Religous Hate Speech

„Freedom of Speech: A Comparative Law Perspective offers a wide-ranging review of free speech law in Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, with a special focus on hate speech and on artistic and scientific speech. It provides a great deal of information on these topics, in a single volume, which presents a considerable value to anyone who wants to study the subject.”
PROF. CHRISTOPHER WOLFE, UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS

“The book is disturbing. It encourages to pose serious questions, in particular about the phenomenon of the persecution for expressing traditional views, which ceased to be accepted by certain political and intellectual elites. It presents the context which allows us to realize how difficult it is to address such issues. Nevertheless, searching for the answers seems absolutely necessary. The analyses of the US law could be considered a universal parable about the awareness of free speech. The analyses of the law in other countries warn us how fragile the protection of freedom of expression is.”
PROF. FRANCISZEK LONGCHAMPS DE BÉRIER,
JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY IN KRAKÓW

Ujaran kebencian (hate speech) baik yang disampaikan di media online maupun forum-forum offline telah digunakan untuk tujuan mengucilkan kelompok-kelompok yang tidak disukai semata-mata karena perbedaan identitas yang disandangnya—agama, etnis, ras, antar golongan, gender, difabel, dan kadang orientasi seksual. Dalam konteks konflik bernuansakan agama, hate speech menjadi instrument untuk mendorong berkembangnya kebencian yang luas terhadap kelompok sasaran, yang biasanya berada dalam posisi yang lemah. Lebih jauh, banyak fakta di lapangan yang juga diamini oleh pakar konflik sosial yang menunjukkan hate speech dengan satu dan lain cara telah digunakan untuk memarjinalkan dan mendiskriminasi kelompok-kelompok tersebut. Bahkan dalam bentuk yang ekstrim, persekusi dan pengusiran terhadap mereka melibatkan masyarakat awam yang telah terhasut oleh ujaran kebencian yang disebarkan oleh aktor-aktor berpengaruh dalam masyarakat.

Laporan hasil penelitian ini merekam analisis dan eksplorasi yang cukup mendalam mengenai bagaimana dan mengapa hate speech telah mendorong aksi-aksi hate crime, diskriminasi, dan kekerasan atas nama  agama terhadap kelompok minoritas keagamaan di Indonesia. 8 delapan) kabupaten/kota, yaitu Aceh Singkil, Tolikara-Papua, Bekasi, Kuningan, Lombok, Bangka, Sampang dan Pasuruan, dipilih sebagai lokus penelitian karena dianggap mewakili titik-titik panas (hot spots) konflik komunal di Indonesia. Disamping itu, penelitian ini juga berupaya menjelaskan mengenai bagaimana aparat polisi dan Pemerintah Daerah (Pemda) telah menangani hate speech dan hate crime dalam konteks konflik kekerasan yang telah mendera masing-masing daerah. Studi ini juga menjelaskan tentang kadar pemahaman Polri-Pemda terkait hakikat hate speech dan strategi penanganannya dengan mempertimbangkan Surat Edaran (SE) Kapolri No. 6/X2015 tentang penanganan hate speech.

Penelitian ini menggaris-bawahi urgensi pengaturan dan penanganan hate speech, tentu dengan cara yang bijaksana. Aparat polisi bersama dengan Pemda dan stakeholder di masyarakat perlu meningkatkan kepekaan akan gejala hate speech di masyarakat dan melakukan langkah-langkah pencegahan yang terkoordinasi agar tidak berakibat pada munculnya aksi-aksi kekerasan, diskriminasi dan apalagi persekusi terhadap kelompok minoritas. Surat Edaran Kapolri tentang Penanganan Hate speech dengan tepat menjawab kebutuhan ini, bahwa penanganan hate speech harus mendahulukan pencegahan daripada penindakan hukum.

