Curbing hate speech; the pros and cons

It is not only minorities. There have been instances where even members of the majority community had been victims of hate speech by their being sympathetic to the minorities or causes espoused by the minorities.

by Lalith Allahakkoon

( October 27, 2015, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Government’s decision to make hate speech a criminal offence has been met with mixed reactions. While those, particularly politicians representing the minorities have welcomed the move others like leftist lawyer Lal Wijenayake sees a sinister motive behind the decision. He claims that these guidelines and legislation is being brought because there is exposure on matters like bribery and corruption and an attempt to stifle debate.

Both sides it must be conceded have a case in point. Proponents of the move no doubt see this as a means of eradicating or curbing at least to some degree the fiery rhetoric that is on display on political platforms, particularly appealing to the sentiments of the majority community vis a vis their minority counterparts. The recent attack on Muslim business establishments it is widely believed was fueled by such hate speech. The trail of death and destruction left behind by this act of incitement may have motivated the authorities to enact stringent legislation against hate speech.

It is not only minorities. There have been instances where even members of the majority community had been victims of hate speech by their being sympathetic to the minorities or causes espoused by the minorities. One recalls the late Parliamentarian Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena being singled out for hate speech for his frequent forays into Tiger territory. He was labled a Tiger by the then Peoples’ Alliance Parliamentarians which even made the MP go emotional during TV debates saying the people who labled him a kotiya should be held responsible if anything happened to his life. Even leftist firebrand Dr. Vickremabahu Karunaratne too had to endure such hate speech for his pro-minority stance.

Hence it could be seen that hate speech could have repercussions on whomsoever it may be irrespective of which community he/she belongs to. But by and large it is the minorities who are the most uncomfortable in this respect. The recent ethnic conflagration resulted in almost all Tamils being branded as Tigers and certain utterances of politicians too went on to exacerbate these fears. Today these same politicians are taking hate speech to new heights particularly in the backdrop of the Geneva resolution, with a view to inflame nationalist passions. This, at a time when work on the reconciliation front is proceeding in earnest and measures are being taken to bring together hitherto estranged communities.

In this context some may feel the need for such stringent laws to curb hate speech. But it is not only in the political platform do we hear hate speech with gay abandon. This has now extended to include religion as well. The recent halal issue is a case in point. There was also an incident where the Holy Koran was allegedly blasphemed. Such acts should not go unpunished whoever the offenders may be. The country burned for 30 years as a result of an ethnic war. It can well do without a religious conflagration. No religion should be allowed to be targeted in whatever manner.

Be that as it may, how will the proposed law define hate speech. Certainly in a democratic set up care should be taken not to impose any curbs on free speech as Lawyer Wijenayake has rightly pointed out, especially in a climate where ample space has been created for airing differing views. Certainly there should be a healthy discourse on the UNHRC resolution and its consequences on the country. But on no account should the issue be used as a handle to provoke racial hatred and communal disharmony. Cries of betrayal of the war heroes, of service commanders, loss of sovereignty etc. have been the continual refrain since the joint resolution was adopted. This, when the Prime Minister has given a firm assurance that all recommendations contained in the resolution will be implemented in conformity with the constitution.

Hence it is clear that the hate speeches that one hears today is made with the intention of provoking nationalist forces to serve the political ends of the purveyors of the hate speech. Such conduct will not only scuttle the reconciliation process that the recommendations claim to facilitate but also hinder the country’s forward march.

Hate speech one could argue cannot thrive in a vacuum. Hence the media too has an important role to play in ensuring that hate speech does not get full play in their publications or the electronic media. Today, with the powerful medium of communication that the television has become, purveyors of hate speech often attempt to gain the maximum mileage for their racist rhetoric through this medium. Certain television channels it is also evident go overboard in providing maximum space to the venom that is being spewed by politicians known for their racist bent. It is not yet clear if the new law proposes introducing curbs on the media too in order to black out hate speech from programmes. Here again the problem will be to decide what constitutes hate speech. Hate speech to some may be quite harmless to others. How is the new law going to define hate speech without infringing on the democratic right to free speech?

( Lalith Allahakkoon, is the editor of Daily News, daily newspaper based in Colombo, where this piece was originally appeared.)