Hate Speech

REPORT









HATE SPEECH RESTRICTIONS

A Primer

Methodology and Objective



This paper examines [ ] It uses the terms speech and expression interchangeably –

as the aim of regulation if any would be to regulate both if motivated by hate.



In doing so the paper examines briefly approaches to hate speech restrictions in

International Convention and in the legal systems of some countries. The United

States, Canada and South Africa are examined as presenting different approaches

to imposing restrictions on the freedom of speech.



The paper then looks at hate speech restrictions as they inhabit the world of

Indian laws. Hate speech as terror, as sedition and [ ] are squarely rejected as

interpretations of hate speech restrictions. It is a small – the paper takes as a

necessary given that hate, hate speech and its concomitants will always be and

rightly so subjective making the work of laws, law enforcement and courts that

much harder. The paper also acknowledges that in the face of a State that is

openly communal or otherwise biased, hate speech restrictions, like all other laws

including terror laws, public nuisance sections becomes weapons in the hands of

the administration.



Finally the paper concludes that hate speech restrictions are over and above all

other theories and debates – the most important approach to hate speech laws is

that which places it in the Constitutional context – for us the Constitution of

India. It further concludes that what Canadian theorists have called

multi-culturism and secular in our own context not only allows hate speech

restrictions but imposes a duty on the State to prevent hate speech.

Tablle off Conttentts

Tab e o Con en s



IInttrroduccttiion

n odu on



Part I



Hate speech, freedom of speech and equality

International Covenants and Conventions

International approaches to hate speech restrictions

United States

Canada

South Africa



Part II



Indian Law

Constitution of India (Arts. 19 and 25)

IPC (Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, 298 and 505

CrPC (Sections 95 and 96)

Representation of People Act (Section 123)



--

Bllacck Lawss ((TADA,, POTA,, Diisstturrbeed Arreeass Speecciiall Courrttss Acctt))

B a k Law TADA POTA D u b d A a Sp a Cou A

-- Sttattee Accttss ((AP ccommunall Offfeendeerrss Acctt))

S a A AP ommuna O nd A



Courts and Hate Speech

State responses to hate speech



[Asides]

Hate Speech and Sedition

Hate Speech and anti conversion laws



Conclusion

Introduction





[[“Theeyy ssayy mussiicc ccan alltteerr moodss and ttallk tto yyou..

“Th a mu an a mood and a k o ou

Butt ccan iitt lload a ggun fforr yyou and ccocck iitt ttoo?”1]]

Bu an oad a un o ou and o k oo?”



In 2002 the US President called Iran, Iraq and N. Korea the axis of evil and

followed up by adding Cuba, Libya and Syria as ‗rogue‘ states.



The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Nealy v. Johnson2 discussed the concepts of

hatred and contempt:



―With "hatred" the focus is a set of emotions and feelings which

involve extreme ill will towards another person or group of

persons. To say that one "hates" another means in effect that

one finds no redeeming qualities in the latter. It is a term,

however, which does not necessarily involve the mental process

of "looking down" on another or others. It is quite possible to

"hate" someone who one feels is superior to one in intelligence,

wealth, or power. None of the synonyms used in the dictionary

definition for "hatred" give any clues to the motivation for the

ill will. "Contempt" is by contrast a term which suggests a

mental process of "looking down" upon or treating as inferior

the object of one's feelings.‖



Thee Canadiian Suprreemee Courrtt iin R.. vv.. Keeeeggssttrra ((1990)) 3 S..C..R.. 697 diissccussssiingg ttheessee

Th Canad an Sup m Cou n R K a 1990 3 S C R 697 d u n h

prrovviissiionss deevveellopeed tthee ffolllowiingg deeffiiniittiion off hattrreed::

p o on d op d h o ow n d n on o ha d



―Hatred connotes an emotion of an intense and extreme nature

that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation. It is an

emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable

group, implies that those individuals are to be despised,

scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the

basis of group affiliation.‖



The deffiiniittiion off hatte speech iis as ellusiive as tthatt off hatte iittsellff.. We know iitts

The de n on o ha e speech s as e us ve as ha o ha e se We know s

effffectts orr iin any case pottenttiiall effffectts – tthatt iitt prromottes ffearr,, iinciittes

e ec s o n any case po en a e ec s – ha p omo es ea nc es

viiollence,, arrttiicullattes iidenttiittiies as diiviisiive,, iindocttrriinattes prrejjudiice and

v o ence a cu a es den es as d v s ve ndoc na es p e ud ce and

prromottes diiscrriimiinattiion.. Itt iis commonlly diirrectted agaiinstt grroups/perrsons

p omo es d sc m na on I s common y d ec ed aga ns g oups/pe sons

based on unalltterrablle sharred charractterriisttiics lliike hiisttorry,, rrace,, rrelliigiion,,

based on una e ab e sha ed cha ac e s cs ke h s o y ace e g on

castte,, llanguage,, genderr,, sexuall orriienttattiion,, lliivelliihood,, ettc..

cas e anguage gende sexua o en a on ve hood e c

Itt has severrall fforrms iinclludiing::

I has seve a o ms nc ud ng



advocating violence against one or more persons because they are a member of



1

Eminem, ‗Sing for the Moment,‘ available at [Records]

2

[?]

one of the above protected groups (i.e. ―kill them‖);

say ng ha v o ence wou d be accep ab e ( e “ hey ough o d e”)

sayiing tthatt viiollence woulld be accepttablle (ii..e.. “tthey oughtt tto diie”);;

saying that they deserve violence (i.e. ―they had it coming‖);

dehumaniiziing orr degrradiing tthem ((perrhaps by charractterriiziing tthem as

dehuman z ng o deg ad ng hem pe haps by cha ac e z ng hem as

guiilltty off a heiinous crriime,, perrverrsiion,, orr iillllness) such tthatt viiollence may

gu y o a he nous c me pe ve s on o ness) such ha v o ence may

seem accepttablle orr iinconsequenttiiall;;

seem accep ab e o nconsequen a

making analogies or comparisons suggesting any of the above (i.e. ―they are like

murderers‖).



This form of speech may occur in different setting public and private _ as

conversations between persons, casual group discussions, public speeches (at

community centres, in mosques, before political groups) and in the media (on the

radio, on television, on websites, in newspapers and pamphlets). It is safe to say

that in matters of legal concern it is the latter two contexts that are of the most

concern.







Theerree havvee beeeen sseevveerrall atttteempttss att tthee deeffiiniittiion off hattee sspeeeecch.. IItt hass beeeen vvarriioussllyy deeffiineed ass::

Th ha b n a a mp a h d n on o ha p h ha b n a ou d n d a

an eexprreessssiion,, whiicch iiss abussiivvee,, iinssullttiingg,, iinttiimiidattiingg,, harrassssiingg and/orr whiicch iincciitteess tto vviiolleenccee,, hattrreed

an xp on wh h abu n u n n m da n ha a n and/o wh h n o o n ha d

orr diissccrriimiinattiion3;;

o d m na on

anyy fforrm off eexprreessssiion deeeemeed offfeenssiivvee tto anyy rracciiall,, rreelliiggiiouss,, eetthniicc,, orr nattiionall ggrroup..4

an o m o xp on d m d o n o an a a ou hn o na ona oup

a ggeeneerriicc tteerrm tthatt hass ccomee tto eembrraccee tthee ussee off sspeeeecch attttacckss on rraccee,, eetthniicciittyy,, rreelliiggiion,, and sseexuall

a n m ha ha om o mb a h u o p h a a k on a hn on and xua

orriieenttattiion orr prreeffeerreenccee..5

o n a on o p n

sspeeeecch tthatt iincclludeess iinssullttiingg nounss fforr rracciiall ggrroupss,, deeggrradiingg ccarriiccatturreess,, tthrreeattss off vviiolleenccee,, and

p h ha n ud n u n noun o a a oup d ad n a a u h a o o n and

lliitteerratturree porrttrrayyiingg JJeewss and peeopllee off ccollourr ass aniimall--lliikee and rreequiirriingg eextteerrmiinattiion6;;

a u po a n w and p op o o ou a an ma k and qu n x m na on

Speeeecch orr cconducctt aiimeed att a ggrroup off hiissttorriiccalllyy diisseenffrrancchiisseed peeopllee;; sspeeeecch tthatt rreevviilleess,, rriidiicculleess,, orr

Sp h o ondu a m d a a oup o h o a d n an h d p op p h ha d u o

puttss iin an iintteensseellyy neeggattiivvee lliigghtt a peerrsson orr ggrroup on accccountt off who ttheeyy arree -- tthiiss iiss whatt wee

pu n a n n n n a h a p on o oup on a oun o who h a h wha w

arree ccallliingg "rracciisstt sspeeeecch" orr "hattee prropagganda..”7

a a n "a p h" o "ha p opa anda ”



While there is no agreed definition or perhaps even understanding of the concept

of hate speech, the above definitions do convey the flavour and essence of what

the nature of speech that is of concern for its propensity to violence and

discrimination - whether directly or indirectly. While there is some consensus that

such speech should be restricted, whether it is by informal structures (typically

3

Natan – is there a right to hate speech - Sandra Coliver‘s Striking a Balance: Hate Speech, Freedom

of Expression and Non-discrimination defines hate speech as:

4

Hate Speech: Definitions - (Dee Speaking) - Reference: See Walker's Hate Speech, p. 8 [In his

history of the hate speech controversy, Samuel Walker tells us that There is no universally agreed-on

definition of hate speech. Traditionally it included], Smolla Free Speech in an Open Society, p. 152,

Matsuda in Words that Wound, p. 23, 36, and the introduction to The Price We Pay edited by Lederer

and Delgado.

5

Rodney Smolla tells us that ―Hate Speech is the

6

Mari Matsuda writes that, ―The hate - Later, Matsuda specifies three identifying characteristics of the

worst racist hate messages:

1. The message is of racial inferiority

2. The message is directed against a historically oppressed group

3. The message is persecutory, hateful, and degrading.

7

Laura Lederer and Richard Delgado offer the following definition – ―

associated with education, enlightenment, tolerance etc.) or by legal actions with

the direct involvement of the State in determining whether and what kind of

speech and expression is harmful is the crux of the debate and controversy raging

around hate speech restrictions.



In entering this debate, this paper uses the term speech loosely to include non

verbal expressions, whether they be writing reflecting the above or symbols, in

discussing their role in violence and discrimination.

Hate speech, violence and discrimination



One off tthe maiin diiffffiicullttiies and one tthatt dettrracttorrs off hatte speech

One o he ma n d cu es and one ha de ac o s o ha e speech

rresttrriicttiions use quiitte effffecttiivelly tto arrgue agaiinstt hatte speech rresttrriicttiions iis

es c ons use qu e e ec ve y o a gue aga ns ha e speech es c ons s

tthatt hatte iis a diiffffiiculltt conceptt tto deffiine llett allone rregullatte – iitt iis an emottiion

ha ha e s a d cu concep o de ne e a one egu a e – s an emo on

rrattherr tthan a concrrette actt and speech tthatt rreffllectts orr embodiies such hattrred

a he han a conc e e ac and speech ha e ec s o embod es such ha ed

cerrttaiinlly does nott converrtt iitt iintto a ttangiiblle and cllearr acttiion agaiinstt anottherr

ce a n y does no conve n o a ang b e and c ea ac on aga ns ano he

perrson orr cattegorry off perrsons tthatt can orr shoulld be rregullatted by llaw..

pe son o ca ego y o pe sons ha can o shou d be egu a ed by aw



Att tthee heearrtt off tthiiss undeerrssttandiingg iiss off ccourrssee tthee cchiilldrreen‟‟ss pllayyggrround adaggee – „„ssttiicckss and

A h h a o h und and n o ou h h d n p a ound ada – k and

ssttoneess mayy brreeak myy boneess,, butt worrdss ccan neevveerr hurrtt mee..‟‟ “Thee lliinee beettweeeen whatt iiss peerrmiissssiibllee

on ma b ak m bon bu wo d an n hu m “Th n b w n wha p m b

and nott ssubjjeecctt tto cconttrroll and whatt mayy bee madee iimpeerrmiissssiibllee and ssubjjeecctt tto rreeggullattiion iiss tthee

and no ub o on o and wha ma b mad mp m b and ub o u a on h

lliinee beettweeeen iideeass and ovveerrtt accttss..”8

n b w n d a and o a ”

An undeerrssttandiingg rreejjeecctteed byy peerrssonss beellonggiingg tto ggrroupss tthatt havvee ttrradiittiionalllyy,, hiissttorriiccalllyy,,

An und and n d b p on b on n o oup ha ha ad ona h o a

ssocciialllyy,, eecconomiiccalllyy and polliittiiccalllyy ffacceed diissccrriimiinattiion and vviiolleenccee..

o a onom a and po a a d d m na on and o n



Thee Canadiian SC whiillee diissccussssiingg hattee prropagganda diissccusssseed tthee cconcceeptt off hattee tthuss::

Th Canad an SC wh d u n ha p opa anda d u d h on p o ha hu



―Hatred connotes an emotion of an intense and extreme nature

that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation. It is an

emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable

group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned,

denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of

group affiliation.‖9



Implicit in the definition is a continuum from hate propaganda to discrimination

to physical violence in the worst-case scenario.10

The Cohen Commiittttee Reportt11 tthatt lled tto tthe enacttmentt off hatte speech

The Cohen Comm ee Repor ha ed o he enac men o ha e speech

resttriicttiions iin Canada notted tthatt iindiiviidualls subjjectted tto raciiall or relliigiious

res r c ons n Canada no ed ha nd v dua s sub ec ed o rac a or re g ous

hattred may suffffer substtanttiiall psychollogiicall diisttress,, tthe damagiing

ha red may su er subs an a psycho og ca d s ress he damag ng

consequences iinclludiing a lloss off sellff--estteem,, ffeelliings off anger and outtrage and

consequences nc ud ng a oss o se es eem ee ngs o anger and ou rage and

sttrong pressure tto renounce tthe culltturall diifffferences tthatt mark tthem as diisttiinctt..

s rong pressure o renounce he cu ura d erences ha mark hem as d s nc

The Commiittttee allso observed tthatt hatte propaganda can operatte tto conviince

The Comm ee a so observed ha ha e propaganda can opera e o conv nce

lliistteners,, even iiff subttlly,, tthatt members off certtaiin raciiall or relliigiious groups are

s eners even sub y ha members o cer a n rac a or re g ous groups are

iinfferiior and prediictted tthatt tthe resulltt may be an iincrease iin actts off

n er or and pred c ed ha he resu may be an ncrease n ac s o

diiscriimiinattiion… and even iinciidentts off viiollence12..

d scr m na on… and even nc den s o v o ence



8

Chaplinsky

9

Keegstra?

10

[Canada hate prop article]

11

Citreon v Zundel - Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor

12

To check - 1981 Report Arising Out of the Activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia by

John D. McAlpine, the 1984 report of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in

Canadian Society, entitled Equality Now!, the Canadian Bar Association's Report of the Special

Committee on Racial and Religious Hatred, also released in 1984, and the 1986 Working Paper 50 of

the Law Reform Commission of Canada, entitled Hate Propaganda. - The 1981 Report Arising Out of

the Activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia by John D. McAlpine noted evidence of racism

and racial violence in British Columbia, and among its conclusions recommended the strengthening of

existing remedies, including the criminal offence of the wilful promotion of hatred. The 1984 report of

Deeffeendeerrss off tthee ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch off ccourrssee queessttiion tthee lliink beettweeeen hattee sspeeeecch and vviiolleenccee..

D nd o h dom o p h o ou qu on h nk b w n ha p h and o n

Thatt eevveen iiff usseed,, hattee sspeeeecch doeess nott neecceessssarriillyy lleead tto accttiionss,, and tthatt wheerree accttiionss arree

Tha n u d ha p h do no n a ad o a on and ha wh a on a

ccarrrriieed outt,, tthee sspeeakeerr off tthossee worrdss ccannott bee heelld rreessponssiibllee fforr tthee accttiionss off ottheerrss..13 Somee

a d ou h p ak o ho wo d anno b h d pon b o h a on o o h Som

eexpeerrttss howeevveerr arrgguee tthatt vviiolleenccee iiss nott an iinssttiinccttiivvee human beehavviiourr – iitt iiss lleearrneed as is

xp how a u ha o n no an n n human b ha ou – and 14 as is



who tto diirreecctt tthee vviiolleenccee aggaiinsstt.. Hiissttorriiccall ttrrutthss,, mosstt nottabllyy tthee holloccausstt,, tthee rrollee off hattrreed

who o d h o n a a n H o a u h mo no ab h ho o au h o o ha d

and iittss prromottiion tthrrouggh sspeeeecch and prropagganda arree offtteen quotteed iin ssupporrtt off tthiiss ssttand..

and p omo on h ou h p h and p opa anda a o n quo d n uppo o h and



Diissccussssiingg tthee eemeerrggeenccee off tthee holloccausstt,, onee ssttudyy off deessttrruccttiivvee meessssaggeess deetteerrmiineess,, “

D u n h m n o h ho o au on ud o d u m a d mn “



[In late nineteenth-century Germany, for example, the foundations

of the Holocaust were already beginning to emerge from

long-established anti-Jewish sentiment. Traditional stereotypes

based on religious differences developed into more deeply rooted,

academically endorsed racial stereotypes, as evidenced by the

linguistic shift from ―anti-Judaism‖ to ―anti-Semitism‖ (coined in

the 1870s by Wilhelm Marr). Pseudoscientific studies establishing

Aryan superiority became fodder for members of the intellectual

elite seeking a scapegoat for an economic downturn. Anti-Semitic

attitudes leapt from academic to political rhetoric, grew latent

around the turn of the century, then reemerged full-throttle in a

pamphlet entitled Protocols of the Elders of Zion during

Germany‘s post–World War I decline. Protocols, which was

exposed as a forgery a year after its 1920 publication, nevertheless

maintained momentum well into the 1930s as evidence of a Jewish

conspiracy for world domination. Reaffirming ideas previously

planted within the social consciousness, Nazis seized upon a new

wave of sensationalist propaganda, gaining widespread support not

for discrimination, but for destruction of the Jewish race.15]





the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, investigated, among

many topics, legal and justice issues pertaining to and affecting members of visible minority groups in

Canada. The Committee suggested a wider ranging prohibition in s. 319(2), most notably by removing

reference to the mental element of wilfulness, as a response to the threat to equality and

multiculturalism presented by hate propaganda (Recommendations 35-37). Also in 1984, the Canadian

Bar Association's Report of the Special Committee on Racial and Religious Hatred found that the law

had a role to play, both at the criminal and civil level, in restricting the dissemination of hate

propaganda (p. 12). With regard to s. 319(2), this conclusion was affirmed two years later in Working

Paper 50 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, entitled Hate Propaganda (1986).

