Combatting Hate Speech and Incitement to Violence for the Prevention of Atrocities: Lessons from Asia-Pacific

Dr Cecilia Jacob (Australian National University) writes on hate speech and its role in the production of atrocity violence, outlining some key findings from the GAAMAC group’s November 2021 report on preventing hate speech, incitement, and discrimination. 

As in many parts of the world, the Asia-Pacific region has experienced the rise of populist and militarised governments, coinciding with a rise in hate speech and incitement to violence. The persecution of ethnic and religious minorities persists in many countries in the region, and sadly the covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated many underlying tensions that has lowered tolerance and respect.

Hate speech and incitement to violence, when tolerated or promoted by political and religious leaders, is an important risk factor for atrocities.

In November this year, the GAAMAC Asia-Pacific Study Group published a report titled Preventing Hate Speech and Discrimination: Lessons on Promoting Tolerance and Respect for Diversity in the Asia Pacific.

Our team of contributors from across the region examined six country case studies to understand the patterns and dynamics of hate speech, to identify key drivers and to provide targeted recommendations for combatting hate speech. The countries included are Myanmar, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Pakistan.

In this short piece, I briefly overview the relationship between hate speech and atrocity prevention to understand where it sits in national and international atrocity prevention strategies. I consider some of the main findings from the report and point to key recommendations on the need for atrocity prevention strategies that reach across levels of governance (international to local; state and non-state), across sectors (legal, political, security, humanitarian, education, faith-based), and are responsive to context.

Hate Speech and Atrocity Prevention – the relationship

Hate speech is used to create narratives that denigrate and prejudice a population group on the basis of identity, including religious or political affiliation. Hate speech constructs target groups as an external ‘other’, marginalising and at times justifying the use of violence for the purpose of internal preservation. Hate speech may lead to incitement to violence, where there is a direct call to take violent action against a target population group.

In many instances, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing tensions within communities. In some contexts, it has been a catalyst for discriminatory targeting of minority groups who are accused of spreading the virus based on discriminatory stereotypes and misinformation.

When considering responses to address hate speech, discrimination and incitement to violence, it is important to account for the unique social and political contexts, including historical grievances and structures of discrimination. The vernacular of hate speech carries specific meaning in local and national discourses, requiring a nuanced understanding of these complex dynamics.

There are broad patterns that emerge from historical studies, however, that help us to understand under what conditions hate speech may be used to incite violence and evolve into widespread violence that targets a population based on their identity. When linking hate speech to atrocity risk it is important to note that increased hate rhetoric and incitement are common (but not universal) in patterns of genocide and atrocities.

The presence of hate speech and incitement are indicators among other early warning signs of genocide and atrocities that a population is at heightened risk of atrocities occurring. The presence of hate speech does not guarantee that atrocities will occur; atrocities may occur in the absence of hate speech, and not all instances of intensified hate speech and incitement lead to atrocities.

An early warning analysis, therefore, will examine the presence of hate speech and incitement alongside other risk factors that would increase the likelihood of widespread violence if a ‘trigger’ event occurs (e.g. assassinations, elections, coup, change in conflict dynamic, crackdown on protestors, riots).

Taking into consideration the contingent and complex contexts of hate speech and incitement to violence, the case studies in our report provided in depth analysis of specific cases of hate speech that transpired into targeted violence, and examined the following areas identified as crucial for combatting hate speech to develop specific recommendations for countering hate speech:

• Legal frameworks including constitutions, civil and penal codes that provide protection for minorities, and proscribing hate speech and discrimination.
• Political leadership
• Institutional and policy environment
• Role of civil society and faith-based actors
• Transitional Justice and efforts to deal with legacies of impunity that foster divisions between groups
• Diplomatic and multilateral support at regional and/or international levels, supporting legal, governance and security sector reform, resourcing government and civil society to combat hate speech

Some key findings and recommendations from the report include:

First, legacies of impunity and the construction of historical narratives that denigrate minority groups determine the form and content of hate speech. Accountability for historical grievances is crucial, and must include reshaping the narratives of nationhood and belonging when they are exclusionary and discriminatory.

Second, legal and governance institutions can determine whether a situation is conducive to hate speech, and whether authorities have the capacity to mitigate the escalation of violence. Political leadership must reinforce legal protections and uphold fair process to legitimise existing legal and institutional protections. We offer wide-ranging recommendations for institutional and legal reform and implementation in the report.

Third, we show that external pressure from the international community, including governments, IOs, civil society and faith-based actors can yield important outcomes for persecuted minorities. However, in most instances, the international community has paid little attention to episodes of communal violence, or systematic violations of the human rights of ethnic and religious minorities. We recommend that members of the international community consistently employ diplomatic and public platforms to call out deeply entrenched patterns of discrimination and targeting within states.

Finally, social media is the now the key platform for the dissemination of hate speech and incitement to violence in the Asia-Pacific region. State and non-state actors must increase their understanding of how these platforms are being used, and greater regulation is needed to govern hate speech in the digital space.

Dr Cecilia Jacob is a research fellow in the Department of International Relations, The Australian National University. She is the co-editor-in-chief of the journal Global Responsibility to Protect, co-chair of the GAAMAC Asia Pacific Study Group. She is published widely on international norms and governance of protection and R2P, her recent publications include Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: A Future Agenda, (co-edited, 2020).

Cecilia.Jacob@anu.edu.au; @CeciliaJacob_IR

If you are interested in submitting a blog post for the ECR2P’s Fresh Perspectives series, then please contact Richard Illingworth by Email (r.illingworth@leeds.ac.uk) or Twitter (@RJI95).