R.M.B. Senanayake
Recently, some persons, including some Buddhist monks, carried out a hate campaign against members of the Muslim community through public meetings and on the Internet. Several mosques have also been attacked and some Muslim traders have been targeted by unruly crowds calling upon them to close their businesses.
Should such hate speech be banned in a democracy? Liberals oppose any ban on freedom of speech. They not only uphold the right of free speech but say that trying to stamp out hate speech curtails the debate that would ultimately discredit such speech. This is the viewpoint in the western democracies. Although freedom of expression is very important there’s a fine line where our beliefs and opinions may offend others who belong to a different group. Hate speech is not as it were an intellectual debate or discussion but speech specifically directed at inciting people to violence against a particular group of people.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in the 1950s thought unchecked speech would fan the Hindu-Muslim violence that has marred the country’s recent history. So, he kept in place a colonial-era Penal Code that outlawed sedition, blasphemy and “outraging religious feelings.We too have similar provisions in our Penal Code but we do not invoke them against rabble rousers from the majority religious community. Of course, these provisions didn’t prevent religious violence in India. Instead, they enabled religious radicals to claim offense more easily. So Hindu extremists groups sued and goaded officials to charge India’s most famous modern painter M.F. Husain—whose controversial paintings included a nude “Mother India”. They eventually drove him out of India. Then there was Salman Rushdie and his “Satanic Verses” which was banned in India and Iran issued a fatwa urging anyone to kill him in the name of religion. The Bible says that God did not permit Cain to be killed although he had murdered his brother Abel. The culture of offense varies from country to country. So, some would argue that any such banning would be ineffective. They refer to the pamphlet published in USA, which insulted Prophet Mohamed and led to widespread rioting and attacks on US embassies although it was illegal and legal action was taken against the offender.
Today with the Internet websites and social media networks like Face Book and Twitter, hate writings can be freely propagated. The Indian government has banned or censored some 300 websites spreading communal rumours.
Canada has also banned hate speech which was defined as “any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319.” The Canadian law defines genocide as the destruction of an “identifiable group.” It defines an “identifiable group” as “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.The punishment on conviction is two years’ imprisonment for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. The judge is also empowered to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. But a statement made in good faith which can be proved to be true is a valid defense for an accused.
R.M.B. Senanayake
THE ISLAND
Banda says:
I think the propagation of this tensions between communities are mainly due to the free availability of social web sites. For a start these association that represent different sectors should refrain from opening web sites and pages in those forums. Then lot of these hate mails will stop. But I have see that these relevant pages incite feelings and promote that kind of communal behavior. People will not go to the extent of putting them on their particular timeline as it would not look nice for the reputation, but will go to shop with all hate mails if a forum is set up for that. So my advice Halal, bodubala sena, Islam like sites must voluntarily withdraw. Even blogs like this. Print media don’t give that freedom to be nasty. Then some one will ask where is democracy.
Pingback/Trackback
Hardline Buddhists Drive Sri Lanka to Drop Muslim Halal Labeling · Global Voices
D Macaoidh Selim says:
This article seems to be talking about mobs and/or rioting. That’s not really speech, but intimidation.
The whole point of free speech is to avoid violence. Otherwise, we might as well bully each other all the time without even trying anything else first. The moment speech becomes violent (including mentally and emotionally), it ceases to be speech.
Social conscience, empathy towards others, awareness of the power we have over others that can be so easily abused… these are what separate us from the animals. Anything else is a slap in the face to our Higher Purpose.