A few weeks ago, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo declared that henceforth, the federal government would classify hate speech as a species of terrorism and off enders would be charged under the Terrorism Prevention Act as amended. He said by the defi nition of terrorism, hate speech is considered an act of terrorism. Since this declaration was made weeks ago, the debate about what constitutes hate speech, particularly on the social media, has become the new national discuss.
While some people are claiming that the classifi cation of hate speech as an act of terrorism infringes on the rights of citizens to freedom of expression as guaranteed in the constitution, others including this writer hold the view that hate speech is not free speech and its criminalization has not in anyway, infringed on citizens’ right to freedom of expression. Instead, we are of the view that criminalization of hate speech is more like holding citizens account for their freely expressed views, thereby encouraging responsibility in expression.
It is therefore important to explore the concept of hate speech as it relates to freedom of expression and determine whether or not, the criminalization of hate speech constitutes an infringement on free speech. My understanding as a peace professional is that hate speech is an act of emotional terrorism done with the intention of injuring, damaging or inciting a person or group of persons.
Or better still, we can see hate speech as an anti-peace advocacy or an act to cause mass disruption of personal emotional peace. It can aptly be described as an act of violence against the mind with the intention of instigation. Article 19, a global organization working to ensure that people everywhere can express themselves freely, defi nes hate speech as the advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race or religion. In other words, prohibiting hate speech is not only permissible by several international human rights treaties, it is actually a requirement.
All multiracial, multi-ethnic and multi-religious countries seeking to build or sustain peace must as a matter of necessity have regulations to check hate speech. Failing to do this would cost the nation more as hate advocacy would hinder reasonable collaboration among citizens from diff erent groups due to inherent suspicion and quest to guard themselves from emotional violence and disappointment. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is prohibited by law.
Regarding the claim that regulation on hate speech violates citizens’ right to freedom of expression, Article 19 went further to state that the UNHRCm has stated that there is no contradiction between the duty to adopt domestic legislation under Article 20(2) and the right to freedom of expression. In the opinion of the committee, these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right to freedom of expression as contained in Article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities. Other critics have argued that the term “hate speech” is used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented. But this is not close to the truth. Hate speech is distinctly diff erent from policy criticism. Criticism of policies cannot be classifi ed as an incitement against any particular group on the basis of tribe, region or religion, neither can it incite people to cause genocide.
As Nigeria takes the giant step to ensure sanity in its polity by taking steps to hold every citizen accountable for freely expressed speeches, we should understand that this it is not the fi rst to do so. Many countries have enacted laws against hate speech. Belgium did so in 1981, Brazil in 1988, Canada in 1990. France, Germany, Japan, South Africa, Denmark, Finland and a host of others have also done so. In Canada for example, someone found guilty of hate speech may get as many as fi ve years imprisonment.
Finally, every nation that wants to develop fi rst says good things about itself. If Nigerians truly want peace and development as many claim they do, we must be responsible in our speeches, as this is the fi rst sign that signifi es readiness for growth. No nation grows by consistently advocating hatred against itself. Hamzat is the Executive Director, Foundation for Peace Professionals