13

Word IQ

14

Psychology of the School Shootings - Testimony presented at the House Judiciary Committee

Oversight Hearing to Examine Youth Culture and Violence May 13, 1999 by Dewey G. Cornell, Ph.D.,

Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. [Repeated exposure to messages of violence and

hatred over time desensitize many young people, distort their perceptions of personal safety, and erode

inhibitions against harming others. Scientific studies provide overwhelming evidence that television

violence encourages aggressive behavior and has a long-term effect on children (see reviews in

Berkowitz, 1993; Donnerstein, Slaby, & Eron, 1995; Hughes, & Hasbrouck, 1996). Someone taught

the kids in the Trenchcoat Mafia to admire Hitler and how to make pipebombs rather than to tolerate

differences and respect others.]

15

Destructive messages – Book notes – Harvard Law Journal - Destructive Messages: How Hate

Speech Paves the Way for Harmful Social Movements. By Alexander Tsesis. New York: NYU Press,

2002. Pp. 250. $40.00, cloth.

In our own context, several commissions of inquiry established to inquire into

riots, communal and caste violence, massacres and progroms have highlighted the

role of speech in promoting and inciting violence. The Sri Krishna Commission

Report into the 1992-93 Bombay riots discussing the violence in January of 1993

concludes:



―Turning to the events of January 1993, the Commission's view is

that though several incidents of violence took place during the

period from 15th December 1992 to 5th January 1993, large scale

rioting and violence was commenced from 6th January 1993 by

the Hindus brought to fever pitch by communally inciting

propaganda unleashed by Hindu communal organizations and

writings in newspapers like `Saamna' and `Navakal'. It was taken

over by Shiv Sena and its leaders who continued to whip up

communal frenzy by their statements and acts and writings and

directives issued by the Shiv Sena Pramukh Bal Thackeray.‖

[emphasis added]







Understanding how speech works



An interesting aspect of hate speech is understanding how speech really works.

We are instinctively aware of how and why we say certain things – the use of

certain vocabulary, tone, etc. all have a substantial effect on the meaning of our

speech. The same words may sound like an abuse or a compliment depending on

the circumstances, the speaker, the listener and several other variables. It is this

subjectivity that makes speech so difficult to regulate but its impact as discussed

above and later in this paper, pushes the argument that difficult as it would be for

laws and courts to determine which speech should be restricted, it may be a

necessary task in the furtherance of [democracy/equality].



In a case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, a language expert outlined

for the Tribunal ―a number of specific ways in which meaning permeates an

intended message and allows the recipient to make sense of what they have heard

or read:



a))

a Speecciiffiicc tteecchniiqueess,, ssucch ass ggeeneerralliizattiion orr tthee ussee off ssccarree quotteess,, ccan iinjjeecctt an

Sp hn qu u h a n a za on o h u o a quo an n an

addiittiionall llayyeerr off ccontteentt beeyyond tthee obvviiouss;;

add ona a o on n b ond h ob ou

b))

b Thee cchoiiccee off vvoccabullarryy ccan rreefflleecctt tthee autthorr''ss vviieew off a parrttiiccullarr ggrroup orr eevveentt;;

Th h o o o a b u a a n h au h o w o a pa u a oup o n

cc)) Thee ussee off rreepeettiittiion mayy eenhanccee tthee ccrreediibiilliittyy off tthee autthorr orr peerrssuadee tthee audiieenccee off

Th u o p on ma nhan h d b o h au ho o p uad h aud n o

tthee vveerracciittyy off a parrttiiccullarr ffacctt orr asssseerrttiion;;

h a o a pa u a a o a on

d) A particular group may be singled out or targeted;

ee)) Codiingg and tthee ussee off meettaphorr ccan eessttablliissh a sseerriieess off neeggattiivvee assssocciiattiionss and

Cod n and h u o m apho an ab h a o n a a o a on and

iintteerrcchanggeeabllee rreeffeerreencceess orr assssocciiattiionss;;

n han ab n o a o a on

ff)) IInvveerrssiion ssttrratteeggiieess wheerree ccommonllyy heelld vviieewss arree iinvveerrtteed,, sso tthatt fforr eexampllee tthee

n on a wh ommon h d w a n d o ha o xamp h

ttrradiittiionall vviiccttiim beeccomeess tthee aggggrreessssorr and tthee aggggrreessssorr tthee vviiccttiim;;

ad ona m b om h a o and h a o h m

gg)) Meettonyymyy orr eexttrreemee ggeeneerralliizattiion assccrriibiingg neeggattiivvee ccharracctteerriissttiiccss tto a brroad rranggee off

M on m o x m n a za on a b n n a ha a o a b oad an o

beehavviiourr orr ggrroup off iindiivviiduallss basseed on an iindiivviiduall accttiion orr eexampllee..

b ha ou o oup o nd dua ba d on an nd dua a on o xamp



In the case, the expert examined various documents on a website that claimed

inter alia that the holocaust was a lie and made statements/allegations about Jews.

―The expert determined that the documents revealed a repeated pattern of

singling out Jews, and ascribing extremely negative characteristics to them as a

group and as individuals.‖ The expert also noted that, ―there were no specific

citations or references for factual, or historical references, and assertions were

made that went beyond the logical extension of the material relied upon.

Nonetheless, the academic tone of these documents lends an air of legitimacy to

these documents and informs the context in which subsequent messages are

communicated.‖



Cohen - Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it [403 U.S. 15,

26] is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic

expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas

capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible

emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as

their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while

solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for

that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more

important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as

Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, "[o]ne of the prerogatives of American

citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures - and that means not

only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and

without moderation." Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673 -674

(1944).

Hate Speech, freedom of speech and equality



―I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it.‖ –

- Voltaire



Thee ccllassssiicc parradiiggm off tthee hattee sspeeeecch deebattee piittss iitt aggaiinsstt tthee ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and eexprreessssiion..

Th a pa ad m o h ha p h d ba p a an h dom o p h and xp on

[[JJS Miilll on lliibeerrttyy and ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch – Accccorrdiingg tto Miilll anyy doccttrriinee,, no matttteerr how

S M on b and dom o p h – A o d n o M an do n no ma how

iimmorrall iitt mayy appeearr tto ottheerrss sshoulld sseeee tthee lliigghtt off dayy – “IIff alll mankiind miinuss onee weerree off

mmo a ma app a o o h hou d h h o da – “ a mank nd m nu on w o

tthee opiiniion,, and onllyy onee peerrsson weerree off tthee cconttrrarryy opiiniion,, mankiind woulld bee no morree jjussttiiffiieed

h op n on and on on p on w o h on a op n on mank nd wou d b no mo u d

iin ssiilleencciingg tthatt onee peerrsson tthan hee,, iiff hee had tthee poweerr,, woulld bee jjussttiiffiieed iin ssiilleencciingg

n n n ha on p on han h h had h pow wou d b u d n n n

mankiind..” Howeevveerr,, eevveen Miilll ccannott arrgguee fforr a lliimiittlleessss ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and hiiss lliimiittattiion

mank nd ” How n M anno a u o a m dom o p h and h m a on

ttakeess tthee fforrm off whatt iiss now known ass tthee Harrm Prriincciipllee ii..ee.. “…tthee onllyy purrpossee fforr whiicch

ak h o m o wha now known a h Ha m P n p “… h on pu po o wh h

poweerr ccan bee rriigghttffulllyy eexeerrcciisseed ovveerr anyy meembeerr off a cciivviilliisseed ccommuniittyy,, aggaiinsstt hiiss wiilll,, iiss tto

pow an b h u x d o an m m b o a d ommun a a n h w o

prreevveentt harrm tto ottheerrss..” So tthee queessttiion rreealllyy iiss whatt fforrm off sspeeeecch ccan ccaussee harrm – and whatt

p n ha m o o h ” So h qu on a wha o m o p h an au ha m – and wha

harrm arree wee sspeeakiingg off iimmiineentt,, phyyssiiccall,, eemottiionall? – tto add diissccussssiionss on tthee harrm

ha m a w p ak n o mm n n ph a mo ona ? – o add d u on on h ha m

prriincciipllee]]

p n p



[It has also been argued that the harm principle sets too high a standard. Joel

Feinberg argues instead for the ‗offence principle‘ i.e. some forms of expression

should be barred as they are very offensive. The problem, of course, is what

standard to apply. From whose point of view should the speech be offensive. If

one were to take the lowest common denominator we may end up judging from

the viewpoint of an overly sensitive person.



[[Whiillee tthee abovvee arrggumeenttss ttakee tthee ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and eexprreessssiion ass tthee hiiggheesstt prriincciipllee

W h h abo a um n ak h dom o p h and xp on a h h h p n p

and ttrryy tto ccarrvvee outt eexcceepttiionss ffrrom iitt,, tthee „„deemoccrrattiicc cciittiizeensshiip‟‟ orr eequalliittyy arrggumeentt pllacceess

and o a ou x p on om h d mo a z n h p o qua a um n p a

tthee ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and eexprreessssiion aggaiinsstt ottheerr prriincciiplleess.. “…Thee ttassk [[ttheen]] iiss nott tto arrrriivvee

h dom o p h and xp on a a n o h p n p “…Th a k h n no o a

att harrd and ffasstt prriincciiplleess tthatt ggovveerrn alll sspeeeecch,, butt tto ffiind a worrkabllee ccomprromiissee tthatt ggiivveess

a ha d and a p n p ha o n a p h bu o nd a wo kab omp om ha

duee weeiigghtt tto a vvarriieettyy off vvallueess..”16]]

du w h o a a o au ”



Theessee deebatteess arree nott ssiimpllyy lleeggall iin tteerrmss off rreeccoggniittiion off rriigghttss and ffrreeeedomss and ttheeiirr

Th d ba a no mp a n m o o n on o h and dom and h

rreessttrriiccttiionss.. Thee llarrggeerr diissccussssiion – offtteen phiillossophiiccall-- eenttaiillss undeerrssttandiingg orr atttteempttiingg tto iin

on Th a d u on – o n ph o oph a n a und and n o a mp n o n

anyy ccassee,, undeerrssttand and deeffiinee tthee iideeall off a „„deemoccrrattiicc‟‟ and „„ffrreeee‟‟ ssocciieettyy and tthee patth tto tthiiss

an a und and and d n h d a o a d mo a and o and h pa h o h

iideeall.. Thee ffolllowiingg sseeccttiion diissccusssseess brriieeffllyy tthee arrggumeenttss [[ttyypiiccalllyy]] possiitteed iin tthee ffrreeee sspeeeecch and

d a Th o ow n on d u b h a um n p a po d n h p h and

hattee sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss deebattee..

ha p h o n d ba



Agaiinstt

Aga ns

Interferes with Freedom of speech & expression.



Thee mosstt iimporrttantt arrggumeentt tthatt ffrreeee sspeeeecch ssupporrtteerrss possiitt iiss tthatt off tthee undeeniiabllee lliink

Th mo mpo an a um n ha p h uppo po ha o h und n ab nk

beettweeeen deemoccrraccyy and ffrreeee sspeeeecch.. IItt iiss ffrreeee sspeeeecch tthatt alllowss cciittiizeenss tto prropeerrllyy eexeerrcciissee ttheeiirr

b w n d mo a and p h p h ha a ow z n o p op x h

vvotteess,, tto undeerrssttand and deebattee polliittiiccall deecciissiionss,, holld publliicc offfiicceerrss accccounttabllee and sso on..

o o und and and d ba po a d on ho d pub o a oun ab and o on

Deeffeendeerrss off ffrreeee sspeeeecch beelliieevvee tthatt unlleessss tthiiss rriigghtt iiss gguarrdeed zeealloussllyy,, tthee Sttattee wiilll cceenssorr alll

D nd o p hb ha un h h ua d d z a ou h Sa w no a

fforrmss off sspeeeecch and [[ ]] Accccorrdiingg tto tthee UN Speecciiall Rapporrttueerr on ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and

o m o p h and A o d n o h UN Sp a Rappo u on dom o p h and

16

Stanley Fish in Freedom of Speech, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

eexprreessssiion,, “[[F]]rreeeedom off opiiniion and eexprreessssiion nott onllyy beeneeffiittss ffrrom a deemoccrrattiicc

xp on “ F dom o op n on and xp on no on b n om a d mo a

eenvviirronmeentt;; iitt allsso cconttrriibutteess,, and iiss iindeeeed piivvottall tto tthee eemeerrggeenccee and eexiisstteenccee off ssound and

n onm n a o on bu and nd d p o a o h m n and x n o ound and

ffunccttiioniingg deemoccrrattiicc ssyysstteemss..”17

un on n d mo a m ”



The United States Supreme Court, considered the vanguard of free speech in 1931

attributed the democracy and independence of the United States to free speech - ,

―Had 'Sedition Acts,' forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted

agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people

against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced

against the press, might not the United States have been languishing at this day

under the infirmities of a sickly Confederation? Might they not, possibly, be

miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke?'18



Siimiillarrllyy tthee Canadiian Human Riigghttss Trriibunall rreefflleeccttiingg tthee asssseerrttiionss off tthee Canadiian

S m a h Canad an Human R h T buna n h a on o h Canad an

Suprreemee Courrtt on ffrreeee sspeeeecch ssttatteed,, “IItt iiss diifffiicculltt tto iimaggiinee a gguarrantteeeed rriigghtt morree iimporrttantt

Sup m Cou on p h a d “ d u o ma n a ua an d h mo mpo an

tto a deemoccrrattiicc ssocciieettyy tthan ffrreeeedom off eexprreessssiion.. IIndeeeed a deemoccrraccyy ccannott eexiisstt wiitthoutt tthatt

o a d mo a o han dom o xp on nd d a d mo a anno x w hou ha

ffrreeeedom tto eexprreessss neew iideeass and tto putt fforrwarrd opiiniionss aboutt tthee ffunccttiioniingg off publliicc

dom o xp n w d a and o pu o wa d op n on abou h un on n o pub

iinssttiittuttiionss.. Thee cconcceeptt off ffrreeee and uniinhiibiitteed sspeeeecch peerrmeeatteess alll ttrrullyy deemoccrrattiicc ssocciieettiieess and

n u on Th on p o and un nh b d p h p m a a u d mo a o and

iinssttiittuttiionss.. Thee vviittall iimporrttanccee off tthee cconcceeptt ccannott bee ovveerreemphassiizeed…Thee prriincciipllee off

n u on Th a mpo an o h on p anno b o mpha z d…Th p n p o

ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and eexprreessssiion hass beeeen ffiirrmllyy acccceeptteed ass a neecceessssarryy ffeeatturree off modeerrn

dom o p h and xp on ha b n m a p d a a n a a u o mod n

ssocciieettyy..”19

o ”



Advancing autonomy



Free speech is considered integral to individual liberties and in particular the

advancement of autonomy of individuals. A US SC judge noted that the freedom

of speech and expression, ―serves not only the needs of the polity but also those

of the human spirit -- a spirit that demands self-expression.‖



Marketplace of Ideas



Thee cconcceeptt off tthee „„marrkeettpllaccee off iideeass‟‟ eemeerrggeed ffrrom tthee diisssseentt off JJussttiiccee Olliivveerr Weendeelll

Th on p o h ma k p a o d a m d om h d n o u O W nd

Hollmeess iin [[Abrramss vv.. Uniitteed Sttatteess]] wheerree hee ssttatteed tthatt,, “tthee beesstt tteesstt off ttrrutth iiss tthee poweerr off

Ho m n Ab am Un d S a wh h a d ha “ h b o u h h po w o

tthee tthougghtt tto ggeett iittsseellff acccceeptteed iin tthee ccompeettiittiion off tthee marrkeett,, and tthatt ttrrutth iiss tthee onllyy ggrround

h hou h o a p d n h omp on o h ma k and ha u h h on ound

upon whiicch ttheeiirr wiissheess ssaffeellyy ccan bee ccarrrriieed outt..”

upon wh h h w h a an b a d o u ”



Thiiss vviieew off ccourrssee assssumeess [[a ffalllaccyy off mosstt ccapiittalliisstt tthiinkiingg]] tthatt alll iideeass wiilll iindeeeed eentteerr

Th w o ou a um a a a o mo ap a h nk n ha a d a w nd d n

tthee marrkeettpllaccee,, wiitth eequall fforrccee,, rreeprreesseenttattiion and ffrreeeedom..20 And eevveen iiff tthiiss weerree tto happeen,,

h ma k p a w h qua o p n a on and dom And n h w o happ n

notthiingg iin human hiissttorryy ssupporrttss tthee cconccllussiion tthatt ttrrutth wiilll iindeeeed ffiinalllyy ttrriiumph orr fforrm

no h n n human h o uppo h on u on ha u h w nd d na umph o o m

tthee bassiiss off tthee accttiionss off peerrssonss.. Speeeecch,, ass diissccusssseed abovvee,, iiss ccomplleex iin iittss rreefflleeccttiion nott jjusstt

h ba o h a on o p on Sp h a d u d abo omp x n on no u

off ttrrutthss and ffallsseehoodss,, butt allsso off eemottiion,, ffaiitth,, ssupeerrssttiittiion and sso on..

o u h and a hood bu a o o mo on a h up on and o on

17

CHECK - ‗Civil and political rights, including the Question of freedom of expression - The right to

freedom of opinion and expression,‘ Report of the Special Rapporteur Mr. Ambeyi ligabo, submitted in

accordance with commission resolution 2002/48, E/CN.4/2003/67, 30 December 2002

18

Mineesota law 1931 case

19

Citreon.

