Module 7: Incitement to hatred

Full text of commitment VII

Context

The grey zone between the three notions of free speech, hate speech and incitement to violence or discrimination is often difficult to grasp in real life situations. Distinguishing these three categories of speech is even more complex in the religious sphere. Some religious actors fall into incitement to hatred against other believers or atheists in the course of what they consider as preaching for their own religion. There are even examples where a kind of “theological populism” leads religious actors to openly set communities against each other and to incite violence in the name of God. Political populism and religious fundamentalism are close objective allies. Each thrives on the other. Instead of acting against such an “unholy alliance”, some politicians manipulate religious discourse for their own aims. Religions can also be used as weapons – hence the peace and security dimension of commitment VII. Discriminating against religious minorities also exacerbates a dangerous phenomenon whereby religious affiliation replaces national identity. Furthermore, violent extremist groups have been using new communication technologies as tools for propagating violence and discrimination in the name of religion.

Additional supporting documents

The two legally binding instruments pertinent to module 7 are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 20(2): “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (article 4(a): “with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia: [States Parties] (a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof”).

The Beirut Declaration on “Faith for Rights” stresses the fundamental role of “speech” for individual and communal flourishing: “It constitutes one of the most crucial mediums for good and evil sides of humanity. War starts in the minds and is cultivated by a reasoning fuelled by often hidden advocacy of hatred. Positive speech is also the healing tool of reconciliation and peace-building in the hearts and minds. Speech is one of the most strategic areas of the responsibilities we commit to assume and support each other for their implementation through this F4R declaration on the basis of the thresholds articulated by the Rabat Plan of Action.”

In support of this module on commitment VII, the learning file should also include related soft law standards, notably the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence; UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34 of 2011; Human Rights Council resolution 16/18on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief; the Plan of Action for Religious Leaders and Actors to Prevent Incitement to Violence that Could Lead to Atrocity Crimes; the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech and the UN Plan of Action to Safeguard Religious Sites.

In 2019, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights published policy guidance on “Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security”, which repeatedly refers to the Rabat Plan of Action and to the Beirut Declaration. The booklet entitled “Tackling Hate: Action on UN standards to promote inclusion, diversity and pluralism”, published by the non-governmental organization ARTICLE19, explores how States and other stakeholders should respond to rising levels of intolerance and hate in societies in all parts of the world, by taking action on the above-mentioned UN standards. Furthermore, the G20 Interfaith Forums in Buenos Aires (2018) and Tokyo (2019) yielded the policy recommendation “to reduce incitement to hatred by supporting religious leaders and faith-based actors in fulfilling their human rights responsibilities as summarized in the Beirut Declaration and the 18 commitments of the ‘Faith for Rights’ program.”

In addition, Special Rapporteur Heiner Bielefeldt has referred to homophobic and transphobic violence perpetrated in the name of religion against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons: “Those perceived as LGBT may be targets of organized abuse, including by religious extremists. [See A/HRC/19/41, para. 21.] Violence against LGBT persons includes brutal gang rapes, so-called “curative” rapes and family violence owing to their sexual orientation and gender identity. [See A/HRC/14/22/Add.2, paras. 38 and 89.] There is a strong connection between discrimination in law and practice, and incitement to violence in the name of religion and violence itself. Violence against women and against LGBT persons is often justified and given legitimacy by discriminatory laws based on religious laws or supported by religious authorities, such as laws criminalizing adultery, homosexuality or cross-dressing. The Human Rights Committee has noted with concern hate speech and manifestations of intolerance and prejudice by religious leaders against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, in a broader context of acts of violence, including killings of LGBT persons. [See CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, para. 27.] There have also been reports of direct violence exercised by religious authorities against LGBT persons, although many of them are religiously interested in practising.” International and regional human rights experts also issued a joint statement in May 2021.

