Hate Speech Bill: The Final Padlock on Nigerians’ Lips (Part 3)
Introduction
In our last two outings, we have seen that the intendment of the Hate Speech Bill itself, which is obviously draconian and barbaric, is an attempt to stifle, gag and asphyxiate the freedom of speech of indomitable Nigerians. The bill did not receive, a complete and calm evaluation. Today, we shall conclude our discourse on whether hate speech is allowed in other jurisdictions, and if so, to what extent.
Hate Speech in other Jurisdictions (continues)
Indonesia
Indonesia has been a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since 2006, but has not promulgated comprehensive legislation against hate-speech crimes. Calls for a comprehensive anti-hate speech law and associated educational program, have followed statements by a leader of a hard-line Islamic organisation that Balinese Hindus were mustering forces to protect the "lascivious Miss World pageant" in “a war against Islam" ,and that "those who fight on the path of Allah are promised heaven". The statements are said to be an example of similar messages of intolerance, being preached throughout the country by radical clerics. The National Police ordered all their personnel, to anticipate any potential conflicts in society caused by hate speech. The order is stipulated in the circular signed by the National Police Chief, General Badrodin Haiti on Oct. 8, 2015.
Japan
Japanese law covers threats and slander, but it "does not apply to hate speech against general groups of people". Japan became a member of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in 1995. Article 4 of the Convention, sets forth provisions calling for the criminalisation of hate speech. But, the Japanese government has suspended the provisions, saying actions to spread or promote the idea of racial discrimination, have not been taken in Japan to such an extent that legal action is necessary.
On 22nd September, 2013, around 2,000 people participated in the "March on Tokyo for Freedom", campaigning against recent hate speech marches. Participants called on the Japanese government to "sincerely adhere" to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Sexual minorities and the disabled, also participated in the march.
On 25th September, 2013, a new organisation, "An international network overcoming hate speech and racism" (Norikoenet), that is opposed to hate speech against ethnic Koreans and other minorities in Japan, was launched.
On 7th October, 2013, in a rare ruling on racial discrimination against ethnic Koreans, a Japanese court ordered an anti-Korean group, Zaitokukai, to stop "hate speech" protests against a Korean school in Kyoto, and pay the school 12.26 million yen ($126,400 U.S.) in compensation, for protests that took place in 2009 and 2010.
A United Nations panel urged Japan to ban hate speech. In May, 2016, Japan passed a law dealing with hate speech. However, it does not ban hate speech, and sets no penalty for committing it.
Jordan
Several Jordanian laws seek to prevent the publication or dissemination of material that could provoke strife or hatred. Article 6 of Act No. 76 of 2009 regulating publicity and advertising in municipal areas, states: (a) The following shall be deemed an infringement of this regulation: (i) The inclusion in publicity or advertisements of material that offends national or religious sentiment, or public morals, or that is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The publicisation of ideas based on racial superiority, racial hatred, and the instigation of racial discrimination against any person or group, constitute punishable offences.
Malta
The Maltese Criminal Code through Articles 82A-82D, prohibits in substance, hate speech comprehensively as follows:
82A. (1) Whosoever uses any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written or printed material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, or otherwise conducts himself in such a manner, with intent thereby to stir up violence or racial or religious hatred against another person or group on the grounds of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, ethnic origin, religion or belief or political or other opinion or whereby such violence or racial or religious hatred is likely, having regard to all the circumstances, to be stirred up shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from six to eighteen months.
Netherlands
The Dutch Penal Code prohibits both insulting a group (Article 137c) and inciting hatred, discrimination or violence (Article 137d). The definition of the offences as outlined in the Penal Code is as follows:
Article 137c: "He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation, or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year, or a monetary penalty of the third category."
Article 137d: "He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year, or a monetary penalty of the third category."
In January 2009, a court in Amsterdam ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, a Dutch Member of Parliament, for breaching Articles 137c and 137d. On 23 June, 2011, Wilders was acquitted of all charges. In 2016, in a separate case, Wilders was found guilty of both insulting a group and inciting discrimination, for promising an audience that he would deliver on their demand for "fewer Moroccans."
New Zealand
New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting ... matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt, any group of persons ... on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons". Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.
Norway
Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual orientation, religion or philosophy of life. At the same time, the Norwegian Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, and there has been an ongoing public and judicial debate, over where the right balance between the ban against hate speech and the right to free speech lies. Norwegian courts have been restrictive in the use of the hate speech law, and only a few persons have been sentenced for violating the law since its implementation in 1970. A public Free Speech Committee (1996– 1999) recommended the abolition of the hate speech law, but the Norwegian Parliament instead voted to slightly strengthen it.