20

See propaganda model below.

Slippery Slope



“Thee sslliippeerryy ssllopee arrggumeentt iiss tthatt wee sshoulld nott lliimiitt ffrreeee sspeeeecch beeccaussee onccee wee do wee wiilll

“Th pp op a um n ha w hou d no m p h b au on w do w w

sslliidee ourr wayy iintto ttyyrrannyy and cceenssorrsshiip..”21 Thee prroblleem off ccourrssee wiitth poiinttiingg outt deeffiicciieencciieess

d ou wa n o ann and n o h p ” Th p ob m o ou w h po n n ou d n

iin tthee ffrreeee sspeeeecch modeell meeanss tthatt wee eend up wiitth a ssiittuattiion wheerree iitt iiss tthee Sttattee tthatt pllayyss a

n h p h mod m an ha w nd up w h a ua on wh h S a ha p a a

deecciidiingg ffaccttorr iin whatt sspeeeecch iiss acccceepttabllee and whiicch iiss nott.. And ffrrom heerree ssprriinggss tthee arrggumeentt

d d n a o n wha p h a p ab and wh h no And om h p n h a um n

tthatt ggovveerrnmeentt wiilll iineevviittabllyy abussee poweerr tto prrosseeccuttee iideeass,, iinvveentt ccharrggeess and ttwiisstt peeopllee''ss

ha o nm n w n ab abu pow o p o u d a n n ha and w p op

worrdss iin orrdeerr tto cconvviicctt ttheem.. IItt iiss tthee sslliippeerryy ssllopee off sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss,, whiicch ccrriittiiccss off ttheessee

wo d n o d o on hm h pp op o p h on wh h o h

rreessttrriiccttiionss arrgguee wiilll lleead tto ullttiimatteellyy ccomplleettee orr att lleeasstt ssiiggniiffiiccantt Sttattee cconttrroll ovveerr allll

on a u w ad o u ma omp o a a n an S a o n o o a

sspeeeecch..

p h



„Chilling effect‟



The argument that hate speech restrictions lead to a ‗chilling effect‘ on the

freedom of speech and expression has been used in US and Canadian cases with

of course separate effects.



In Citreon v. Zundel, the Canadian Association for Free Expression acting as

Intervener opined before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that journalists are

afraid of losing their livelihood, and that editors are fearful of the prospect of an

accusation that they are anti-Semitic and the application of hate speech restrictions

would mean that he, himself, for instance would rather take down his magazine‘s

website than face such complaints or accusations. He gave an instance of when he

was the editor and a story was published on residential schools that resulted in a

complaint being made before the Alberta Human Rights Commission under an

anti-hate clause. The objectionable part of the story suggested that for some

Indians, the residential schools were not as bad as they were normally portrayed.

The Tribunal similarly heard from other witnesses how the restriction on hate

speech particularly in the realm of the Internet had impeded their freedom of

speech and expression. For instance, one witness spoke of shutting down his ISP

business due to the accusation that he was a hate monger by virtue of the websites

he hosted for his clients.



IIn tthee Canadiian ccassee tthee Trriibunall notteed tthatt tthee eevviideenccee orr ottheerrwiissee off a cchiillliingg eefffeecctt on

n h Canad an a h T buna no d ha h d n o o h w o a h n on

ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch wass iirrrreelleevvantt tto ttheeiirr deecciissiion aboutt tthee cconssttiittuttiionall vvalliidiittyy off hattee sspeeeecch

dom o p h wa an o h d on abou h on u ona a d o ha p h

rreessttrriiccttiionss.. Theeyy ffurrttheerr notteed tthatt tthee iinssttancceess ggiivveen byy tthee wiittneesssseess weerree iin ffacctt tthossee wheerree

on Th u h no d ha h n an nb h w n w n a ho wh

ottheerr peerrssonss orr morrall/publliicc prreessssurree and nott tthee ffeearr off ccompllaiinttss undeerr human rriigghttss

o h p on o mo a /pub p u and no h a o omp a n und human h

lleeggiissllattiion had rreessulltteed iin tthee „„cchiillliingg eefffeecctt..‟‟

a on had u d n h h n



Vagueness - Defining hate speech

As discussed in the [Introduction] there are many definitions of hate speech and

as we will see below in legal [discourse] these range from the narrowest (fighting

words) to the broadest where hate speech is treated not only as a crime but as



21

David Van Mill, Freedom of Speech, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, [IMPORTANT:

Freedom of Speech]

discrimination.



As some ask, ―is the definition in terms of what the speech reflects, such as

bigotry, bias, prejudice, anger, ignorance, and fear? Or what the speech conveys:

intimidation, vilification, subjugation, eradication? Does it matter whether the

speech occurs in a face-to-face encounter, in an online diatribe, in a novel, in a

newscast, during a classroom presentation, or as part of a political candidate's

campaign? Can hate speech be defined as a list of words, or does the context of

those words count? Which is more important in determining hate speech, the

intent of the speaker or the reaction of the audience?‖22



The problem arises not just in definitions but also in the practical applications of

hate laws. Is there really an objective way in which hate laws can be applied? Will

convictions (assuming these are criminal laws) depend on the vagaries of the

judges? If there is no objective way to determine what amounts to hate speech

what deterrent value could it possibly have?



Hate speech restrictions do not deal with hate



An iimporrttantt arrggumeentt aggaiinsstt hattee sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss iiss tthatt ttheeyy do nott cchanggee tthee iideeass orr tthee

An mpo an a um n a a n ha p h on ha h do no han h d a o h

hattee beehiind ttheem.. Worrssee,, iitt iiss arrggueed,, “drriivviingg a bad iideea undeerrggrround ggiivveess iitt an aurra off

ha b h nd h m Wo a u d “d n a bad d a und ound an a u a o

marrttyyrrdom and alllowss iittss advvoccatteess tto ccllaiim tthatt tthossee who ssupprreessss iitt ccan''tt affforrd tto lleett iitt bee

ma dom and a ow ad o a o a m ha ho who upp an a o d o b

heearrd..” The only way to deal with hate speech is real y through debate and discussion and not

ha d” 23 The only way to deal with hate speech is real ly through debate and discussion and not



tthrrouggh lleeggall rreeggullattiion fforr ssucch deebatteess and diissccussssiionss iitt musstt bee allloweed tto ssurrffaccee..24 Thiiss iiss

h ou h a u a on o u h d ba and d u on mu b a ow d o u a Th

drrawn ffrrom Toccqueevviilllee‟‟ss arrggumeentt tthatt peeopllee mayy bee heessiittantt tto sspeeak ffrreeeellyy nott beeccaussee off ffeearr

d awn om To qu a um n ha p op ma b h an o p ak n o b au o a

off ggovveerrnmeentt rreettrriibuttiion butt beeccaussee off ssocciiall prreessssurreess.. Wheen an iindiivviiduall announcceess an

o o nm n bu on bu b au o o a p u Wh n an nd dua announ an

unpopullarr opiiniion,, hee orr sshee mayy ffaccee tthee diissdaiin off ttheeiirr ccommuniittyy orr eevveen bee ssubjjeecctteed tto

unpopu a op n on h o h ma a h d da n o h ommun o n b ub d o

vviiolleentt rreeaccttiionss..25 IItt iiss arrggueed tthatt diissttiinccttiionss musstt bee drrawn beettweeeen hattee sspeeeecch,, hattee ccrriimeess

o n a on a u d ha d n on mu b d awn b w n ha p h ha m

and tthee ssiilleencciingg off vviiccttiim ggrroupss and whiillee hattee ccaussee ttheessee,, hattee sspeeeecch doeess nott neecceessssarriillyy ccaussee

and h n n o m oup and wh ha au h ha p h do no n a au

ttheem and hattee sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss accccorrdiinggllyy ccannott bee tthee anssweerr fforr ttheem..26

h m and ha p h on a o d n anno b h an w o h m



Crriittiiccss off tthiiss possiittiion holld tthatt ssucch possiittiion deepeendss on tthee prreessumeed ggoodwiilll off tthossee purrvveeyyiingg

C o h po on ho d ha u h po on d p nd on h p um d oodw o ho pu n

hattee sspeeeecch.. IItt assssumeess ((ssomeettiimeess wiitthoutt prrooff)) tthatt onee ccan avvoiid iincciitteemeentt tto murrdeerr and

ha p h a um om m w hou p oo ha on an a o d n m n o mu d and

ggeenocciidee byy diissccussssiion allonee..27

no d b d u on a on



Prromottiingg ttolleerranccee

P omo n o an



Anottheerr eexpllanattiion iiss tthatt iitt iiss iintteeggrrall tto ttolleerranccee,, whiicch sshoulld bee a bassiicc vvalluee iin ourr

Ano h xp ana on ha n a o o an wh h hou d b a ba a u n ou

ssocciieettyy.. Prroffeessssorr Leeee Bollliinggeerr iiss an advvoccattee off tthiiss vviieew and arrggueess tthatt "tthee ffrreeee sspeeeecch

o P o o L Bo n an ad o a o h w and a u ha " h p h

prriincciipllee iinvvollvveess a sspeecciiall acctt off ccarrvviingg outt onee arreea off ssocciiall iintteerraccttiion fforr eexttrraorrdiinarryy

p n p n o a p a a o a n ou on a a o o a n a on o x ao d na



22

Must a civil society be a censored society – firstamendmentcenter.org

23

[?]

24

The only way to end hate speech is to change the hearts and minds of people around the globe. -

Mathew Cantrall

25

Word IQ

26

Must a civil society be a censored society – firstamendmentcenter.org

27

Word IQ

sseellff--rreessttrraiintt,, tthee purrpossee off whiicch iiss tto deevveellop and deemonssttrrattee a ssocciiall ccapacciittyy tto cconttrroll

a n h pu po o wh h o d op and d mon a a o a apa o on o

ffeeeelliinggss eevvokeed byy a hosstt off ssocciiall eenccountteerrss.." Thee ffrreeee sspeeeecch prriincciipllee iiss lleefftt wiitth tthee cconcceerrn off

n ok d b a ho o o a n oun " Th p hp n p w h h on n o

notthiingg lleessss tthan heellpiingg tto sshapee "tthee iintteellleeccttuall ccharracctteerr off tthee ssocciieettyy.."

no h n han h p n o hap " h n ua ha a o h o "

Thiiss ccllaiim iiss tto ssayy tthatt ttolleerranccee iiss a deessiirrabllee,, iiff nott eesssseenttiiall,, vvalluee,, and tthatt prrotteeccttiingg

Th a m o a h a o a n a d ab no n a a u and ha p o n

unpopullarr sspeeeecch iiss iittsseellff an acctt off ttolleerranccee.. Succh ttolleerranccee sseerrvveess ass a modeell tthatt eenccourraggeess

unpopu a p h an a o o a n S u h o a n a a mod ha n ou a

morree ttolleerranccee tthrrougghoutt ssocciieettyy.. Crriittiiccss arrgguee tthatt ssocciieettyy neeeed nott bee ttolleerrantt off tthee iinttolleerranccee

mo o an h ou hou o C a u ha o n d no b o an o h n o an

off ottheerrss,, ssucch ass tthossee who advvoccattee ggrreeatt harrm,, eevveen ggeenocciidee.. Prreevveenttiingg ssucch harrmss iiss ccllaiimeed

o oh u h a ho who ad o a a ha m n no d P n n u h ha m amd

tto bee mucch morree iimporrttantt tthan beeiingg ttolleerrantt off tthossee who arrgguee fforr ttheem..

o b mu h mo mpo an han b n o an o ho who a u o h m



Must a civil society be a censored society _firstamendment.org

Laws against hate speech would obviate the benefits of such speech — and there

are benefits. Hate speech uncovers the haters. It exposes the ignorance, fear, and

incoherence in their views. It warns, prepares, and galvanizes the targets. It

provides the police with suspects and the prosecutors with evidence in the event

of a crime. It enlivens the bystanders. It demands response. And it demonstrates

the strength of our commitment to the tolerance of intolerance and the primacy

of freedom of expression.



Political Correctness Campaign



And finally, it is argued that hate speech restrictions represent nothing more than

a political correctness campaign gone horribly wrong. It is argued that they have

emotional and symbolic appeal with little or no utility.28



For



Deemoccrrattiicc cciittiizeensshiip orr eequalliittyy

D mo a z n h p o qua



Cattheerriinee Macckiinnon iin diissccussssiingg ffeemiiniisstt [[ ]] iiss mosstt nottabllyy lliinkeed tto tthee iinttrroduccttiion off tthee

Ca h n Ma k nnon n d u n m n mo no ab nk d o h n odu on o h

„„eequalliittyy‟‟ arrggumeentt iin prromottiingg rreessttrriiccttiionss on porrnoggrraphyy whiicch iiss deeffiineed ass “…tthee ggrraphiicc

qua a um n n p omo n on on po no aph wh h d n d a “… h aph

sseexualllyy eexplliicciitt ssuborrdiinattiion off womeen tthrrouggh piicctturreess orr worrdss tthatt allsso iincclludeess womeen

xua xp ubo d na on o wom n h ou h p u o wo d ha a o n ud wom n

deehumaniizeed ass sseexuall objjeeccttss,, tthiinggss,, orr ccommodiittiieess;; eenjjoyyiingg paiin orr humiilliiattiion orr rrapee;;

d human z d a xua ob h n o ommod n o n pa n o hum a on o ap

beeiingg ttiieed up,, ccutt up,, muttiillatteed,, brruiisseed,, orr phyyssiiccalllyy hurrtt;; iin posstturreess off sseexuall ssubmiissssiion orr

b n d up u up mu a d b u d o ph a hu n po u o xua ubm on o

sseerrvviilliittyy orr diisspllayy;; rreeducceed tto bodyy parrttss,, peeneettrratteed byy objjeeccttss orr aniimallss,, orr prreesseentteed iin

o d p a du d o bod pa p n a d b ob o an m a o p n d n

sscceenarriioss off deeggrradattiion,, iinjjurryy,, ttorrtturree;; sshown ass ffiilltthyy orr iinffeerriiorr;; blleeeediingg,, brruiisseed orr hurrtt iin a

na o o d ada on n u o u hown a h o n o b d n b u d o hu n a

ccontteextt whiicch makeess ttheessee ccondiittiionss sseexuall..”29 Shee arrggueess tthatt porrnoggrraphyy porrttrrayyss womeen iin

on x wh h mak h ond on xua ” Sh a u ha po no aph po a wom n n

a manneerr tthatt undeerrmiineess ttheeiirr eeqaull ssttattuss ass womeen.. Shee ssttatteess fforr iinssttanccee ggiivviingg tthee eexampllee

a mann ha und m n h qau a u a wom n Sh a o n an n h xamp

off ggiivviingg a ccommand tto a dogg tto attttacck tthatt iin ssucch ccasseess iitt iiss nott onllyy diifffiicculltt butt [[ ]] tto

o n a ommand o a do o a a k ha n u h a n o o n d u bu o

diissttiingguiissh tthee sspeeeecch ffrrom tthee vviiolleenccee iitt rreessullttss iin.. [[“Womeen ass a ggrroup havvee rriigghttss aggaiinsstt tthee

d n u h h p h om h o n u n “Wom n a a oup ha h a an h

cconssumeerrss off porrnoggrraphyy,, and ttheerreebyy havvee rriigghttss tthatt arree ttrrumpss aggaiinsstt tthee polliiccyy off peerrmiittttiingg

on um o po no aph and h b ha h ha a ump a a n h po o p m n

porrnoggrraphyy....tthee peerrmiissssiivvee polliiccyy iiss iin cconfflliicctt wiitth tthee prriincciipllee off eequall cconcceerrn and rreesspeecctt,,

po no aph h p m po n on w h h p n p o qua on n and p

and tthatt womeen accccorrdiinggllyy havvee rriigghttss aggaiinsstt iitt”]]30

and ha wom n a o d n ha h a an ”

The Canadiian and Soutth Affrriican Consttiittuttiions,, cases and llaws tthatt rreffllectt

The Canad an and Sou h A can Cons u ons cases and aws ha e ec

28

Must a civil society be a censored society – firstamendmentcenter.org

29

Mackinnon in Stanley Fish in Freedom of Speech, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