Publikacija je pisana za potrebe Projekta, odnosno konkretnije za potrebe realizacije seminara za Vršnjačke edukatore. S tim u vezi, publikacija sadrži teme koje su polaznicima seminara za vršnjačke edukatore prezentovane od strane predavača.  Štampanjem ove publikacije, želeli smo pre svega da pomognemo vršnjačkim edukatorima u njihovoj misiji podizanja bezbednosne kulture mladih po pitanju govora mržnje na internetu, odnosno stvaranjem jednog ovakvog štiva, želeli smo da nadomestimo nedostak literature koja se bavi ovom problematikom i na taj način omogućimo mladim ljudima da steknu osnovna znanja i prodube postojeća u vezi govora mržnje u elektronskim medijima i na društvenim mrežama.  S tim u vezi, u publikaciji su najpre predstavljena teorijska razmatranja samog pojma mržnja, kao ideologije koje se uglavnom javljaju kao generatori mržnje. Nakon toga, predstavljena su pitanja koja se tiču govora mržnje (pojam i karakteristike govora mržnje, manifestacije govora mržnje, tipovi govora mržnje, posledice govora mržnje, kao i odnos govora mržnje i sličnih društveno negativnih pojava poput diskriminacije, zlostavljanja i tzv. zločina iz mržnje). U središnjem delu publikacije predstavljen je istorijat razvoja razmatranja pitanja govora mržnje u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama i odgovor američkog društva na ovu pojavu, kao i međunarodni, evropski i domaći pravni standardi u vezi govora mržnje. Ovaj deo ima za cilj da mladim ljudima ukaže na različit koncept pristupa problemu govora mržnje u američkom društvu i na evropsko-kontinentalnom prostoru. Nakon toga, obrađena je problematika odnosa govora mržnje i slobode govora. Takođe, ukazano je i na to šta se ne smatra govorom mržnje. Poslednji deo publikacije posvećen je problemu govora mržnje na internetu. U ovom delu publikacije problem govora mržnje je prikazan kroz njegove forme na onlajn verzijama klasičnih medija i forme istog na društvenim mrežama. Posebna pažnja posvećena je karakteristikama koje pogoduju širenju govora mržnje, kao i tzv. grupama mržnje. Završni deo publikacije posvećen je suprotstavljanju govora mržnje, u kome su predstavljeni glavni akteri borbe protiv govora mržnje na internetu kao i ključni mehanizmi za prijavljivanje istog na internetu.
Misli ljudi utiču samo na njih, a ne i na druge ljude, osim ako ih oni ne izraze u spoljnom svetu i na taj način učine viljdivim drugim ljudima. Tada te izražene misli postavljaju manifestacije koje itekako mogu uticati na druge. Stoga je veoma važno ozbiljno shvatiti reči i slušati ih, jer postoji potreba za reakcijom kada te reči ne izražavaju pozitivne misli ili poglede, već štetna, ponižavajuća i diskriminatorna mišljenja prema određenom pojedincu ili društvenoj grupi. Naime, ako izostane reakcija društva na njega, govor mržnje će se postepeno normalizovati i prihvatiti. Novoprihvaćeni izrazi i stil govora, ubrzo postaju deo svakodnevnog diskursa. Reči su takođe prvo sredstvo koje koristimo da bismo promenili stavove, norme, predrasude i stereotipe u našem društvu. Stoga je izuzetno važno da se nadležne organizacije i institucije, kao i opšta populacija, suprotstave pojavi govora mržnje na internetu razvojem zakonodavne regulative, podizanjem svesti i obrazovanjem mladih ljudi, pozivajući ih ujedno da prihvate međusobne različitosti. Shodno navedenom, nadamo se da će ova publikacija doći u ruke velikog broja mladih osoba i da će im pomoći da steknu kompletnu sliku o uzrocima i uslovima koji pogoduju nastanku govora mržnje, njegovim pojavnim oblicima, posledicama, kao i načinima borbe protiv istog.

Hate speech has been an issue of heated debate amongst legal scholars and human rights activists, particularly between Western and Eastern countries. This is primarily due to the difference in our conceptions and prioritisation of rights. Freedom of speech is undoubtedly important due to the values it promotes, but too much emphasis on this right has resulted in the neglect of the due exercise of responsibility, often leading to, and perpetuating hate speech. While free speech should be protected, one should not disregard the preservation of public interest and peace within society. The authors argue that hate speech can be justifiably legislated, as it does not help in the attainment of free speech values. Then, the role of hate speech in spreading and reinforcing racism and discrimination are discussed. Focusing on Malaysia, the authors highlight the instances of racial and religious conflict and explain how hate speech aggravates race relations. Lastly, the authors propose a conception of human rights guided by religious values, which is especially important for multi-cultural and multi-religious countries. It is hoped that by considering the meaning and purpose of free speech in light of the problems caused by hate speech, there will be a better appreciation for the need to balance freedom of the individual with restraint and responsibility.