Peer-to-peer learning exercises

Unpacking: Participants will be asked, individually and in writing, to break down commitment VII into different components and list the various actions required for their implementation, defining which action pertains to which stakeholder(s). It is important for facilitators to emphasize that such actions and attributions do not need to figure explicitly in the text of commitment VII. This is precisely what critical thinking entails. This individual exercise can be implemented within five minutes. It is suggested that a group discussion follows for 10-15 minutes on the differences between individual listings of action points and attributions of responsibilities thereof. The main thrust of this exercise is to benefit from comparing notes among participants on their different perspectives on the same points. The didactic aim is to sharpen content analysis and critical thinking in a peer-to-peer learning mode.

Linking the dots: What is the relationship between the elements of commitment VII? What factors affect these elements? The didactic aim is to situate the challenges in context, stimulate strategic thinking and enhance a spirit of initiative. Commitment VII on incitement to hatred is of crucial importance, particularly from a religious perspective. There are obvious reasons and manifestations of this fact. If religions have often been politically manipulated, this is undoubtedly due to the heavy weight of the “sacredness” and its societal impact. Speech-related polemics are also complicated by the same factors and may have global repercussions.

Questions to be used by facilitators should build on the Rabat Plan of Action and Beirut Declaration combined, as they complement each other. Both address faith actors with specific responsibilities as follows: “(a) Religious leaders should refrain from using messages of intolerance or expressions which may incite violence, hostility or discrimination; (b) Religious leaders also have a crucial role to play in speaking out firmly and promptly against intolerance, discriminatory stereotyping and instances of hate speech; and (c) Religious leaders should be clear that violence can never be tolerated as a response to incitement to hatred (e.g. violence cannot be justified by prior provocation)”.

The debate could be animated through questions such as: What obstacles may limit the role of faith actors in countering hate speech? What are examples from participants’ experiences on cases of hate speech and what was their reaction to it? How should situations of “border line speech” be addressed? What “remedial speech” can faith actors produce and promote based on faith traditions? Facilitators can find backgrounds for their own preparation on these questions related to speech with a focus on religions in the Rabat Plan of Action and a one-pager on incitement to hatred, which is available online in 32 languages(collective exercise for 10-30 minutes).

Critical thinking: A critical discussion led by participants to define what could be missing in commitment VII could start with facilitators asking what elements participants may disagree with, and on which grounds? How does each participant, in non-legal terms, define advocacy to hatred that constitutes incitement to violence, discrimination or hostility? Is there a difference between the terms “hatred” and “hostility”? The facilitator may refer to the definitions in the Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality. What are the different focus areas of the additional documents mentioned above? (Collective exercise for 20-30 minutes). The didactic aim is to practice freedom of expression and critical thinking.

Tweeting: Summarize the commitment VII within 140 characters (individual exercise for five minutes).
One possible result of this tweeting exercise could be as follows: “We commit to publicly denounce all instances of advocacy of hatred that incites to violence, discrimination or hostility in the name of religion or belief”.

Translating: Similar to the tweeting exercise, participants could be asked to “translate” this commitment into child-friendly language or into a local dialect. Again the idea is to stimulate discussion about the most important elements and appropriate ways of transposing and simplifying the message, without losing the substance of the commitment.

Storytelling: Participants share personal experiences of situations pertaining to this commitment and how they handled them. In particular, has there been a situation where participants had to intervene to mitigate the consequences of incitement to violence in the name of religion? What types of hate speech are more likely to occur in the participants’ surroundings? Can hate speech occur with good intent? What role does culture play in this area? How decisive is the role of the family in this respect? Who are the other key actors in their respective areas and how can they better protect victims of incitement to hatred or violence? Provide examples of the positive or negative role played by the media in this respect. What is the role of social media in particular? Can hate speech laws also be abused to stifle dissent and target religious minorities? (Collective exercise for 15 minutes.)