30

Rae Langton in ibid

„„mullttiiculltturralliism‟‟ embody tthiis prriinciiplle.. The equalliitty arrgumentt siimplly

mu cu u a sm embody h s p nc p e The equa y a gumen s mp y

sttattes tthatt hatte speech actts as a [ ].. In arrguiing fforr tthe rriightt tto equalliitty and

s a es ha ha e speech ac s as a [ ] In a gu ng o he gh o equa y and

non--diiscrriimiinattiion and fforr hatte speech rresttrriicttiions,, tthese tthiinkerrs arre

non d sc m na on and o ha e speech es c ons hese h nke s a e

sayiing tthatt tthe ffrreedom off speech and exprressiion iis nott tthe parramountt

say ng ha he eedom o speech and exp ess on s no he pa amoun

vallue iin a democrrattiic sociietty.. They arrgue tthatt tthiis rriightt cannott be used tto

va ue n a democ a c soc e y They a gue ha h s gh canno be used o

viiollatte tthe rriightt tto lliiffe,, diigniitty and equalliitty _ equalllly iimporrttantt vallues tthatt

v o a e he gh o e d gn y and equa y _ equa y mpo an va ues ha

mustt be uphelld.. These arrgumentts unlliike tthose tthatt viiew hatte speech

mus be uphe d These a gumen s un ke hose ha v ew ha e speech

rresttrriicttiions,, as excepttiions tto ffrree speech do nott rrelly on harrm orr offffence orr

es c ons as excep ons o ee speech do no e y on ha m o o ence o

even any diirrectt,, causall orr iindiirrectt lliink tto viiollence..

even any d ec causa o nd ec nk o v o ence



[[Canadiian ccassee llaw:: IIn Oakeess,,31 tthee Canadiian SC diissccussssiingg tthee rriigghttss and ffrreeeedomss undeerr

Canad an a aw n Oak h Canad an SC d u n h h and dom und

tthee Charrtteerr llaiid down tthee tteesstt tto deetteerrmiinee wheettheerr rreessttrriiccttiionss pllacceed on ttheem weerree vvalliid..

h Cha a d down h o d m n wh h on p a d on h m w a d

Accccorrdiingg tto tthee Teesstt,, Courrttss woulld havvee tto deetteerrmiinee,, ffiirrsstt,, wheettheerr tthee objjeeccttiivvee off tthee

A o d n o h T Cou wou d ha o d m n wh h h ob o h

cchallleenggeed meeassurree wass ssufffiicciieenttllyy iimporrttantt tto warrrrantt lliimiittiingg a Charrtteerr rriigghtt and ffrreeeedom,,

ha n d m a u wa u n mpo an o wa an m n a Cha h and dom

and sseeccond,, tthee iissssuee off prroporrttiionalliittyy,, wheettheerr tthee iimpuggneed meeassurree iiss weelll ssuiitteed tto ccarrrryy outt

and ond h u o p opo ona wh h h mpu n d m a u w u d o a ou

iittss objjeeccttiivvee,, and wheettheerr tthee iimpacctt upon an eenttrreenccheed rriigghtt orr ffrreeeedom iiss nott neeeedlleessssllyy orr

ob and wh h h mpa upon an n n h d h o dom no n d o

unacccceepttabllyy sseevveerree..32 IIn Tayyllorr,, Thee Canadiian Suprreemee Courrtt eexamiineed Seeccttiion 13((1)) off tthee

una p ab n Ta o Th Canad an Sup m Cou xam n d S on 13 1 o h

Canadiian Human Riigghttss Acctt iin lliigghtt off tthiiss tteesstt.. Thee Courrtt ffound tthatt tthee purrpossee off tthee

Canad an Human R h A n h o h Th Cou ound ha h pu po o h

lleeggiissllattiion wass tthee prromottiion off eequall opporrttuniittyy…unhiindeerreed byy diissccrriimiinattorryy prraccttiicceess basseed

a on wa h p omo on o qua oppo un …unh nd d b d m na o p a ba d

on,, iintteerr alliia,, rraccee orr rreelliiggiion -- whiicch iinfforrmss tthee objjeeccttiivvee off ss.. 13((1))..

on n a a a o on wh h n o m h ob o 13 1



The Court concluded that hate messages ―undermine the dignity and self-worth of

target group members and, more generally, contribute to disharmonious relations

… as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness that must flourish in a

multicultural society which is committed to the idea of equality‖ and that

accordingly the restriction was sufficiently important to restrict a Charter freedom.

The Court further held that once the detrimental effect of hate speech on the

principles of the Human Rights Act is acknowledged, ―there remains no question

that s. 13(1) is rationally connected to the aim of restricting activities antithetical

to the promotion of equality and tolerance in society‖ and that the human rights

legislation with a cease and desist order against hate propaganda ―reminds

Canadians of our fundamental commitment to equality of opportunity and the

eradication of racial and religious intolerance.‖]



[―The decision in Taylor recognizes that hate propaganda presents a serious threat

to society.‖33 The Court stated that Section 13(1) addressed two harms: first it is

responsive to the potential impact of hate messages on those listening to them.

The Act therefore, censures the incitement of hatred and the possible actions

including further acts of discrimination in employment, housing etc, that might

flow from the intense emotions of ill will towards others that is contemplated by

s. 13(1). ―Thus, although those who listen to "hate messages" may or may not act

on the emotions aroused by the communication in question, the communication

creates a barrier to the advancement of social harmony and tolerance.‖ Second,



31

[?]

32

Citreon

33

Citreon

these messages ―might produce fears that they will lead to actual abuse or

discriminatory practises by those to whom the message is communicated. Equally

important, there is an "intensely painful reaction" experienced by individuals

subjected to the expression of hatred.‖]



Thuss,, eevveerryy cciittiizeen iiss eenttiittlleed tto an attmosspheerree ffrreeee ffrrom harrassssmeentt,, iinttiimiidattiion and vviiolleenccee..

Thu z n n d o an a m o ph om ha a m n n m da on and o n

Hattee sspeeeecch lleeavveess ttarrggeetteed ccommuniittiieess ffeeeelliingg iissollatteed,, vvullneerrabllee and unprrotteecctteed byy tthee llaw..

Ha p h a a d ommun n o a d u n ab and unp o d b h aw

Byy makiingg peerrssonss ffeearrffull,, anggrryy and ssusspiicciiouss off ottheerr ggrroupss and off tthee poweerr ssttrrucctturree tthatt iiss

B mak n p on a u an and u p ou o o h oup and o h pow u u ha

ssupposseed tto prrotteecctt ttheem ttheeyy arree deeniieed ttheeiirr rriigghtt tto deemoccrrattiicc cciittiizeensshiip on an eequall ffoottiingg..34

uppo d o p o hm h a dn d h h o d mo a z n h p on an qua oo n

“Meessssaggeess off hattee prropagganda undeerrmiinee tthee diiggniittyy and sseellff--worrtth off ttarrggeett ggrroupss meembeerrss

“M a o ha p opa anda und m n h d n and wo h o a oup m mb

and,, morree ggeeneerralllyy,, cconttrriibuttee tto diissharrmoniiouss rreellattiionss amongg vvarriiouss rracciiall,, cculltturrall and

and mo n a on bu o d ha mon ou a on amon a ou a a u u a and

rreelliiggiiouss ggrroupss,, ass a rreessulltt eerrodiingg ttolleerranccee and opeen--miindeedneessss tthatt musstt ffllourriissh iin a

ou oup a a u od n o an and op n m nd dn ha mu ou h n a

mullttiicculltturrall ssocciieettyy whiicch iiss ccommiitttteed tto tthee iideea off eequalliittyy..”35

mu u u a o wh h omm d o h d a o qua ”



Law mayy bee onllyy onee amongg ttoollss tto addrreessss hattrreed wiitth „„eeduccattiion‟‟ and ssocciiall cchanggee – butt iiss

Law ma b on on amon oo o add ha d w h du a on and o a han – bu

an iimporrttantt ttooll wheerree tthee ottheerr ttoollss do nott worrk.. Leeggiissllattiion,, sseendss a meessssaggee tto ourr

an mpo an oo wh h o h oo do no wo k L a on nd a m a o ou

mullttiicculltturrall ssocciieettyy aboutt vvallueess off deecceenccyy and ttolleerranccee acccceeptteed ass tthee norrm byy ourr ggovveerrnmeentt

mu u u a o abou a u o d n and o an a p d a h no m b ou o nm n

and vvasstt majjorriittyy off cciittiizeenss..36

and a ma o o z n



Of course in societal terms how speech works – whether as direct incitement or

slow burn makes it difficult for regulation to determine what speech should be

restricted.



[[IIn anyy ccassee,, wheettheerr iitt iiss iin tthee ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch orr rriigghtt tto eequalliittyy parradiiggm,, tthee eexcceepttiion off

n an a w h h n h dom o p h o h o qua pa ad m h x p on o

vviiolleenccee ii..ee.. sspeeeecch tthatt iiss lliinkeed tto vviiolleenccee orr whatt JJS Miilll woulld rreeffeerr tto ass harrm iiss a cclleearrllyy

o n p h ha nk d o o n o wha S M wou d o a ha m a a

rreeccoggniisseed eexcceepttiion.. IItt iiss tthee deeggrreeee tthatt iiss rreealllyy up fforr deebattee.. Whiillee tthee US SC rreessttrriiccttss tthiiss tto

o n d x p on h d ha a up o d ba Wh h US SC h o

ffiigghttiingg worrdss,, mullttiicculltturriissttss arrgguee tthatt sspeeeecch tthatt rreessullttss iin diissccrriimiinattiion sshoulld allsso bee

h n wo d mu u u a u ha p h ha u n d m na on hou d a o b

ssubjjeecctt tto rreeggullattiion.. IItt iiss how wee undeerrssttand vviiolleenccee – wheettheerr ttheerree iiss a cconttiinuum off hattee,,

ub o u a on how w und and o n – wh h h a on nuum o ha

diissccrriimiinattiion and vviiolleenccee tthatt woulld rreealllyy deetteerrmiinee tthee rreessttrriiccttiion..]]

d m na on and o n ha wou d a d m n h on



[[RAV vv Paull -- Onee musstt wholleeheearrtteedllyy aggrreeee wiitth tthee Miinneessotta Suprreemee Courrtt tthatt "[[ii]]tt iiss

RAV Pau On mu who h a d a w h h M nn o a Sup m Cou ha "

tthee rreessponssiibiilliittyy,, eevveen tthee oblliiggattiion,, off diivveerrssee ccommuniittiieess tto cconffrrontt ssucch nottiionss iin whatteevveerr

h pon b n h ob a on o d ommun o on on u h no on n wha

fforrm ttheeyy appeearr,," iibiid..,, butt tthee manneerr off tthatt cconffrronttattiion ccannott cconssiisstt off sseelleeccttiivvee

o m h app a " b d bu h mann o ha on on a on anno on o

lliimiittattiionss upon sspeeeecch.. Stt.. Paull''ss brriieeff asssseerrttss tthatt a ggeeneerrall "ffiigghttiingg worrdss" llaw woulld nott

m a on upon p h S Pau b a ha a n a " h n wo d " aw wou d no

meeeett tthee cciittyy''ss neeeedss,, beeccaussee onllyy a ccontteentt--sspeecciiffiicc meeassurree ccan ccommuniiccattee tto miinorriittyy ggrroupss

m h n d b au on a on n p m a u an ommun a o m no oup

tthatt tthee "ggrroup hattrreed" asspeecctt off ssucch sspeeeecch "iiss nott ccondoneed byy tthee majjorriittyy.." Brriieeff fforr

ha h " oup ha d" a p o u h p h " no ondon d b h ma o " B o

Reesspondeentt 25.. Thee poiintt off tthee Fiirrsstt Ameendmeentt iiss tthatt majjorriittyy prreeffeerreencceess musstt bee eexprreesssseed

R pond n 25 Th po n o h F Am ndm n h a ma o p n mu b xp d

iin ssomee ffasshiion ottheerr tthan ssiilleencciingg sspeeeecch on tthee bassiiss off iittss ccontteentt..]]

n om a h on o h han n n p h on h ba o on n



[[Thee US SC doeess admiitt howeevveerr tthatt llawss tthatt heellp eenssurree tthee bassiicc human rriigghttss off meembeerrss off

Th US SC do adm how ha aw ha h p n u h ba human h o m mb o

ggrroupss tthatt havvee hiissttorriiccalllyy beeeen ssubjjeecctteed tto diissccrriimiinattiion.. .. .. .." iiss a ccompeellliingg ssttattee iintteerreesstt

oup ha ha h o a b n ub d o d m na on " a omp n a n

butt onee tthatt iiss nott sseerrvveed byy ccontteentt basseed diissccrriimiinattiion.. Thee US SC arrggueed tthatt tthee ssamee

bu on ha no d b on n ba d d m na on Th US SC a u d ha h am

rreessulltt ccoulld bee acchiieevveed wiitthoutt tthee ggrroundss sspeecciiffiieed iin tthee llaw neeggattiivviingg tthee arrggumeentt off tthee

u ou d b a h d w hou h ound p d n h aw n a n h a um n o h



34

[?]

35

Taylor -

36

South Africa paper

Sttattee tthatt tthee llaw sseentt a sspeecciiffiicc meessssaggee tto peerrssonss off diifffeerreentt and miinorriittyy rracceess tthatt sspeeeecch

S a ha h aw n a p m a o p on o d n and m no a ha p h

aggaiinsstt ttheem iiss nott ttolleerratteed byy tthee Sttattee..]]

a a n h m no o a d b h S a



Thee US SC bassiiccalllyy ssaiid tthatt whiillee tthee Sttattee mayy rreeggullattee orr rreessttrriicctt alll fforrmss off ffiigghttiingg worrdss,,

Th US SC ba a a d ha wh h S a ma u a o a o m o h n wo d

iitt mayy nott iideenttiiffyy,, fforr iinssttanccee,, rraccee orr ggeendeerr onllyy ass ggrroundss fforr tthee applliiccattiion off llawss ass iitt,,

ma no d n o n an a o nd on a ound o h app a on o aw a

“rraiisseess tthee sspeecctteerr tthatt tthee Govveerrnmeentt mayy eefffeeccttiivveellyy drriivvee cceerrttaiin iideeass orr vviieewpoiinttss ffrrom tthee

“a h p ha h Go nm n ma d a n d a o wpo n om h

marrkeettpllaccee..” Thee US SC ttheen ggoeess on tto diissccussss ssiittuattiionss wheerree,, whatt iitt tteerrmss ass „„ccontteentt

ma k p a ” Th US SC h n o on o d u ua on wh wha m a on n

basseed diissccrriimiinattiion‟‟ iin rreeggullattiion rreeggarrdiingg sspeeeecch mayy bee allloweed wheerree tthee sspeeeecch beeiingg

ba d d m na on n u a on a d n p h ma b a ow d wh h p h b n

prrossccrriibeed iiss assssocciiatteed wiitth parrttiiccullarr “sseeccondarryy eefffeeccttss..” IIn tthiiss ccatteeggorryy off jjussttiiffiiabllee

p o b d a o a d w h pa u a “ onda ” n h a o o u ab

rreessttrriiccttiionss tthee Courrtt ttheen meenttiionss sspeeeecch tthatt amounttss tto sseexuall harrassssmeentt orr “sseexualllyy

on h Cou h n m n on p h ha amoun o xua ha a m n o “ xua

deerroggattorryy "ffiigghttiingg worrdss,," amongg ottheerr worrdss,, mayy prroduccee a vviiollattiion off …[[tthee]] ggeeneerrall

d o a o " h n wo d " amon o h wo d ma p odu a o a on o … h n a

prrohiibiittiion aggaiinsstt sseexuall diissccrriimiinattiion iin eemplloyymeentt prraccttiicceess.. [[Thiiss,, howeevveerr,, iiss tthee vveerryy

p oh b on a a n xua d m na on n mp o m n p a Th how h

arrggumeentt usseed fforr ggeeneerrall hattee sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss – tthatt hattee sspeeeecch iin and off iittsseellff iiss a vviiollattiion

a um n u d o n a ha p h on – ha ha p h n and o a o a on

off tthee rriigghtt aggaiinsstt non diissccrriimiinattiion..]]

o h h a a n non d m na on



Is free speech really free?