Poland
The hate speech laws in Poland punish those who offend the feelings of the religious by e.g. disturbing a religious ceremony or creating public calumny. They also prohibit public expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation.
Romania
Article 369 of the Criminal Code, titled 'Incitement to hatred or discrimination', prohibits hate speech directed against a group of persons. The offence carries a punishment of 6 months to 3 years' imprisonment, or a fine.
Russia
According to Article 282 of the Criminal Code, 'Raising hates or hostility, or equally humiliation of human dignity': Actions aimed at the incitement of hatred or enmity, as well as the humiliation of a person or group of persons on grounds of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, attitude to religion, as well as affiliation to any social group, committed publicly or with the use of media or information and telecommunication networks, including the network "Internet" shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 to 500,000 rubles or the salary or other income for a period of 2 to 3 years, or community service for a period of 1 year to four years, with disqualification to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities up to 3 years, or imprisonment for a term of 2 to 5 years.
Serbia
The Serbian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but restricts it in certain cases to protect the rights of others. The criminal charge of "Provoking ethnic, racial and religion based animosity and intolerance" carries a minimum six months prison term and a maximum of ten years.
Singapore
Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony, among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, is an example of such legislation. The Penal Code criminalises the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups, on grounds of race or religion. It also makes it an offence for anyone, to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.
South Africa
In South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war), is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 contains the following clause:
[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to, be hurtful; be harmful or to incite harm; promote or propagate hatred.
The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, several statutes criminalise hate speech against several categories of people. The statutes forbid communication that is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both. Legislation against Sectarian hate in Scotland, which is aimed principally at football matches, does not criminalise jokes about people's beliefs, nor outlaw "harsh" comment about their religious faith.
Why and How the Hate Speech Bill Should be Buried
This obnoxious hate speech bill, should be
“THE BILL IS AN ILL-INTENTIONED, ILL-CONCEIVED, ILL-DIGESTED AND ILL-PART READ DICTATORIAL, FASCIST AND ABSOLUTIST PIECE OF NONSENSICAL LEGISLATION WAITING TO CONSUME ALL OF US..... THE BILL ITSELF, CONSTITUTES HATE SPEECH”
extirpated and rooted out immediately. The bill should immediately be aborted, killed and buried, as a malformed embryo during its second reading gestation stage, before it is allowed to be delivered as a societal monster. Let me quickly warn that this maverick and intolerant government cannot be trusted by any sane person, to fairly operate such a draconian piece of legislation introduced under a law that carries the death penalty, for alleged hate speech. When has merely making a speech under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, become, not just treasonable felony (life imprisonment), but treason itself, that is punishable with death?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, guarantees “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. Nigeria is a signatory, to this international instrument. Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, also domesticated in Nigeria, reinforces this inalienable freedom that the NASS is attempting to disrobe and destroy.
The bill is an ill-intentioned, ill-conceived, ill-digested and ill-part read dictatorial, fascist and absolutist piece of nonsensical legislation waiting to consume all of us. An obnoxious law such as this, will further drive underground and into hiding, the opposition and genuine social critics, who speak truth to power and criticise serial corrupt opaque, anti-people, and high-handed polices of this government. This government has been tested, but not trusted. It has been known to be very allergic, to constructive criticisms. Its skin is very negatively thin against well-intentioned criticisms, as regard citizens’ genuine concerns. It is a government that listens to itself only, sets its own examination questions, marks them by itself and awards marks to itself. Invariably, it scores itself with A*s, where it deserves Fs. Citizens’ opinions, do not matter. That is why we have topmost government officials who shock the conscience of Nigerians and the world by saying, for example, that insecurity in Nigeria is exaggerated (VP Yemi Osinbajo, SAN); and that Nigerian roads are not as bad as we “falsely” proclaim (Raji Fashola, SAN, Minister of Works and Housing). A government that incarcerates the Deji Adeyanjus, Omoyele Sowores and Chido Onumas of this world, for merely speaking and harmlessly protesting on the streets, cannot be reasonably trusted to be a true custodian and fair dispenser of justice, under such an abhorrent piece of legislation.
The greatest danger in the hate speech bill, is its inability to distinguish between
“hate speech” and “offensive speech”, the latter of which is a concomitant adjunct of a constitutional democracy. Clearly, this hate speech bill is calculated to gag and padlock the lips of the Nigerian citizenry, and enthrone full blown dictatorship. Nigerians must rise up in democratic protests, and kill the bill before it kills us.
The bill itself, constitutes hate speech. Let me warn, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr, “Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out
darkness; only light can do that”. I agree with this preeminent Civil Rights Crusader. God bless and save Nigeria. The End.
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“The worst enemy is one whose doctrines are founded in hate, and are thus, beyond debate”. (Tobsha Learner).