Religion im Allgemeinen und Christentum wie Islam im Besonderen sind (wieder) gesellschaftlich sehr umstritten. Beide Religionsgemeinschaften sind aber nicht nur Objekt gesellschaftlicher Kritik, sondern bringen zugleich eigene Anfragen in politische und religionsbezogene Debatten ein. In einem interreligiösen Rahmen sollen verschiedene Formen der Religionskritik in ihrem aktuellen gesellschaftlichen Kontext analysiert und theologische Anknüpfungs- und Gesprächsmöglichkeiten sondiert werden.

The task of regulating hate speech is especially challenging today due to the heightened awareness of human rights. People focus more on their right to free speech than on exercising responsibility; resulting in an increase in derogatory and racist remarks. The damaging consequences of hate speech on the victim and society as a whole are well known. Despite this, hate speech laws remain controversial in many countries due to the perceived conflict with free speech. This is why it is pertinent to deliberate on whether free speech is really a right above all others, or are there justifiable reasons for restricting speech. In doing so, the paper will discuss the influence of hate speech on racist and discriminatory ideologies, briefly highlighting the position of hate speech in international law and then elaborating on the purpose of legislation. Lastly, the paper provides examples of racial and religious animosity as a result of hate speech. It is hoped that by considering the many problems brought about by hate speech, there will be a better appreciation of the need to balance our rights and the need to act responsibly.