One of the foremost assumptions in any defence of the freedom of speech and

expression is the presumption of ‗freedom‘ – of the fact that there really exists a

free exchange of ideas – in ‗free and democratic‘ societies in any case. The free

speech defenders argue that, ―most of an individual‘s beliefs, including his

scientific beliefs, are justified by his perception that they have emerged unscathed

from the free confrontation of ideas and the unrestrained search for facts.‖37

However, an incidental question is whether free speech is really free. In his second

general report, the current Special Rapportuer on the Freedom of Speech and

Expression noted,



―The Special Rapporteur is especially concerned about the

concentration of large media groups, dominant in a given

market, in the hands of a few business corporations. Reversing

this phenomenon will allow the emergence of a more pluralistic

approach to information…The Special Rapporteur encourages

Governments to ensure that the exercise of the freedom of

opinion and expression through the media is open and

accessible to various actors of the civil society, local

communities and minorities, vulnerable groups, in addition to

economic and political groups.‖38



Speeeecch and eexprreessssiion,, howeevveerr,, arree ass mucch a ffunccttiion off [[ ]].. Thee prropagganda modeell iiss a

Sp h and xp on how a a mu h a un on o Th p opa anda mod a

ttheeorryy advvancceed byy Edwarrd S.. Heerrman and Noam Chomsskyy tthatt sseeeekss tto eexpllaiin ssyysstteemattiicc

h o ad an d b Edwa d S H man and Noam Chom k ha k o xp a n ma

biiasseess off tthee massss meediia iin tteerrmss off ssttrrucctturrall eecconomiicc ccausseess.. Fiirrsstt prreesseentteed iin tthee book

b a o h ma m d a n m o u u a onom au F p n d n h book

Manuffacctturriingg Consseentt:: tthee Polliittiiccall Ecconomyy off tthee Massss Meediia,, tthee ttheeorryy vviieewss tthee prriivvattee

Manu a u n Con n h Po a E onom o h Ma M d a h h o w h p a

meediia ass bussiineesssseess sseellliingg a prroducctt -- rreeadeerrss and audiieencceess rrattheerr tthan neewss -- tto ottheerr

m d a a bu n n a p odu ad and aud n a h han n w o o h

bussiineesssseess ((advveerrttiisseerrss)).. IItt possttullatteess ffiivvee "ffiilltteerrss" tthatt ssorrtt outt tthee ttyypee off neewss tthatt ffiinalllyy ggeettss

bu n ad po u a " " ha o ou h p o n w ha na

37

In defense of Hate Literatur (Sort of), Pierre Lemieux

38

Spl Rapp – second general report

publliissheed.. Theessee arree:: owneerrsshiip,, ffundiingg,, ssourrcciingg,, ffllak,, and anttii--ccommuniisstt iideeolloggyy tthee ffiirrsstt

pub h d Th a own h p und n ou n ak and an ommun d o o h

tthrreeee beeiingg tthee mosstt iimporrttantt..

h b n h m o m po an



[Add Meme theory]

International Conventions and Covenants



Thee Uniivveerrssall Deeccllarrattiion off Human Riigghttss iin Arrttiiccllee 19 rreeccoggniisseess tthee rriigghtt tto ffrreeeedom off

Th Un a D a a on o Human R h n A 19 o n h h o dom o

sspeeeecch and eexprreessssiion..39 Thee IIntteerrnattiionall Covveenantt on Ciivviill and Polliittiiccall Riigghttss whiicch iiss

p h and xp on Th n na ona Co nan on C and Po a R h wh h

biindiingg on alll Sttattee parrttiieess tthatt arree ssiiggnattorryy tto iitt ssiimiillarrllyy rreeccoggniisseess tthiiss ffrreeeedom..40 Howeevveerr iin

b nd n on a S a pa ha a na o o m a on h dom How n

Arrttiiccllee 20((4)) iitt allsso ssttatteess tthatt,,

A 20 4 a o a ha



―[A]ny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement

to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.‖



Arrttiiccllee 4 off tthee IIntteerrnattiionall Convveenttiion on Elliimiinattiion off Alll Forrmss off Racciiall

A 4 o h n na ona Con n on on E m na on o A Fo m o Ra a

Diissccrriimiinattiion eellaborratteess Sttattee oblliiggattiionss tto::

D m na on abo a S a ob a on o

ccoondeemn alll prroopagganda and alll oorrgganiizattiioonss basseed oon iideeass oorr ttheeoorriieess ooff ssupeerriioorriittyy ooff oonee

nd mn a p pa anda and a an za n ba d n d a h up n

rraccee orr ggrroup off peerrssonss off onee ccollourr orr eetthniicc orriiggiin,, orr whiicch atttteemptt tto jjussttiiffyy orr prromottee

a o oup o p on o on o ou o hn o n o wh h a mp o u o p omo

rracciiall hattrreed & diissccrriimiinattiion iin anyy fforrm,,

a a ha d & d m na on n an o m

makee diisssseemiinattiioon ooff iideeass basseed oon rracciiall ssupeerriioorriittyy oorr hattrreed,, iincciitteemeentt ttoo rracciiall

mak d m na n d a ba d n a a up ha d n m n a a

diissccrriimiinattiion,, ass weelll ass alll accttss off vviiolleenccee orr iincciitteemeentt tto ssucch accttss aggaiinsstt anyy rraccee orr

d m na on a w a a a o o n o n m n o u h a a a n an a o

ggrroup off peerrssonss off anottheerr ccollourr orr eetthniicc orriiggiin an offfeenccee

oup o p on o ano h o ou o hn o n an o n

deeccllarree iillleeggall and prroohiibiitt alll oorrgganiizattiioonss and oorrgganiizeed and alll oottheerr prroopagganda accttiivviittiieess,,

d a a and p h b a an za n and an z d and a h p pa anda a

whiicch prromottee and iincciittee rracciiall diissccrriimiinattiion,, and parrttiicciipattiion iin ssucch

wh h p omo and n a a d m na on and pa pa on n u h

orrgganiizattiionss/accttiivviittiieess tto bee an offfeenccee

o an za on /a o b an o n



The Human Rights Committee which is charged with the interpretation and

application of the ICCPR has in various general comments elaborated the

obligations on States to ensure the full recognition and enjoyment of the rights

enumerated in the ICCPR. In General Comment 11, the HRC discusses Article

20(4) and states that, ―[I]n the opinion of the Committee, these required

prohibitions are fully compatible with the right of freedom of expression as

contained in article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and

responsibilities.‖ The HRC identifies the restriction recognised in Article 20(4) as

―contrary to public policy.‖ In General Comment 23, the HRC notes that the

right to equality and non-discrimination governs the exercise of all other rights. In

General Comment 22 discussing the freedom of conscience, the Committee notes

that, ―no manifestation of religion or belief may amount to…advocacy of

national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,

hostility or violence.‖



IIn 1993,, tthee Commiitttteeee on tthee Elliimiinattiion off Racciiall Diissccrriimiinattiion rreeiitteerratteed tthatt tthee

n 1993 h Comm on h E m na on o Ra a D m na on a d ha h

prrohiibiittiion on tthee diisssseemiinattiion off iideeass basseed upon rracciiall ssupeerriiorriittyy orr hattrreed iiss iinccompattiibllee

p oh b on on h d m na on o d a ba d upon a a up o o ha d n ompa b

wiitth tthee rriigghtt tto ffrreeeedom off opiiniion and eexprreessssiion,, ass eembodiieed iin Arrttiiccllee 19 off tthee UDHR..

w h h h o dom o op n on and xp on a mbod d n A 19 o h UDHR





39

―Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold

opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media

and regardless of frontiers.‖ Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Adopted and

proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 available at [ ].

40

Article [ ]?

IIn hiiss ffiirrsstt ggeeneerrall rreeporrtt tthee llatteesstt UN Speecciiall Rapporrttueerr on tthee ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and

nh n a po h a UN Sp a Rappo u on h dom o p h and

eexprreessssiion 41 hass obsseerrvveed iin iimpossiingg rreessttrriiccttiionss orr iinttrroducciingg meeassurreess tto rreessttrriicctt

xp on ha ob d n m po n on o n odu n m a u o

sspeeeecch,, “[[II]]ntteerr alliia,, tthee meeassurreess musstt bee ssttrriiccttllyy lliimiitteed iin ttiimee,, prrovviideed fforr iin a llaw,,

p h “ n a a h m a u mu b m d n m p o d d o n a aw

neecceessssarryy fforr publliicc ssaffeettyy orr publliicc orrdeerr,, sseerrvvee a lleeggiittiimattee purrpossee,, nott iimpaiirr tthee

n a o pub a o pub o d a m a pu po n o m pa h

eesssseenccee off tthee rriigghtt and cconfforrm wiitth tthee prriincciipllee off prroporrttiionalliittyy..”

n o h h and on o m w h h p n p o p opo ona ”

[In 1994, the UN General Assembly adopted two resolutions – one dealing with

contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related

intolerance and the second expressing alarm at the increasing incidents of

violence, intolerance and discrimination based on religion or beliefs.- To check]



Nuremberg Trials



Charrtteerr off tthee IIntteerrnattiionall Miilliittarryy ttrriibunall fforr Geerrmanyy

Cha o h n na ona M a buna o G man

Sttrreeiiccheerr

S h

Sttrreeiiccheerr iiss iindiicctteed on Counttss Onee and Fourr.. Onee off tthee eearrlliieesstt meembeerrss off tthee Nazii Parrttyy,,

S h nd d on Coun On and Fou On o h a m mb o h Naz Pa

jjoiiniingg iin 1921,, hee ttook parrtt iin tthee Muniicch Puttsscch.. Frrom 1925--1940 hee wass Gaulleeiitteerr off

o n n n 1921 h ook pa n h Mun h Pu h F om 1925 1940 h wa Gau o

Frrancconiia.. Elleecctteed tto tthee Reeiicchssttagg iin 1933,, hee wass an honorrarryy ggeeneerrall iin tthee SA.. Hiiss

F an on a E d o h R h a n 1933 h wa an hono a n a n h SA H

peerrsseeccuttiion off tthee JJeewss wass nottorriiouss.. Hee wass tthee publliissheerr off Deerr Sttueerrmeerr,, an anttii-- Seemiittiicc

p u on o h w wa no o ou H wa h pub h o D S u m an an S m

weeeekllyy neewsspapeerr,, ffrrom 1923 tto1945 and wass iittss eediittorr unttiill 1933..

w k n w pap om 1923 o1945 and wa d o un 1933

Crriimeess aggaiinsstt Peeaccee

C m a an Pa

Sttrreeiiccheerr wass a ssttauncch Nazii and ssupporrtteerr off Hiittlleerr''ss maiin polliicciieess.. Theerree iiss no eevviideenccee tto

S h wa a aun h Naz and uppo o H m a n po Th no d n o

sshow tthatt hee wass eevveerr wiitthiin Hiittlleerr''ss iinneerr cciirrccllee off advviisseerrss;; norr durriingg hiiss ccarreeeerr wass hee ccllosseellyy

how ha h wa w hnH nn o ad no du n h a wa h o

cconneecctteed wiitth tthee fforrmullattiion off tthee polliicciieess whiicch lleed tto warr.. Hee wass neevveerr prreesseentt,, fforr

onn d w h h o mu a on o h po wh h d o wa H wa n p n o

eexampllee,, att anyy off tthee iimporrttantt cconffeerreencceess wheen Hiittlleerr eexpllaiineed hiiss deecciissiionss tto hiiss lleeadeerrss..

xamp a an o h mpo an on n wh n H xp a n d h d on o h ad

Alltthouggh hee wass a Gaulleeiitteerr ttheerree iiss no eevviideenccee tto prrovvee tthatt

A hou h h wa a Gau h no d n o p o ha

[Page 101]

he had knowledge of those policies. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence

fails to establish his connection with the conspiracy or common plan to wage

aggressive war as that conspiracy has been elsewhere defined in this Judgment.

Crimes against humanity

For his 25 years of speaking, writing, and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher

was widely known as "Jew-Baiter Number One" In his speeches and articles, week

after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of

anti-Semitism, and incited the German People to active persecution. Each issue of

Der Stuermer, which reached a circulation of 600,000 in 1935, was filled with such

articles, often lewd and disgusting.

Streicher had charge of the Jewish boycott of 1st April, 1933. He advocated the



41

‗Civil and political rights, including the Question of freedom of expression - The right to freedom of

opinion and expression,‘ Report of the Special Rapporteur Mr. Ambeyi ligabo, submitted in accordance

with commission resolution 2002/48, E/CN.4/2003/67, 30 December 2002

Nuremberg Decrees of 1935. He was responsible for the demolition on 10th

August, 1938, of the synagogue in Nuremberg. And on 10th November, 1938, he

spoke publicly in support of the Jewish pogrom which was taking place at that

time.

But it was not only in Germany that this defendant advocated his doctrines. As

early as 1938 he began to call for the annihilation of the Jewish race. Twenty-three

different articles of Der Stuermer between 1938 to 1941 were produced in

evidence, in which extermination "root and branch" was preached. Typical of his

teachings was a leading article in September, 1938, which termed the Jew a germ

and a pest, not a human being, but "a parasite, an enemy, an evildoer, a

disseminator of diseases who must be destroyed in the interest of mankind" Other

articles urged that only when world Jewry had been annihilated would the Jewish

problem have been solved, and predicted that 50 years hence the Jewish graves

"will proclaim that this people of murderers and criminals has after all met its

deserved fate" Streicher, in February, 1940, published a letter from one of Der

Stuermer's readers which compared Jews with swarms of locusts which must be

exterminated completely. Such was the poison Streicher injected into the minds of

thousands of Germans which caused them to follow the National Socialist policy

of Jewish persecution and extermination. A leading article of Der Stuermer in

May, 1939, shows clearly his aim:

"A punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia. A

punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them that

every murderer and criminal must expect: Death sentence and

execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be

exterminated root and branch."

As the war in the early stages proved successful in acquiring more and more

territory for the Reich, Streicher even intensified his efforts to incite the Germans

against the Jews. In the record are 26 articles from Der Stuermer, published

between August, 1941 and September, 1944, twelve by Streicher's own hand,

which demanded annihilation and extermination in unequivocal terms.

He wrote and published on 25th December, 1941:

"IIff tthee danggeerr off tthee rreeprroduccttiion off tthatt ccurrssee off God iin tthee JJeewiissh bllood iiss

" h dan o h p odu on o ha u o God n h w h b ood

ffiinalllyy tto ccomee tto an eend,, ttheen ttheerree iiss onllyy onee wayy tthee eextteerrmiinattiion off tthatt

na o om o an nd h n h on on wa h x m na on o ha

peeopllee whossee ffattheerr iiss tthee deevviill.."

p op who a h h d "

And iin Feebrruarryy,, 1944,, hiiss own arrttiiccllee ssttatteed::

And n F b ua 1944 h own a a d

"Whoeevveerr doeess whatt a JJeew doeess iiss a ssccoundrreell,, a ccrriimiinall.. And hee who rreepeeattss

"Who do wha a w do a ound a m na And h who p a

and wiissheess tto ccopyy hiim deesseerrvveess tthee ssamee ffattee,, anniihiillattiion,, deeatth.."

and w h o op h m d h am a ann h a on d a h "

[[Paggee 102]]

Pa 102

Wiitth knowlleedggee off tthee eextteerrmiinattiion off tthee JJeewss iin tthee Occccupiieed Easstteerrn Teerrrriittorryy,, tthiiss

W h know d o h x m na on o h w n h O up d Ea n T o h

deeffeendantt cconttiinueed tto wrriittee and publliissh hiiss prropagganda off deeatth.. Teessttiiffyyiingg iin tthiiss ttrriiall,, hee

d ndan on nu d o w and pub h h p opa anda o d a h T n n h a h

vveeheemeenttllyy deeniieed anyy knowlleedggee off massss eexeeccuttiionss off JJeewss.. Butt tthee eevviideenccee makeess iitt cclleearr tthatt

h m n d n d an know d o ma x u on o w Bu h d n mak a ha

hee cconttiinualllyy rreecceeiivveed ccurrrreentt iinfforrmattiion on tthee prroggrreessss off tthee "ffiinall ssolluttiion" Hiiss prreessss

h on nua d u n n o ma on on h p o o h " na o u on" H p

phottoggrrapheerr wass sseentt tto vviissiitt tthee ggheettttoss off tthee Easstt iin tthee ssprriingg off 1943,, tthee ttiimee off tthee

pho o aph wa n o h h o o h Ea n h p n o 1943 h m o h

deessttrruccttiion off tthee Warrssaw ggheetttto.. Thee JJeewiissh neewsspapeerr,, IIssrraeelliittiissccheess Woccheenbllatttt,, whiicch

d u on o h Wa aw h o Th w h n w pap a h Wo h nb a wh h

Sttrreeiiccheerr rreecceeiivveed and rreead,, ccarrrriieed iin eeacch iissssuee accccounttss off JJeewiissh attrrocciittiieess iin tthee Easstt,, and

S h d and ad a d n a h u a oun o w h a o n h Ea and

ggavvee ffiiggurreess on tthee numbeerr off JJeewss who had beeeen deeporrtteed and kiillleed.. Forr eexampllee,, iissssueess

a u on h numb o w who had b n d po d and k d Fo xamp u

appeearriingg iin tthee ssummeerr and ffalll off 1942 rreeporrtteed tthee deeatth off 72,,729 JJeewss iin Warrssaw,,

app a n n h umm and a o 1942 po d h d a h o 72 729 w n Wa aw

17,,542 iin Lodz,, 18,,000 iin Crroattiia,, 125,,000 iin Rumaniia,, 14,,000 iin Lattvviia,, 85,,000 iin

17 542 n Lodz 18 000 n C oa a 125 000 n Ruman a 14 000 n La a 85 000 n

Yuggossllavviia,, 700,,000 iin alll off Polland.. IIn Novveembeerr,, 1943,, Sttrreeiiccheerr quotteed vveerrbattiim an arrttiiccllee

Yu o a a 700 000 n a o Po and n No mb 1943 S h quo d ba m an a

ffrrom tthee IIssrraeelliittiissccheess Woccheenbllatttt whiicch ssttatteed tthatt tthee JJeewss had vviirrttualllyy diissappeearreed ffrrom

om h a h Wo h nb a wh h a d ha h w had ua d app a d om

Eurropee,, and ccommeentteed "Thiiss iiss nott a JJeewiissh lliiee.." IIn Deecceembeerr,, 1942,, rreeffeerrrriingg tto an arrttiiccllee iin

Eu op and omm n d "Th n o a w h " n D m b 1942 n o an a n

tthee London Tiimeess aboutt tthee attrrocciittiieess,, aiimiingg att eextteerrmiinattiion,, Sttrreeiiccheerr ssaiid tthatt Hiittlleerr had

h London T m abou h a o a m n a x m na on S h a d ha H had

ggiivveen warrniingg tthatt tthee sseeccond Worrlld Warr woulld lleead tto tthee deessttrruccttiion off JJeewrryy.. IIn JJanuarryy,,

n wa n n ha h ond Wo d Wa wou d ad o h d u on o w n anua

1943,, hee wrrottee and publliissheed an arrttiiccllee whiicch ssaiid tthatt Hiittlleerr''ss prropheeccyy wass beeiingg ffullffiillleed,,

