University Don, Prof Kari, Supports Death Penalty For Hate Speech Promoters

In recent time the ugly and worrisome phenomenon of hate speech has engaged the attention of scholars, analysts, state and non-state actors, due to sudden and unprecedented upsurge in its occurrence, caliber and sheer number of people involved, and what hate speech actually portends and represents: it is a clear and present danger to peace, public safety and national unity.

But then, hate speech is really an old-age social problem, particularly within the realm of politics, because throughout history it has been used and deployed, more often by design, but also by default, for selfish – mainly political – ends. From the classical Greek and Roman civilizations to the Medieval period in Europe, and from the epoch of the Crusades through to that of Western colonization of Africa, Asia and Latin America, hate speech was occasionally employed to justify attacks and conquests, subjugation and persecution of peoples as well as other heinous actions against individuals and groups. In the same vein, the unspeakable terror visited on Jews, communists, Blacks, gypsies and other victims of Third Reich policy of extermination had been preceded by Hitler`s cynical and murderous profiling of them in arguably contemporary history`s worst manifestation of hate speech.

  Everywhere and in all circumstances, hate speech pitches persons and groups often as “us” versus “them.” For a fragile polity such as Nigeria`s, which complex diversity seems forever a source of friction and which fate almost always hangs on the edge of a precipice, every dose and every moment of hate speech takes a huge toll on the social fabric of society. In the words of Ezeibe (2015), “…Nigeria`s background of intolerance provides ample grounds for the use of hate speech. Directly, it is hate speech and indirectly it is ethnic and religious intolerance that led to the surge in violence in the country.” Indeed, hate speech is a potent polarizing, divisive and centrifugal force; and an ill-wind that blows nobody any good.

Nigerian media, just like their counterparts elsewhere, have been complicit in the matter of hate speech in a number of ways: as veritable sources of offensive and toxic hate speech materials; as platforms and peddlers of same; and for encouraging, tolerating or being indifferent to something so atrocious. This is in spite of clear moral, social and legal issues associated with hate speech, and grave consequences the phenomenon easily elicits and instigates.

These are the issues treated in this brief presentation.

MEDIA AND HATE SPEECH: IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL UNITY

Although we are always talking and worried about it, and have some idea what it is, there is no agreement about what actually constitutes hate speech. Its scope is wide and its meaning varies and changes in terms of time and space. This is because so many issues are involved, including but not limited to foul and offensive language, defamatory materials, inciting and unfair characterization and  profiling of individuals and people, prejudicial, false or malicious claims, condemnatory or derogatory statements about others, etc

According to Neisser (1994:337), hate speech refers to all communication (whether verbal, written or symbolic) that insults a racial, ethnic and political group, whether by suggesting that they are inferior in some respect or by indicating that they are despised or not welcome for any other reason. To Adibe (2014), hate speech employs discriminatory epithets to insult and stigmatize others on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other forms of group membership. It is any speech, gesture, conduct, writing or display which could incite people to violence or prejudicial action. However, the most comprehensive definition is by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013:4):

Hate speech includes (a) all dissemination of ideas based on racial or ethnic superiority or hatred, by whatever means (b) incitement to hatred, contempt or discrimination against members of a group on grounds of their race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin; (c) threats or incitement to violence against persons or groups on the grounds of (b) above; (d) expression of insults, ridicule or slander of persons or groups or justification for hatred.

 The simple interpretation is that hate speech is any expression or picture or symbol that vilifies an identifiable group. If that is the case, then, Nigerian media, both print and broadcast, are full of them. Samples:

1.  The media sometimes publish and broadcast stuff that borders on hate speech: news items and headlines that stereotype groups; feature stories that drip with prejudice and scapegoating; radio shows and audience-participatory programmes on topics and issues that easily provoke or precipitate exchange of insults and hatred, etc. Radio and television shows hosts sometimes actually encourage or even lead the way through their handling (or mishandling) of proceedings, nature of questions asked, how the questions are asked, choice of words, etc. In certain instances, the very choice of guests to discuss an issue is guaranteed to generate hate speech.

2. The always widely reported, explosive, unrestrained and reckless outbursts of controversial elements such as Femi Fani Kayode, Governor Ayo Fayose, Mujahid Asari Dokubo, Dr. Junaid Mohammed and the many self-styled ethnic, geo-ethnic, “socio-cultural” groups (Afenifere, Ohaneze Ndi`Igbo, Arewa Consultative Forum) and some clearly partisan, vocal clergy whose pronouncements are often laced with venom and only help to widen and deepen the national fissures. Unfortunately the media eagerly lap up whatever toxic messages these personalities spew, sometimes unedited.

