actively protect all its members from indignity and physical harm caused by hatred? The answer to both these questions lies in the fundamental issue of restrictions on racist speech, and the indignity that one would suffer in living in a society that might tolerate racist speech. Obviously, a society committed to protecting principles of social and political equality cannot look by and passively endorse such atrocities, and much would depend on the efficacy of a State’s coercive mechanisms. These mechanisms must not only be punitive, but should also be sufficiently compelling to ensure that members of a society not only respect a particular law but also internalize the effects of their proscribed acts.
The intrinsic value to a society and perhaps to the whole world, of eschewing racial and national hatred is portrayed in the aftermath of the Holocaust - the defining event of this century. Human rights in our lifetime cannot be comprehended without touching our own conceptual proximity to this and other recent events which marred the dignity of human civilization. The result of the Holocaust was the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has now stood its ground over the past 50 plus years. The Universal Declaration, which has flourished both internationally and nationally, has been supplemented by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted in 1966. Both the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant have committees established to oversee their implementation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is composed of 30 articles which asserts a human being’s just rights to civilized and dignified living. However, these articles and rights resonate just two words “never again” in their message.
It is important to remember that the spontaneity brought to bear in the powerful feelings expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a direct result of the collective suffering of people through hatred among mankind. People have duties towards the place where they live and towards other people who live with them. Therefore, any measures taken by a government toward achieving peace and obviating hatred among its peoples would be destitute of effect if it merely caters to the cessation of war. Surely there is more to it than that, such as educating our children on the viciousness of hatred and the need to recognize respect. Respect for others; respect for oneself; and responsibility for our actions.