1943 h w o and pub h d an a wh h a d ha H p oph wa b n u d

tthatt worrlld JJeewrryy wass beeiingg eexttiirrpatteed,, and tthatt iitt wass wondeerrffull tto know tthatt Hiittlleerr wass

ha wo d w wa b n x pa d and ha wa wond u o know ha H wa

ffrreeeeiingg tthee worrlld off iittss JJeewiissh ttorrmeenttorrss..

n h wo d o w h omno

IIn tthee ffaccee off tthee eevviideenccee beefforree tthee Trriibunall iitt iiss iidllee fforr Sttrreeiiccheerr tto ssuggggeesstt tthatt tthee ssolluttiion off

n h a o h d n b o h T buna d o S h o u ha h o u on o

tthee JJeewiissh prroblleem whiicch hee ffavvorreed wass ssttrriiccttllyy lliimiitteed tto tthee ccllassssiiffiiccattiion off JJeewss ass alliieenss,, and

h w h p ob m wh h h a o d wa m d o h a a on o w a a n and

tthee passssiingg off diissccrriimiinattorryy lleeggiissllattiion ssucch ass tthee Nurreembeerrgg Lawss,, ssupplleemeentteed iiff possssiibllee

h pa n o d m na o a on u h a h Nu mb Law upp m n d po b

byy iintteerrnattiionall aggrreeeemeentt on tthee ccrreeattiion off a JJeewiissh Sttattee ssomeewheerree iin tthee worrlld,, tto whiicch alll

b n na ona a m n on h a on o a w h S a om wh n h wo d o wh h a

JJeewss sshoulld eemiiggrrattee..

w hou d m a

Sttrreeiiccheerr''ss iincciitteemeentt tto murrdeerr and eextteerrmiinattiion att tthee ttiimee wheen JJeewss iin tthee Easstt weerree beeiingg

S h n m n o mu d and x m na on a h m wh n w n h Ea w b n

kiillleed undeerr tthee mosstt horrrriibllee ccondiittiionss cclleearrllyy cconssttiittutteess peerrsseeccuttiion on polliittiiccall and rracciiall

k d und h mo ho b ond on a on u p u on on po a and a a

ggrroundss iin cconneeccttiion wiitth Warr ccrriimeess,, ass deeffiineed byy tthee Charrtteerr,, and cconssttiittutteess a Crriimee

ound n onn on w h Wa m a d n d b h Cha and on u a C m

aggaiinsstt Humaniittyy..

a a n Human

Conccllussiion:: Thee Trriibunall ffiindss tthatt Sttrreeiiccheerr iiss nott gguiillttyy on Countt Onee,, butt tthatt hee iiss gguiillttyy

Con u on Th T buna nd ha S h no u on Coun On bu ha h u

on Countt Fourr..42

on Coun Fou

Streicher according to the tribunal was not in any way linked to Hitler or

the Nazi party – however in determining his guilt the Tribunal had

previously addressed the issue of incitement as provided in the charter

thus, ―"Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in

the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit

any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any

persons in execution of such plan."

IIn tthee opiiniion off tthee Trriibunall ttheessee worrdss do nott add a neew and sseeparrattee ccrriimee tto tthossee allrreeadyy

n h op n on o h T buna h wo d do no add a n w and pa a m o h o a ad

lliisstteed.. Thee worrdss arree deessiiggneed tto eessttablliissh tthee rreessponssiibiilliittyy off peerrssonss parrttiicciipattiingg iin a ccommon

d Th wo d a d n d o ab h h pon b o p on pa pa n n a ommon

pllan..43 Thee ttrriibunall afftteerr ffiindiingg Sttrreeiiccheerr rreessponssiibllee fforr [[ ]],, tthuss heelld hiim gguiillttyy off ccrriimeess

p an Th buna a nd n S h pon b o hu h d h m u o m

aggaiinsstt humaniittyy and sseentteencceed hiim tto deeatth byy hanggiingg..

a a n human and n n d h m o d a h b han n



Convention on Genocide





42

p.103 c.f. ‗The Nizkor Project,‘ available at

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-streicher.html

43

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-law-conspiracy.html

Arrttiiccllee 3 off tthee Convveenttiion on tthee Prreevveenttiion and Puniisshmeentt off tthee Crriimee off Geenocciidee adoptteed

A 3 o h Con n on on h P n on and Pun hm n o h C m o G no d adop d

iin 1948 makeess tthee diirreecctt and publliicc iincciitteemeentt tto ccommiitt ggeenocciidee puniisshabllee..

n 1 9 4 8 m ak h d and pub n m n o omm no d pun hab



Koffii Anan,, 2004 – “By allll tthese means,, and morre,, we mustt attttack tthe rrootts

Ko Anan 2004 – “By a hese means and mo e we mus a ack he oo s

off viiollence and genociide:: hattrred,, iinttollerrance,, rraciism,, ttyrranny,, and tthe

o v o ence and genoc de ha ed n o e ance ac sm y anny and he

dehumaniiziing publliic diiscourrse tthatt deniies wholle grroups off peoplle ttheiirr

dehuman z ng pub c d scou se ha den es who e g oups o peop e he

diigniitty and ttheiirr rriightts..”

d gn y and he gh s ”



Charter of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda







Regional Agreements/Charters



The European Union44





The European Convention on Human Rights proclaims a broad range of human

rights include the right to freedom of speech and expression embodied in Article

10.45 The Convention specifies that restrictions on the rights may be imposed iof

they are necessary in a democratic society or in the interest of public safety or for

the prevention of disorder or crime. 46



The Council of Europe was conceived to deal with Internet crimes including racist

websites. The COE wrote a treaty that has been signed by [12] countries so far, to

put a stop to hate websites. The Council said in its report on the new protocol,

that it is a necessary response to the fact that the emergence of international

communication networks like the Internet provides certain persons with modern

and powerful means to support racism and xenophobia and enables them to

disseminate easily and widely expressions containing such ideas. (Ramastry 2003).



[[To ccheecck ottheerrss]]

To h k o h









44

Word IQ – freedom of speech defn

45

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions

and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless

of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television

or cinema enterprises."

46

Article ?

Intterrnattiionall apprroaches tto hatte speech rresttrriicttiions

In e na ona app oaches o ha e speech es c ons



Apprroaccheess tto hattee sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss diifffeerr accrrossss lleeggall ssyysstteemss,, iintteerreessttiinggllyy morree ass hiissttorriiccall

App oa h o ha p h on d a o a m n n mo a h o a

acccciideenttss/ wiitth llawss orr Conssttiittuttiionss eensshrriiniingg tthee ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and eexprreessssiion and

a d n / w h aw o Con u on n h n n h dom o p h and xp on and

rreeccoggniissiingg lliimiittattiionss on iitt deepeendiingg mucch on hiissttorryy,, ttiimee peerriiod and cciirrccumssttancceess.. Thee

o n n m a on on d p nd n mu h on h o m p od and um an Th

rreeccoggniittiion off a sseeeemiinggllyy abssolluttee rriigghtt tto ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch and eexprreessssiion iin tthee Uniitteed Sttatteess

o n o n o a m n ab o u h o dom o p h and xp on n h Un d S a

Conssttiittuttiion,, lleeavviingg iitt tto tthee Uniitteed Sttatteess Suprreemee Courrtt tto ccarrvvee outt narrrrow and vveerryy ssttrriicctt

Con u on a n o h Un d S a Sup m Cou o a ou na ow and

eexcceepttiionss tto tthiiss rriigghtt appeearrss tto ffllow ffrrom tthee rreevvolluttiionarryy bacckdrrop off tthee adopttiion off tthee US

x p on o h h app a o ow om h o u ona ba kd op o h adop on o h US

Conssttiittuttiion.. Canadiian and Soutth Affrriiccan apprroaccheess diifffeerr ssiiggniiffiiccanttllyy ass ttheeyy rreeccoggniissee

Con u on Canad an and Sou h A an app oa h d n an a h on

eequalliittyy orr „„mullttiicculltturralliissm‟‟ ass tthee bacckbonee off ttheeiirr ssocciieettiieess and human rriigghttss ffrrameeworrkss..

qua o mu u u a m a h ba kbon o h o and human h am wo k



Canada

Canada



Canadian laws deal with hate speeches and propaganda under different laws.

While the Canadian Criminal Code details punishments for ‗hate propaganda‘, the

Canadian Human Rights Act deals with hate speech that it classifies as

discrimination and customs and immigration laws empower the authorities to

prevent materials and even persons (‗hate mongers‘) from entering Canada in an

attempt to prevent the spread of hate.



Canada adopted its Charter (or Constitution) of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. [to

add sections]. The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act contained in

Section 2 clearly emphasises that it is meant to give effect to the “principle

that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to

make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their

needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of

society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory

practices…‖47 Within this paradigm, discriminatory and hate messages are

identified as discriminatory acts.48 The Act operates within a limited sphere of

hate and discriminatory speech activity prohibiting the publication or display of a

notice, emblem or other representation that indicates the intent to discriminate or

incites discrimination and the communication via telecommunications

(telephones, computers, internet etc.) of any matter likely to expose a person or

47

Discrimination is prohibited on the grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age,

sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a

pardon has been granted.

48

Section 12 reads: Publication of discriminatory notices etc. - It is a discriminatory practice to publish

or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign,

symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or

(b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

if the discrimination expressed or implied, intended to be expressed or implied or incited or calculated

to be incited would otherwise, if engaged in, be a discriminatory practice described in any of sections 5

to 11 or in section 14.

Secttiion 13((1)) rreadss – “Hatte messssagess -- IItt iiss a diisscrriimiinattorry prracttiice fforr a perrsson orr a grroup off

Sec on 13 1 ead – “Ha e me age a d c m n a o y p a c ce o a p e o n o a g o u p o

perrssonss acttiing iin concerrtt tto communiicatte ttellephoniicallly orr tto causse tto be sso communiicatted,,

pe on ac ng n conce o commun ca e e ephon ca y o o cau e o be o commun ca ed

rrepeattedlly,, iin wholle orr iin parrtt by meanss off tthe ffaciilliittiiess off a ttellecommuniicattiion underrttakiing wiitthiin tthe

epea ed y n who e o n pa by mean o he ac e o a e ecommun ca on unde ak ng w h n he

llegiissllattiive autthorriitty off Parrlliiamentt,, any mattterr tthatt iiss lliikelly tto exposse a perrsson orr perrssonss tto hattrred orr

eg a ve au ho y o Pa amen any ma e ha ke y o exp o e a p e o n o p e o n o h a ed o

conttemptt by rreasson off tthe ffactt tthatt tthatt perrsson orr tthosse perrssonss arre iidenttiiffiiablle on tthe bassiiss off a

con emp by ea on o he ac ha ha pe on o ho e pe on a e den ab e on he ba o a

prrohiibiitted grround off diisscrriimiinattiion..”

p oh b ed g ound o d c m na on ”

persons to hatred. The regulations under this Act then do not link the speech to

violence or truth and define such acts in the context of equality and

non-discrimination only.



The Canadian Criminal Code addresses the hate speech and violence connection

as ‗hate propaganda.‘ The Criminal Code makes punishable the advocacy or

promotion of genocide49 the public incitement of hatred50 and the ‗wilful

promotion of hatred‘51 A Court may also order the seizure of hate propaganda

materials including those available on the Internet (by ordering that the material is

no longer stored or made available through a computer system).52



[BOX – with excerpts from the current website] In Citreon v. Zundel the

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal determined whether messages posted on a

website were prohibited by the Canadian Human Rights Act and whether such

a prohibition entailed an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and

expression. Referring to Taylor, the Tribunal said that in enacting the Canadian

Human Rights Act, Parliament has recognised the importance of advancing the

goals of equality, and has legislated specific prohibitions to ensure respect for

individual dignity and autonomy.



Zundel argued that the fact that the reach of the Internet was so broad

meant that any restriction on the freedom of speech and expression was

not a minimal one and had an extensive reach and presented witnesses

who argued that of the chilling effect that the restriction had on Internet

service providers, magazine websites and so on.53 The Tribunal stated

that, “once it is accepted that hate speech is antithetical to Charter values,

the means of expression, in our view, is not a controlling factor so long as it is

within the constitutional jurisdiction of Parliament.‖



The Tribunal in a similar vein as that of the Canadian Supreme Court also noted

that the, ―aim of human rights legislation, and of s.13(1) is not to bring the full



49

Section 318 of the Canadian Criminal Code: genocide is defined as the killing of members of a

group or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical

destruction with the intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group (any section of the

public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin).

50

I.e. the communication ("communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or

other audible or visible means) of statements ("statements" includes words spoken or written or

recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible

representations) in any public place ("public place" includes any place to which the public have access

as of right or by invitation, express or implied) that incites hatred against any identifiable group where

such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

51

i.e. the communication of statements, other than in private conversation that wilfully promotes

hatred against any identifiable group. [Section 318]. Truth, religious opinion in good faith and

discussions for public benefit on a matter related to public interest where the person making the

statements reasonably believes them to be true constitute inter alia defences in the wilful promotion of

hatred. For the public incitement of hatred motive or intention are irrelevant; the fact that the

statements did incite hatred that may have resulted in a breach of peace is sufficient for the crime.

52

Section 320, Canadian Criminal Code.

53

See section [ ] on hate speech, freedom of speech and equality – arguments against restrictions at p.

force of the state's power against a blameworthy individual for the purpose of

imposing punishment. Instead, provisions found in human rights statutes

generally operate in a less confrontational manner, allowing for a conciliatory

settlement if possible and, where discrimination exists, gearing remedial responses

more towards compensation of the victim.‖



The Tribunal ordered that Ernst Zündel, and any other individuals who act in the

name of, or in concert with him cease the discriminatory practise of

communicating…or causing to be communicated …matters of the type… found

on the Zundelsite, or any other messages of a substantially similar form or content

that are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of

the fact that that person or persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited

ground of discrimination, contrary to s. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.



[Criticisms – to add]



United States

Ass ccomparreed tto tthee llawss off ottheerr ccounttrriieess,, tthee mosstt ssttrriinggeentt prrotteeccttiion off tthee ffrreeeedom off sspeeeecch

A ompa d o h aw o o h oun h mo n n p o on o h do m o p h

and eexprreessssiion iiss ffound iin tthee US lleeggall ssyysstteem.. Thee Fiirrsstt Ameendmeentt tto tthee Uniitteed Sttattee

and xp on ound n h US a m Th F Am ndm n o h Un d S a

Conssttiittuttiion rreeadss::

Con u on ad



―Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of

speech.‖54



The US Constitution itself provides no grounds on which this right can be

restricted. It has been left to the US SC to carve out narrow and strict restrictions

so that federal or state laws may regulate only a few limited categories of speech

and expression, such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words. The laws of

several States relating to hate crimes and hate speech have been repeatedly struck

down by the US SC as not meeting the strict standard required by the

Constitution in protecting the freedom of speech and expression. Thus, the US

while signing the International Convention on the Elimination of All forms of

Racial Discrimination made a reservation regarding the conflict of the provisions

of the Convention and the First Amendment.



In 1931 the US SC examining a Minnesota law that restricted publications that

were obscene, lewd and lascivious or malicious, etc. and discussing the restrictions

on the freedom of speech and expression noted that the ―security of the

community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the

overthrow by force of orderly government. The constitutional guaranty of free

speech does not 'protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that

may have all the effect of force.‖



Dealing with the argument that the law was in the interest of social order, the

Court quoted with approval New Yorker Staats-Zeitung v. Nolan, 89 N. J. Eq.



54

[?]

387, 388, 105 A. 72 where it was held that 'If the township may prevent the

circulation of a newspaper for no reason other than that some of its inhabitants

may violently disagree with it, and resent it circulation by resorting to physical

violence, there is no limit to what may be prohibited.' The danger of violent

reactions becomes greater with effective organization of defiant groups resenting

exposure, and, if this consideration warranted legislative interference with the

initial freedom of publication, the constitutional protection would be reduced to a

mere form of words.



In Cantwell v. Connecticut,55 the US SC articulated the clear and present danger rule

i.e. ―When clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic

upon the public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order,

appears, the power of the state to prevent or punish is obvious.‖56



In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,57 the U.S. Supreme Court evolved the concept of

‗fighting words‘ that continues to define the approach of the US legal system to

hate speech i.e. ―insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance

inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well

observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and

are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be

derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and

morality.‖



In Brandenburg v. Ohio,58 the US SC noted that various decisions had fashioned the

principle that law may only proscribe advocacy except, ―where such advocacy is

directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or

produce such action.‖ Quoting themselves from an earlier case, the US SC said

that the ―the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral

necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group

for violent action and steeling it to such action.‖



In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,59 the US SC looked at the St. Paul, Minnesota,

Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance and the majority in this case held that the statute

was invalid not for being overbroad or on any other ground (that they did not go

into or rule out) but simply because it amounted to content based discrimination.

Giving the example of libel, the Court noted that while the government may



55

310 U.S. 296, 311

56

―The essential characteristic of these liberties is, that under their shield many types of life, character,

opinion and belief can develop unmolested and unobstructed. Nowhere is this shield more necessary

than in our own country for a people composed of many races and of many creeds. There are limits to

the exercise of these liberties. The danger in these times from the coercive activities of those who in the

delusion of racial or religious conceit would incite violence and breaches of the peace in order to

deprive others of their equal right to the exercise of their liberties, is emphasized by events familiar to

all. These and other transgressions of those limits the states appropriately may punish.‖

57

315 U.S. 568 (1942)

58

395 U.S. 444 (1969)

59

505 U.S. 377 (1992) at

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=505&page=377

proscribe libel, it may not make the further content discrimination of proscribing

only libel critical of the government.