3. Columnists are not left out. Their perspectives and takes on issues sometimes degenerate into hate speech. A prominent politician (now deceased) and newspaper columnist used very inciting and murderous characterization and stereotyping to describe one of the major ethnic groups as “the Tutsis of Nigeria” who are likely to end up sharing the same bloody fate with the Tutsis of Rwanda! In 1994 an estimated 800,000 Tutsis (including sympathetic Hutus) were massacred by the Hutus. Abubakar Siddique Mohammed (cited in Usman and Abba,1995:4) placed the blame on the doorstep of the media which, he claimed, ‘effectively propagated hate against the target groups, and helped in brainwashing militant Hutu youth, organized in militias, who carried out genocidal acts.” Many a column in Nigerian newspapers and magazines is a study in incitement and dangerous profiling.

4. Sponsored newspaper, radio and television adverts, reports and documentaries. For instance, the build-up to the 2015 elections was characterized by a deluge of divisive stuff in the media. The most notorious are “The Man Buhari” and “The Lion of Bourdillion,” two scathing television documentaries against Candidate Muhammadu Buhari and Bola Ahmed Tinubu and their supporters aired on the Nigerian Television Authority and Africa Independent Television.

5. In recent times the activities of the “Herdsmedia” are a real source of worry. These are media men and women that have made Fulani herders their bogeyman. Every act of violence and crime is blamed on the Fulani herdsmen regardless of evidence to the contrary. Gradually the frontier of the scapegoating in the mischievous lens of the herdsmedia is being stretched to profile every Fulani man as a mindless killer and destroyer.

HOW TO COUNTER HATE SPEECH

As argued by Vice President Osinbajo, hate speech – which he equated with terrorism – is a cankerworm ravaging the social fabric of society and a threat to peace, stability and national unity. It must be faced squarely through a multi-pronged approach, as follows;

a. Media practitioners should be educated and re-educated on media ethics (on matters of balance, fairness and objectivity), but also on matters of public good, public safety and national security. Our reporters, writers and editors must appreciate the fact that freedom of speech is not absolute, and that no individual, group or medium has any right to publish or print materials that incite, precipitate disquiet or lead to break down of law and order.

b. Journalists should be schooled in conflict-sensitive reporting and multi-cultural awareness. In particular, they must learn to avoid “us” against “them” reporting. They should exercise professional standards in articles they write, programmes aired and learn to speak to people without taking sides.

c.  Hosts of radio and television shows should be specially trained to handle particularly sensitive and controversial issues and topics, without unduly getting involved, losing control of proceedings or encouraging or tolerating hate speech.

d. Media outfits should establish monitoring and evaluation units in newsrooms.

e. The full weight of the law should always be brought to bear on perpetrators of hate speech and their collaborators. I have observed that there is a bill in the senate, sponsored by Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi, which provides for death by hanging for any person found guilty of any hate speech that results in the death of another person. I support the speedy passage of the bill and its immediate assent. South Africa promulgated the Promotion of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000, while in Kenya, after the 2007 political crisis that led to the death of over 1000 people, they enacted a law on hate speech, the National Cohesion and Integration Act of 2008.

f. Impunity against hate speech can be tackled if we begin to seriously enforce existing laws in that regard. For instance, the Criminal Code in Sections 42, 86 and 88 deals with aspects of hate speech. Also, the Cyber Crime Act among other things prohibits and pronounces punishment against, “….any written or printed material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual, group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion.”

g. I have observed that there is no provision against hate speech in the Code of Ethics of the Nigeria Union of Journalists. That is a serious anomaly that must be corrected forthwith. On the contrary, the Nigerian Press Organization`s Code of Conduct contains a clause that “prohibits journalists from any justification for, or incitement to, wars of aggression…hatred or discrimination, etc.” Still this can be made more explicit.

CONCLUSION

Hate speech, like most other social problems that beset our country, thrives mainly because of the strange and inexplicable reluctance to tackle it decisively. But we cannot afford to fold our arms and watch as it continues to wreck havoc in the land, particularly as it attacks the basis of our national cohesion and existence as one, united people. It is increasingly being used as a weapon to raise ferment, incite and instigate instability, violence and cause confusion.

The media, which share part of the blame for the prevalence of hate speech, should be in the vanguard of the efforts to curb this menace. The task, however, is a huge one and requires the participation of all stakeholders.