Overview of the Special Issue

The contributions in this Special Issue address various aspects of hostile narratives and attempts at dealing with them or countering them. They discuss both theoretical and practical challenges of studying hate speech and other types of prejudiced discourses, along with educational initiatives and other forms of moral courage on the part of individuals (Osswald et al. 2012).
In the first contribution, Björn Technau adopts a pragmatic perspective to examine the structural and functional characteristics of slur terms. Taking group-based slurs with their complex semantics under scrutiny, Technau situates them in the context of hate speech, thus revisiting definitions of the latter and providing an overview of the results of previous research. Politicians, for example, as he points out, tend to avoid explicitly racist terms, appealing instead to voters’ latent racism. His analysis of the pejorative, non-pejorative and neutral uses of ethnic slur terms, including cases of appropriation, leads him to the conclusion that to get a clear, accurate and comprehensive picture of the pragmatics of slur terms we need  “to account for individual differences in their frequencies of use, their modes of use, and their pragmatic effects”.
In the article that follows, KhosraviNik and Esposito also underline the importance of various contextual factors which need to be considered while studying online hate. These, they argue can be situated on three levels: the social, cultural, as well as digital participatory level, and thus require an interdisciplinary approach. The authors set out to explore the interface between the social media communication paradigm, along with affordances it is based on, and cyberhate. Approaching online communication from the Social Media Critical Discourse Studies (SM-CDS) perspective they identify and discuss diverse ways (including a sense of anonymity and de-individuation) in which the participatory web enables and facilitates incivility and violent behavior online. Since the main focus here is on verbal aggression targeting women – online misogyny – KhosraviNik and Esposito examine its various forms, going beyond the phenomena of trolling and flaming, along with motivations behind it and its social implications.
Questions concerning gender and sexuality and how these two are discursively constructed within hegemonic heterosexuality and heteronormativity paradigms are the focus of Fabienne Baider’s contribution. Applying a Foucauldian approach to sexualities in her quantitative and qualitative analysis of online comments focused on the LGBT community, the author identifies a range of frames and topoi used to construct LGBT identities in the Greek Cypriot context. Arguments forming the basis of homophobic hate speech, she demonstrates, draw on the notions of safety and security, family values and morality, majority vs majority rules, and pathology, and form part of wider institutional discourses of social stability, national continuity, even the nation’s survival. Baider argues here for the link between nationalism and compulsory hegemonic heteronormativity and emphasises the socio-normative impact of the Orthodox Church, once again highlighting the need for a fully-fledged contextual analysis of hostile narratives, taking into account their historical, socio-political, and cultural embedding.
Jurate Ruzaite’s contribution sheds light on the role that corpus linguistic methods and tools may play in the identification of hate speech in public discourse. Such identification process, as she demonstrates, is fraught with challenges, for example the lack of bias indicators, different genre conventions, and language variation due to diachronic change. Her study of Lithuanian online comments, which involves the analysis of wordlists, collocations, and formulaic language with the AntConc software, allows for identification of dominant patterns in the representation of certain groups. Yet, it also shows that rather than being overtly manifested in lexis, aggression is often expressed indirectly through creative language use, thus requiring qualitative methods of analysis.
The following three contributions focus on various dimensions of anti-immigration sentiment and their discursive manifestations, in particular in the British context. Andreas Musolff examines hostile attitudes towards multilingualism and multiculturalism. His analysis of the press and forum data reveals that the presence of foreign languages in the British public sphere is perceived as a threat to the “home” culture and thus, for the most part, is evaluated negatively. Despite being moderated, the Internet forum becomes a powerful platform to legitimise anti-immigrant attitudes: individual narratives based on commenters’ supposedly negative experience act as powerful argumentative tools, appealing to the general public’s emotions and concerns. Additionally, as Musolff points out, such negative perception and representation of multilingualism and multiculturalism is both constituted by and constitutive for dominant media discourses on migration.
Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton’s paper discusses Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech and its reception 50 years later in view of the rising anti-immigration sentiment and Brexit campaign. The authors provide an overview of dominant themes in migration-related discourses, devoting particular attention to the threat construction process. Drawing on the insights from neuroscience and cognitive linguistics, they demonstrate how particular lexical expressions and discursive strategies can act as powerful triggers of fear and anxiety, and thus potentially influence the audience’s cognitive, affective, and behavioural responses (which, they show, had its manifestations in the Brexit referendum voting patterns). In their analysis of Enoch Powell’s speech and its contemporary social media rendition, the authors explore the mechanisms underlying the process of recontextualization and the role of this process in facilitating the spread of hostile and prejudiced discourses.
Katerina Strani and Anna Szczepaniak Kozak also focus on anti-immigrant discourse and patterns of representation it employs. Analysing texts from the UK and Polish media, along with data from interviews with migrants, the authors identify discursive strategies of othering and their potential impact on the groups concerned. Among the  strategies used with the aim of categorising, denigrating, oppressing and ultimately rejecting the Other five strategies present in both British and Polish data are identified and discussed, namely: (1) stereotyping, (2) whiteness as the norm, (3) racialization, (4) objectification, and (5) wrongly ascribed ethnicity. The interview data also provides important insights into the application of the above strategies and their effects in real life situations in which foreigners are involved.
The last two contributions shed light on the educational dimension of hate speech prevention as well as practices related to anti-extremism and counter-radicalisation. Marcel Klapp’s paper discusses programs and measures against Islamist-extremist messages implemented by both governmental and non-governmental institutions in Germany. Highlighting the need for “decentralized, horizontal and ‘value-based’ forms of strategic communication” Klapp argues that the main purpose of such educational and awareness-raising activities should be to enable young people to properly understand and respond to the ideologically loaded, hostile and/or prejudiced content. The “Salam Online” educational material produced by Zentrum für Islamische Theologie Münster, which Klapp presents here, serves as an example of an approach to countering Islamist-extremist ideology through enhancing media literacy, critical thinking and promoting “social models of coherence and commonality”.
Jelena Vujić, Mirjana Daničić and Tamara Aralica address one more important aspect of mediating hostility in the public sphere, namely translators’ work. Having identified the linguistico-pragmatic features of hate speech present in presidential campaigns-related discourse in the USA and Serbia in 2016 and 2017, the authors discuss the results of the case study concerning translation exercises based on these hateful texts which were used to examine Serbian students’ attitudes towards ethically and morally challenging language contents in their mother tongue and in English. While the groups targeted and the strategies are similar, Vujić et al. observe that translators’ moral and ethical norms are stronger in the former case, which is likely to affect the translational output (in translators’ mother tongue). The article thus brings up important questions about the role of translators, corroborating Mona Baker’s (2006: 151) argument that translators and interpreters are not “detached unaccountable professionals whose involvement begins and ends with the delivery of a linguistic product […] Consciously or otherwise, they translate texts and utterances that participate in creating, negotiating and contesting social reality”.