While the majority agreed that the law was unconstitutional, they did so on

varying grounds. The minority argued that the ground of content-based

discrimination cast aside all First Amendment jurisprudence for an untried theory

whose faults they point out in no uncertain terms. They held the statute

unconstitutional for being ‗overbroad‘ as ―although the ordinance, as construed,

reaches categories of speech that are constitutionally unprotected, it also

criminalizes a substantial amount of expression that - however repugnant - is

shielded by the First Amendment.‖



Interestingly, US courts have upheld sexual harassment laws that permit suits over

perceived offensive speech or expression which are justified as preserving the

affected person‘s self esteem and protecting their right to a non-hostile

environment.[to chk]



[Criticisms]



The United States has become a refuge for those in foreign countries whose

governments have anti-speech laws. America‘s free speech laws make it

permissible for these groups to base their operations from within America‘s

borders and spread their message of hate, via the Internet, to any where in the

world.60 http://www.zundelsite.org/ whose content was in question in Citreon v.

Zundel in Canada is now hosted in the United States.



Tsesis describes a judicial tendency to rest too heavily upon the requirement of an

immediate threat and a naïve presumption that people spreading hate messages

would be content with mere speech without action. He suggests that judges

should consider history, rather than discreet instances of defamation, and

demonstrate a preference for inclusive speech. Ultimately, Tsesis calls for

increased judicial and legislative attention to the protection of individual rights.

Suggesting that the United States is an anomaly in its extreme protection of free

speech, he notes that Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, England, France,

Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, and Switzerland are among those

countries more willing to draw a clear line where unregulated speech may impose

upon the rights of others. Additionally, he cites various international treaties

addressing the elimination of hate crimes and limiting misethnic speech, to some

of which the United States is a signatory (albeit with reservations). 61



South Africa



Thee Conssttiittuttiion off Soutth Affrriicca wass adoptteed iin 1992.. Seeccttiion 16 off tthee Soutth Affrriiccan

Th Con u on o Sou h A a wa adop d n 1992 S on 16 o h Sou h A an

60

Mathew Cantral – hate speech

61

Destructive messages – Book notes – Harvard Law Journal - Destructive Messages: How Hate

Speech Paves the Way for Harmful Social Movements. By Alexander Tsesis. New York: NYU Press,

2002. Pp. 250. $40.00, cloth.

Conssttiittuttiion ssttatteess tthatt eevveerryyonee hass a rriigghtt tto ffrreeeedom off eexprreessssiion.. Seeccttiion 16((2)) ssttatteess::

Con u on a ha on ha a h o dom o xp on S on 16 2 a



―2) The right in subsection 1 does not extend to –

(a) Propaganda for war

(b) Incitement for imminent violence, or

((cc)) advvoccaccyy off hattrreed tthatt iiss basseed on rraccee,, eetthniicciittyy,, ggeendeerr orr rreelliiggiion,, and

ad o a o ha d ha ba d on a hn nd o on and

tthatt cconssttiittutteess iincciitteemeentt tto ccaussee harrm”

ha on u n m n o au ha m”



[[Possssiibllyy onllyy Conssttiittuttiion tthatt cconttaiinss tthiiss rreessttrriiccttiion]].. Thee Soutth Affrriiccan Conssttiittuttiion iiss

Po b on Con u on ha on a n h on Th Sou h A an Con u on

tthuss uniiquee iin tthatt iitt hass prree--eemptteed anyy deebattee on tthee neeeed fforr hattee sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss and tthee

hu un qu n ha ha p mp d an d ba on h n d o ha p h on and h

vvalluee off sspeeeecch no matttteerr how hatteeffull iin prromottiingg ffrreeeedom orr iinffrriinggiingg eequalliittyy byy ssiimpllyy

a u o p h no ma how ha u n p omo n dom o n n n qua b mp

rreemovviingg anyy cconssttiittuttiionall prrotteeccttiion fforr tthiiss fforrm off sspeeeecch.. Thee Soutth Affrriiccan ggovveerrnmeentt mayy

mo n an on u ona p o on o h o m o p h Th Sou h A an o nm n ma

accccorrdiinggllyy iinttrroduccee lleeggiissllattiion cconttrrollliingg ssucch sspeeeecch wiitthoutt anyy ffeearr off a ffrreeeedom off eexprreessssiion

a o d n n odu a on on o n u h p h w hou an a o a dom o xp on

cchallleenggee.. Hattee sspeeeecch iiss accccorrdiinggllyy putt ccomplleetteellyy beeyyond tthee purrvviieew off tthee cconssttiittuttiionall

ha n Ha p h a o d n pu omp b ond h pu w o h on u ona

prrotteeccttiion off hattee sspeeeecch alllowiingg tthee Sttattee tto eenacctt lleeggiissllattiion tto rreeggullattee tthee ssamee..

p o on o ha p h a ow n h S a o na a on o u a h am



For example, the slogan, ―kill the farmer, kill the boer,‖ used by some black

nationalists during the fight to overthrow apartheid, was ruled as hate speech by

South Africa‘s human rights body.62



[[To ggeett ccasseess]]

To a



Thiiss fforrm off lliimiittattiion off ccourrssee attttrraccttss tthee ssamee ccrriittiicciissmss tthatt publliicc purrpossee rreessttrriiccttiionss iin tthee

Th o m o m a on o ou a a h am m ha pub pu po on n h

IIndiian Conssttiittuttiion tthatt havvee allloweed bllacck llawss tto bee iinttrroducceed and wiitthssttand cconssttiittuttiionall

nd an Con u on ha ha a ow d b a k aw o b n odu d and w h and on u ona

rreevviieew.. Thee apparreentt advvanttaggee off tthee US Conssttiittuttiion iiss tthatt iitt ssttatteess iin no uncceerrttaiin tteerrmss

w Th appa n ad an a o h US Con u on ha a n no un a n m

whatt rriigghttss tthee peeopllee eenjjoyy lleeavviingg iitt fforr tthee rriiggorrouss ssccrruttiinyy off tthee US Suprreemee Courrtt tto ccarrvvee

wha h h p op n o a n o h o ou u n o h US Sup m Cou o a

outt narrrrow eexcceepttiionss tto ttheessee rriigghttss..

ou na ow x p on o h h



IItt iiss iintteerreessttiingg tto nottee and eexamiinee tthatt tthee hiissttorriiccall deevveellopmeentt off a nattiion mayy diiccttattee how

n n o no and xam n ha h h o a d opm n o a na on ma d a how

iittss llawss deeall wiitth hattrreed and hattee sspeeeecch.. Whiillee tthee Uniitteed Sttatteess Conssttiittuttiion wass a rreefflleeccttiion

aw d a w h ha d and ha p h Wh h Un d S a Con u on wa a on

off a rreevvolluttiionarryy [[ ]] whiicch att tthee ttiimee iitt wass adoptteed diid nott rreeccoggniissee eequalliittyy off rraccee,, ggeendeerr

o a o u ona wh h a h m wa adop d d d no o n qua o a nd

and sso on whiillee Canada and Soutth Affrriicca ((whossee Conssttiittuttiion iittsseellff prrohiibiittss cceerrttaiin fforrmss off

and o on wh Canada and Sou h A a who Con u on p oh b an om o

hattee sspeeeecch)) havvee deevveellopeed wiitth tthee undeerrssttandiingg off ttheeiirr nattiionss ass mullttiicculltturrall,, bii--nattiionall..

ha p h ha d op d w h h und and n o h na on a mu u u a b na ona









62

Mathew Cantral – hate speech

INDIA

INDIA



The Indian Constitution



What is of primacy in any discussion of how a State views freedoms and

restrictions on them is the Constitution. On 26th January 1950, the people of

India gave unto themselves a constitution. A Constitution reflects the founding

principles of any State and is supreme. The Constitution is the measure by which

laws, policies, actions are to be measured and all organs of the State and its

peoples are bound by these principles and most importantly the rights and

freedoms reflected in the Constitution. In the Constitution of India, the

Fundamental Rights chapter and its interpretations by the Supreme Court reflect

the bill of rights available to all persons. At times inherent contradictions surface

when one right appears pitted against the other or one claims supremacy over all

others. The debate over hate speech restrictions reflects one such battle, which

unfortunately is not adequately reflected in court decisions.



The Indiian llaw diiscussiions on hatte speech rresttrriicttiions iin case llaw have

The Ind an aw d scuss ons on ha e speech es c ons n case aw have

selldom been wiitthiin tthe ttrradiittiion parradiigm off ffrreedom off speech and

se dom been w h n he ad on pa ad gm o eedom o speech and

exprressiion and Courrtts iinsttiincttiivelly applly tthe ''publliic iintterrestt'' excepttiion

exp ess on and Cou s ns nc ve y app y he pub c n e es excep on

conttaiined iin tthe Consttiittuttiion.. Arrttiiclle 19 off tthe Indiian Consttiittuttiion rreads::

con a ned n he Cons u on A c e 19 o he Ind an Cons u on eads



[ ]



IIn Beenneetttt Colleeman & Co Lttd & orrss vv.. Sttattee off JJammu & Kasshmiirr63 tthee SC obsseerrvveed

n B nn Co man & Co L d & o S a o ammu & Ka hm h SC ob d





―We are, however, constrained to observe that the right of

freedom of speech which includes the right of communication

between individuals is an extremely valuable and precious

fundamental right of the citizen, and hence the Government

should not play or interfere with this sacrosanct privilege

guaranteed by our constitution merely to placate or please the

hypersensitiveness of an individual or a body of individuals. The

right of genuine criticism is inherent and implicit in the cherished

concept of democracy, and if any fair, legitimate or constructive

criticism is slashed down or scuttled, we shall be reducing our

valuable democracy to an acrimonious farce.‖





•―Enmity or hatred invariably leads to violence and promotion of enmity or

hatred is, in substance an incitement to an offence and therefore, the restriction

imposed by S. 153-A, Penal Code is valid under Art. 19(2).‖

-- Allllahabad Hiigh Courtt,, 1964

A ahabad H gh Cour 1964





63

1975 CrLJ 211 J&K

Similarly the freedom of religion in Article 25 reads, [ ]



Casseess iinvvollvviingg rreessttrriiccttiionss on rreelliiggiiouss sspeeeecch havvee allsso atttteemptteed tto cchallleenggee tthee prrovviissiionss off

Ca n o n on on ou p h ha a o a mp d o ha n h p o on o

hattee sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss iin IIndiian llaw on tthee ggrround tthatt ttheeyy iimpeedee tthee ffrreeeedom off rreelliiggiion.. IIn

ha p h on n nd an aw on h ound ha h mp d h dom o on n

Ramjjii Lall vv.. Sttattee off UP ,, tthee SC heelld tthatt tthee

Ram La S a o UP h SC h d ha h

64



―right to freedom of religion… is expressly made subject to public order,

morality and health. Therefore, it cannot be predicated that freedom of religion

can have no bearing whatever on the maintenance of public order or that a law

creating an offence relating to religion cannot under any circumstances be said to

have been enacted in the interests of public order.‖



IIn G..V.. Godse v.. Uniion off IIndiia ((AIIR 1971 Bombay 56)),, The Bombay Hiigh Courtt

n G V Godse v Un on o nd a A R 1971 Bombay 56 The Bombay H gh Cour

succiincttlly poiintted outt tthe,, “Briiefflly,, tthe challllenge tto tthe consttiittuttiionalliitty off Secttiion

succ nc y po n ed ou he “Br e y he cha enge o he cons u ona y o Sec on

153A on tthe ground tthatt iitt viiollattes tthe guaranttee off ffree speech and expressiion mustt

153A on he ground ha v o a es he guaran ee o ree speech and express on mus

be rejjectted because tthe secttiion seeks tto puniish onlly ((a)) such actts whiich have tthe

be re ec ed because he sec on seeks o pun sh on y a such ac s wh ch have he

ttendency tto promotte enmiitty or hattred bettween diifffferentt cllasses or ((b)) such actts whiich

endency o promo e enm y or ha red be ween d eren c asses or b such ac s wh ch

are prejjudiiciiall tto tthe maiinttenance off harmony bettween diifffferentt cllasses and whiich

are pre ud c a o he ma n enance o harmony be ween d eren c asses and wh ch

have tthe ttendency tto diistturb publliic ttranquiilllliitty.. These actts are cllearlly callcullatted tto

have he endency o d s urb pub c ranqu y These ac s are c ear y ca cu a ed o

diistturb publliic order and so tthe lliimiittattiions iimposed by Secttiion 153A are iin tthe

d s urb pub c order and so he m a ons mposed by Sec on 153A are n he

iintterestts off publliic order.. Arttiiclle 19((2)) woulld tthereffore save Secttiion 153A as beiing

n eres s o pub c order Ar c e 19 2 wou d here ore save Sec on 153A as be ng

wiitthiin tthe scope off permiissiiblle llegiisllattiive resttriicttiions on tthe ffundamenttall riightt

w h n he scope o perm ss b e eg s a ve res r c ons on he undamen a r gh

guarantteed by Artt.. 19((1))((a))..”

guaran eed by Ar 19 1 a ”



Indian laws and hate speech restrictions



[The following unique provisions of Indian laws dealing with hate speech

(promotion of enmity, outraging feelings) do not exist in other jurisdictions and

are fairly broad in their application.]



IIndiian Criimiinall Laws

nd an Cr m na Laws



Hate speech restrictions are contained in various Indian laws. [See Table 1]. Under

the Indian Penal Code certain forms of speech and expression are restricted as

offences relating to religion, offences relating to public tranquillity and as offences of

criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Under the Indian Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 publications that appear to contain matter punishable under Sections

153A, 153B and 295A of the IPC may be forfeited by the State Government.65 The



64

AIR 1957 SC 620

65

Section 95 of the CrPC provides: Section 95: "Power to declare certain publications forfeited,

and to issue search warrants for the same. - (1) Where any newspaper, or book, or any document,

wherever printed, appears to the State Government to contain any matter the publication of which is

punishable under …Section 153A or section 153B or …Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860), the State Government may, by notification, stating the grounds of its opinion, declare every

copy of the issue of the newspaper containing such matter, and every copy of such book or other

documents to be forfeited to Government, and thereupon any police officer may seize the same,

wherever found in India, and any Magistrate may by warrant authorise any police officer not below the

rank of sub-inspector to enter upon and search for the same in any premises where any copy of such

issue, or any such book, or other document may be or may be reasonable suspected to be.

(2) In this section and in section 96, -

"newspaper" and "book" have the same meaning as in the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867

order of forfeiture by the State Government may be challenged in accordance with

Section 96 of the Cr.P.C before the High Court of that State.66 Election laws prohibit

candidates and parties from promoting enmity [ ] to garner votes. Media laws

through various Acts, censorship and codes prohibit and prevent the transmission

of speech and expression that is [ ].



Of the IPC provisions, Section 153A is invoked most often in cases related to

hate speech. One of the earliest cases to discuss in detail the scope of this section

was Shib Sharma v. Emperor67 where the Oudh High Court examined whether a

book entitled ‗Chaman Islam ki Sair‘ was violative of the section [as it stood

then]. The author who had been convicted by the lower court contended inter alia

that the book was intended to enlighten his own brethren and prevent them from

accepting the Mahomedan religion. The Court in determining the matter before it

referred to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were a scholar in

Arabic and Persian and a teacher in theology who stated that the passages and the

book were not only hurtful and insulting to Muslims but some were also entirely

wrong or distorted to change their meaning. The Court noted that what the

author had done on quoting Islamic texts and scriptures was to, ―have collected a

number of passages which may be perfectly right and harmless in their proper

setting, but when disconnected or detached may seem scurrilous, indecent and

highly objectionable. Any Mahomedan who reads the passages…must feel them

highly painful and excite his anger and disgust.‖



The Courtt dettermiined tthatt tthe maiin iissue beffore iitt was tthe iinttenttiion off tthe autthor and

The Cour de erm ned ha he ma n ssue be ore was he n en on o he au hor and

notted tthatt,, “The iinttenttiion has tto be jjudged priimariilly by tthe llanguage off tthe book and

no ed ha “The n en on has o be udged pr mar y by he anguage o he book and

tthe ciircumsttances iin whiich tthe book was publliished.. IIff tthe llanguage iis off such a

he c rcums ances n wh ch he book was pub shed he anguage s o such a

natture callcullatted tto produce or tto promotte ffeelliings off enmiitty or hattred iin my opiiniion

na ure ca cu a ed o produce or o promo e ee ngs o enm y or ha red n my op n on



(25 of 1867);

"document" includes any painting, drawing or photograph, or other visible representation.

(3) No order passed or action taken under this section shall be called in question in any Court otherwise

than in accordance with the provisions of section 96.

66

Section 96: "Application to High Court to set aside declaration of forfeiture. - (1) Any person

having any interest in any newspaper, book or other document, in respect of which a declaration of

forfeiture has been made under section 95, may within two months from the date of publication in the

Official Gazette of such declaration, apply to the High Court to set aside such declaration on the

ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or other document, in respect of which the

declaration was made, did not contain any such matter as is referred to in sub-section (1) of section 95.

(2) Every such application shall, where the High Court consists of three or more Judges, be heard and

determined by a Special Bench of the High Court composed of three Judges and where the High Court

consists of less than three judges, such Special Bench shall be composed of all the Judges of that High

Court.

(3) On the hearing of any such application with reference to any newspaper, any copy of such

newspaper, any copy of such newspaper may be given in evidence in aid of proof of the nature or

tendency of the words, signs or visible representations contained in such newspaper, in respect of

which the declaration of forfeiture was made.

(4) The High Court shall, if it is not satisfied that the issue of the newspaper, or the book, or other

document, in respect of which the application has been made, contained any such matter as is referred

to in sub-section (1) of sec. 95, set aside the declaration of forfeiture.