As an example of religious leaders publicly denouncing incitement to violence, the facilitator could refer to the mission report on Sierra Leone by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt: “some interlocutors mentioned the case of a Christian woman who claimed to have had a dream in which she had seen Muammar Gaddafi suffering in hell. From this alleged vision, the woman inferred that a particular mosque in Sierra Leone, which had been sponsored by Gaddafi, should be destroyed and replaced with a church. This strange incident, which attracted some publicity in the country, was generally recounted as a success story because the Christian churches in Sierra Leone had reacted rapidly in rejecting the woman’s antagonistic message, thereby defending their good relations with Muslims and the country’s religious harmony. The United Council of Imams explicitly praised the Christian churches for their quick and clear response.”

Addition: Adding new religious or belief quotes to commitment VII (individual exercise for five minutes, followed by a reading from each participant of his or her added reference and highlight in two sentences why they find it useful). For example, Mother Teresa stated that “Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness” and Nelson Mandela stressed in his autobiography that “No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion”. The didactic aim of this exercise is to realize the multiple origins and ownership of human rights notions by all cultures, thinking creatively and dynamically about their own cultural heritage.

Exploring: How can incitement to hatred be countered through religion? Could inter-faith joint activities be a practical answer to the vicious circle of ignorance, fear and bias against victims of hate speech?
What forms can such initiatives take? How can one avoid mere public relations actions that change nothing on the ground? How should religious leaders react when facing a situation of incitement to hatred? What are the risks involved? How could these risks be mitigated? Which remedies work better in their context either by public authorities or upon the initiative of civil society actors? Do public authorities welcome civil society initiatives in this respect? Could the additional faith-based quotes gathered through the previous exercise be used in religious preaching on thematic topics involving minorities?

How could faith-based organizations use their leverage, for example as advertisers, to “stop funding hate” in newspapers and other media? (General discussion for 15 minutes.) What is the link between violence and religion? In this context, facilitators are invited to use massive open online courses (MOOC), offered for example by the University of Geneva, the University of Groningen and Bonavero Institute. A MOOC is an online course aimed at unlimited participation and open access via the Internet. In addition to traditional course materials, such as filmed lectures, readings and problem sets, MOOCs provide interactive courses with user forums to support community interactions and feedback.

Positioning: The facilitator asks participants to stand up and position themselves along one side of the room, with the left side representing “Faith actors are more often perpetrators of hate speech” and the right side “Faith actors are more often victims of hate speech”. Of course they can also position themselves somewhere in the middle. This group exercise can be implemented within five minutes because the aim is to move and take a stand, not to thoroughly discuss the matter.

Inspiring: Participants underline artistic expressions they know of that capture aspects of the commitment under discussion.

In this particular case, the facilitator could also refer to the short film “My enemy, my brother”, which tells the story of two Iranian and Iraqi soldiers who meet as refugees in Canada after narrowly avoiding killing each other. The filmmaker Ann Shin said: “Zahed Haftlang was only 13 when he joined Iran’s Basij force to fight in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. The conflict was among the most brutal of the 20th century – one wrought with chemical weapons, ballistic missiles and cadres of child soldiers. After a deadly battle, Zahed found an enemy Iraqi soldier critically injured in a bunker and committed an astonishing act of mercy. It would change the path of both their lives for decades to come.”

In addition, please find here examples of a cartoon and calligraphy as well as music.

Learning objectives

• Participants realize that words can lead to killings and that they bear a triple responsibility for what they say, what they imply and even what someone may misunderstand if they have not been sufficiently clear.
• Participants, through real-life cases, master the criteria of distinction between the three categories of speech
  (free speech/hate speech/incitement to violence or discrimination).
  They start re-thinking and acting accordingly.
• Participants gain the skills needed to handle threatening situations that could result from these categories of speech, in a manner that fully respects freedom of expression.
• Participants particularly gain the skills of formulating remedial action plans, including positive speech.
• Participants acquire a double reflex: not letting their faith be abused by violent extremist groups and defending not only their own faith but everybody’s freedom of religion or belief.

previous module  ¦  overview  ¦  next module >