(5) where there is a difference of opinion among the Judges forming the Special Bench, the decision

shall be in accordance with the opinion of the majority of those Judges."

67

AIR 1941 Oudh 310

tthe wriitter mustt be presumed tto iinttend tthatt whiich hiis actt iis lliikelly tto produce.. The

he wr er mus be presumed o n end ha wh ch h s ac s ke y o produce The

accused who iis a miissiionary may be enttiittlled tto a certtaiin llattiittude iin respectt off

accused who s a m ss onary may be en ed o a cer a n a ude n respec o

re--expressiion off relliigiious opiiniions,, butt iitt cannott ffor a momentt iin tthiis case be saiid

re express on o re g ous op n ons bu canno or a momen n h s case be sa d

tthatt tthe book was wriitttten iin a spiiriitt off ffaiir and honestt criittiiciism wiitthoutt any malliiciious

ha he book was wr en n a sp r o a r and hones cr c sm w hou any ma c ous

iinttenttiion off produciing any hattred..”

n en on o produc ng any ha red ”



The Court examined various judgments of the Lahore and Allahabad courts in

determining the [ ] of Section 153A. The Court chose to rely on the interpretation

of the Allahabad High Court in Charan Sharma v. Emperor where the Judge held

that he would look upon the matter as a common or ordinary citizen of India to

see if the content of a passage or book would be hurtful or would promote enmity

between persons from different religions etc. The Court accordingly held that,



“There can be no doubtt tthatt tthe passages…mustt be hiighlly paiinffull tto

“There can be no doub ha he passages…mus be h gh y pa n u o

tthe Mahomedan who reads or hears tthem and mustt exciitte hiis anger

he Mahomedan who reads or hears hem and mus exc e h s anger

and diisgustt…II am off tthe opiiniion tthatt tthe iinttenttiion off tthe accused was

and d sgus … am o he op n on ha he n en on o he accused was

tto riidiiculle tthe Prophett and hiis relliigiion and tto promotte ffeelliings off

o r d cu e he Prophe and h s re g on and o promo e ee ngs o

enmiitty or hattred bettween Hiindus and Mahomedans..”

enm y or ha red be ween H ndus and Mahomedans ”



In Babu Rao Patel v. State (Delhi Administration)68 the Supreme Court was faced

with the task of distinguishing speech violative of Section 153A from political

thesis and historical truths, which is what the author of the two articles under

scrutiny, claimed they were. It may be noted that truth is not a defence to the

offence under Section 153A. The SC examining two articles held that the first

entitled, ‗A tale of two communalisms,‘ was ―an undisguised attempt to promote

feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between the Hindu and Muslim

communities…The reference to the alleged Muslim tradition of rape, loot,

violence and murder and the alleged terror struck into the hearts of Hindu

minority in a neighbouring country by periodical killings, in the context of his

thesis that communalism is the instrument of a militant minority can lead to no

other inference.‖ Similarly on an examination of the second article entitled,

‗Lingering disgrace of history,‘ purported as a protest against naming of Delhi

Roads after Moghul emperors, the SC held that it was convinced that both the

articles do promote feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between the Hindus and

Muslims on grounds of community. The SC noted,



―Whether communalism is the weapon of an aggressive and militant

minority as suggested by the accused or the ―shield of a nervous and

fearful minority,‖ the problem of communalism is not solved by

castigating the members of the minority community as intolerant and

bloodthirsty and a community with a tradition of rape, loot, violence

and murder. Whether the Moghuls were rapists and murderers or not

and whether the Delhi roads should be named after them or not it

was wrong to present the Moghuls as the ancestors of today‘s

Muslims and to vilify the Muslims as the proud descendants of the

―foul‖ Moghuls.‖





68

AIR 1980 SC 763

IIn Aziizull Haq Kaussarr Naquvvii and anottheerr vv.. Thee Sttattee69 tthee Alllahabad Hiiggh Courrtt heelld

n Az zu Haq Kau a Naqu and ano h Th S a h A ahabad H h Cou h d

tthatt “ccrriimiinalliittyy fforr tthee offfeenccee off bllasspheemouss lliibeell orr ccrriimiinalliittyy undeerr tthee sseeccttiion [[153A]] doeess

ha “ m na o h o n o b a ph mou b o m na und h o n 1 5 3 A do

nott attttacch tto tthee tthiinggss ssaiid orr donee butt tto tthee manneerr iin whiicch iitt iiss ssaiid orr donee.. IIff tthee worrdss

no a a h o h h n a d o don bu o h mann n wh h a d o don h wo d

sspokeen orr wrriitttteen arree ccouccheed iin tteempeerrattee,, diiggniiffiieed,, and miilld llangguaggee,, and do nott havvee tthee

pok n o w n a ou h d n mp a d n d and m d an ua and do no ha h

tteendeenccyy tto iinssulltt tthee ffeeeelliinggss orr tthee deeeepeesstt rreelliiggiiouss cconvviiccttiionss off anyy sseeccttiion off tthee peeopllee,, peenall

nd n o n u h n o h d p ou on on o an on o h p op p na

cconsseequeencceess do nott ffolllow..”

on qu n do no o ow ”



In Joseph Bain D‘souza and another v. State of Maharashtra and others 70 the

Bombay High Court considered a Public Interest Litigation praying for a writ of

mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Police, Bombay to register crimes under

Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC against the editor and executive editor of

Saamna for editorials published during the 1993 Bombay riots and for the State of

Maharashtra to grant sanction under Section 196(1) for the prosecution of these

cases. The petitioners alleged that although respondents 3 and 4 had violated the

law deliberately, no steps were taken to apprehend them by respondents 1 and 2

and this inaction had led to a great deal of disquiet among the minority

communities.



In reply the Commissioner of Police denied the allegation of inaction stating that

crimes had in fact been registered and that a case could not be registered for each

editorial or article. The State Government added that the editorials as a whole except

the one for which prosecution had been launched contained criticism only against

anti-national muslims and not the muslim community as a whole and that as the

situation was now calm, registering cases could cause flare ups. The editor and

executive editor of Saamna contended that the petition was not maintainable as the

petitioners had an alternate remedy and that giving sanction for the prosecution was a

discretionary power of the State. They further stated that the purpose of writing the

editorials was not to insult the Muslim community as a whole but only anti-national

Muslims.



Interestingly, the issue of ‗Muslims and anti-national Muslims‘ raised repeatedly by

the respondents finds resonance with the Court. Thus, while the High Court

eventually determines that sufficient action was being taken by the police and the

matter should not be re-opened, it still examines the articles and editorials in question

and makes the following determination: [After examining various judgments on the

section, the Bombay High Court determined that while the motive in writing the

articles and editorials was irrelevant, the articles would have to be read as a whole to

determine their effect. After examining and quoting various passages from all the

articles and editorials, the Court concluded as follows:



―…it appears that criticism is levelled against anti national Muslims,

who at the behest of Pakistani agents, poured poison in the minds

of local Muslims and developed hatred in their minds against

Hindus in Bombay which ultimately resulted in unprecedented

riots. According to those articles, by the fissiparous mentality



69

1980-086-CrLJ-0448-All

70

Criminal Writ Petition No. 465 of 1993

created in the minds of Muslims by the aforesaid anti-social

elements, Muslims started drifting from the mainstream of life.

According to the said editorials, had the government curbed the

anti-national activities of the said Muslims, this would not have

resulted in ugly situation. These articles further observed that the

appeasing attitude of the Government towards the minority for

getting votes created dangerous situation in India. These article do

not criticise Muslims as a whole but criticise Muslims who were

traitors to India. This attitude of the Government, according to

these articles, provided Pakistan an opportunity to create explosive

situations like atom bomb in India. The main thrust of these articles

is against anti-national Muslims and attitude of police and the

Government. In these articles reference is also made to respect holy

Koran which according tot he editor, not only belongs to the

Muslims but to the whole humanity. In the said editorials appeal

was also made to the Muslims to forget the past and to join

mainstream of public life in India. It is true that in some of these

articles due to emotional outburst high flown and caustic language

is used but this per se will not fall within the mischief of Ss

153Aand 153B of the Code." [emphasis added]



The Courtt tthen goes on tto observe tthatt acttiions agaiinstt tthe respondentts iin rellattiion tto

The Cour hen goes on o observe ha ac ons aga ns he responden s n re a on o

otther arttiiclles had been ttaken by tthe polliice and sttatted tthatt consiideriing tthatt "now a llott

o her ar c es had been aken by he po ce and s a ed ha cons der ng ha "now a o

off ttiime has llapsed and peace,, ttranquiilllliitty and communall harmony…iis resttored.....iiff

o me has apsed and peace ranqu y and communa harmony… s res ored

stteps are ttaken .... ffor llaunchiing new prosecuttiion by reopeniing tthe sttalle matttters,, iitt

s eps are aken or aunch ng new prosecu on by reopen ng he s a e ma ers

may resulltt iin iillll ffeelliings bettween tthe ttwo majjor communiittiies..... Takiing tthe experiience

may resu n ee ngs be ween he wo ma or commun es Tak ng he exper ence

ffrom tthe pastt eventts,, botth tthe communiittiies have sttartted fforgettttiing tthe iillll ffeelliings

rom he pas even s bo h he commun es have s ar ed orge ng he ee ngs

tthereby creattiing communall harmony and lleadiing tthe lliiffe as partt off tthe maiinsttream off

hereby crea ng communa harmony and ead ng he e as par o he ma ns ream o

tthiis counttry ttowards prosperiitty and,, tthereffore,, ffrom tthiis poiintt off viiew allso,, iitt iis nott

h s coun ry owards prosper y and here ore rom h s po n o v ew a so s no

desiirablle tto reopen tthe olld iissue affresh.."

des rab e o reopen he o d ssue a resh "



Thiis argumentt iis a ffamiilliiar one ttaken by tthe Sttatte and offtten uphelld by tthe Courtts iin

Th s argumen s a am ar one aken by he S a e and o en uphe d by he Cour s n

matttters rellatted tto hatte speech.. IItt iis tthiis pllaciing off tthe Sttatte as an arbiitter iin

ma ers re a ed o ha e speech s h s p ac ng o he S a e as an arb er n

dettermiiniing whiich cases shoulld or shoulld nott be prosecutted and iin a sense

de erm n ng wh ch cases shou d or shou d no be prosecu ed and n a sense

predettermiiniing „„jjusttiice‟‟ tthatt makes hatte speech resttriicttiions iin IIndiian llaw tthe mostt

prede erm n ng us ce ha makes ha e speech res r c ons n nd an aw he mos

conttenttiious..

con en ous



[IIPC Secttiion 505 -- puniishiing sttattementts conduciive tto publliic miischiieff -- every ellementt

[ PC Sec on 505 pun sh ng s a emen s conduc ve o pub c m sch e every e emen

off tthe offffence has a diirectt connecttiion wiitth securiitty off Sttatte and publliic order.. Secttiion

o he o ence has a d rec connec on w h secur y o S a e and pub c order Sec on

iis valliid.. AIIR 1962 SC 953 – IIn Kedar Natth v.. Sttatte off Biihar AIIR 1962 SC 955 tthe SC

s va d A R 1962 SC 953 – n Kedar Na h v S a e o B har A R 1962 SC 955 he SC

consiidered tthe consttiittuttiionall valliidiitty off Secttiion 505 ]

cons dered he cons u ona va d y o Sec on 505 ]



THE STATE AS ARBIITER

THE STATE AS ARB TER



Whatt IIndiian llaw does cllearlly more tthan otther jjuriisdiicttiions iis cllearlly posiing tthe Sttatte

Wha nd an aw does c ear y more han o her ur sd c ons s c ear y pos ng he S a e

as arbiitter iin dettermiiniing whetther hatte speeches or hatte criimes shoulld even be

as arb er n de erm n ng whe her ha e speeches or ha e cr mes shou d even be

prosecutted.. Wiitthiin tthe ''publliic iintterestt'' paradiigm and tthe colloniiall hiisttory off our

prosecu ed W h n he pub c n eres parad gm and he co on a h s ory o our

criimiinall llaws,, iitt appears tthatt tthe onlly concern tthe IIndiian Sttatte has wiitth hatte speech

cr m na aws appears ha he on y concern he nd an S a e has w h ha e speech

rellattes tto iitts own securiitty or maiinttenance off securiitty.. Thiis becomes eviidentt ffrom tthe

re a es o s own secur y or ma n enance o secur y Th s becomes ev den rom he

requiirementt off sttatte sancttiions ffor prosecuttiion.. The very reall concern wiitth Sttatte

requ remen o s a e sanc ons or prosecu on The very rea concern w h S a e

power or where tthe sllope realllly getts slliippery iis eviidentt ffrom IIndiian llaws and [ ] ..

power or where he s ope rea y ge s s ppery s ev den rom nd an aws and [ ]



Interestingly, the Canadian Supreme Court in upholding hate speech restrictions

in Canadian law cited similar provisions in Canadian law as safeguards against the

misuse of law. However, in India, these provisions are used for political ends

rather than [?]. For instance, in the case of editorials and articles in Saamna before

and during the Bombay riots, ―20 criminal cases were filed against Saamna and

Thakeray for their role in the riots of 1992-1993. Prosecution for sanction was

granted in only six cases, and in 1996 the BJP-Sena alliance government led by

Manohar Joshi withdrew all but two of them. Two first information reports – No.

420 of 1993 and No. 459 of 1993 – charged Thakeray and Raut with inciting

communal hatred and seeking to spread disaffection among police personnel…In

July 2000 the Democratic Front government dug out the files from the inner

recesses of the Maharashtra Home Department, and arrested Thackeray.‖71



IIn Shalliibhadrra Shah and ottheerrss vv.. Swamii Krriisshna Bharrattii 72 tthee Gujjarratt Hiiggh Courrtt

n Sha bhad a Shah and o h Swam K hna Bha a h Gu a a H h Co u

diissccusssseed tthee rreeassonss beehiind tthee rreequiirreemeentt fforr Sttattee ssanccttiion fforr prrosseeccuttiion and ssttatteed::

d u d h a on b h nd h qu m n o S a an on o p o u on and a d



―It is quite possible that in a given case the very filing of a prosecution

after tempers have cooled down may generate class feelings which could

well be avoided…It may be equally possible that the article complained

of pertains to a matter falling within the area of social reform and attacks

certain dogmas in a general way without intending to outrage the

religious feelings of any class of citizens…the Government may in its

discretion refuse to accord sanction because a prosecution a based on

such an article would throttle free discussion on the subject.‖



IItt ffurtther opiined “tthe Governmentt beiing an iindependentt partty nott connectted wiitth

ur her op ned “ he Governmen be ng an ndependen par y no connec ed w h

diisputte bettween a compllaiinantt and tthe accused iis expectted tto actt ffaiirlly and tto ttake

d spu e be ween a comp a nan and he accused s expec ed o ac a r y and o ake

an objjecttiive deciisiion iin tthe matttter…”

an ob ec ve dec s on n he ma er…”



In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd Yusuf Noormohammed and others73 the



71

A Hysterical Campaign, Praveen Swami with Anupama Katakam, Frontline, Volume 18, Issue 17,

Aug 18-31, 2001 available at http://www.flonnet.com/fl1817/18170440.htm

72

1982 Cr LJ 113 Guj. The petitioner was the editor, printer and publisher of ‗Aaspass‘ a Gujarat

Weekly. In the 31st July 1977 issue, an article entitled ‗Why Acharya Rajnishji leaves Pune?‘ which

allegedly contained scurrilous and defamatory remarks against the said religious leader. The

Respondent a devotee of the Acharya filed a private complaint alleging that the publication of the

Weekly had violated Sections 295-A and 298 of the IPC. The petitioner filed for quashing the

proceedings under the complaint on the grounds that a prosecution under Section 295-A required the

previous sanction of the Govt. and that the prosecution re Section 298 was bad in law as the provisions

does not apply to written articles but to the wounding of religious feelings by words uttered, sounds or

placing an object in the sight of that person. The court on a reading of Section 295-A of the IPC and

196(1) of the CrPC held that the previous sanction from the Central or State Government for

prosecutions under the former section were sina qua non as per the latter section, the Magistrates were

not entitled to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the private complaint.

73

1990-096-CrLJ-2105-Bom. The petition was filed by the State of Maharashtra for quashing two

criminal complaints filed by the respondent under Sections 153, 296 and 298, IPC. The complaints

were filed subsequent to various incidents of violence that occurred between Shia and Sunni Muslims

during Moharrum. One of the respondents a religious head of the Shia Muslims had at the behest of the

Bombay High Court considered the application of the State Government to quash

two private complaints relating to offences under 153A and 153B of the IPC.

[CHK]. The State Government submitted that it was asking for the quashing of

the complaints as it apprehended further violence if the prosecutions continued.

The respondents submitted that they had a statutory right to file prosecution and

it was not permissible for the prosecution to be stifled on the imaginary ground of

maintenance of public order or tranquility. The Court in determining the issue,

referred to SC decisions on the quashing of prosecutions and determined that

prosecutions could be withdrawn by the State on grounds of public order, peace

and justice and that the same reasons would apply for quashing of private criminal

complaints. The Court further held that there was considerable merit in the

argument of the State of apprehended violence and noted that,



“iitt can hardlly be debatted tthatt ffor wiider beneffiitt off maiinttaiiniing peace,,

“ can hard y be deba ed ha or w der bene o ma n a n ng peace

iin tthe llarger conttextt off publliic peace,, tthe jjusttiice,, tthe riightts off

n he arger con ex o pub c peace he us ce he r gh s o

iindiiviiduall tto ffiille priivatte prosecuttiion has tto be curttaiilled…

nd v dua o e pr va e prosecu on has o be cur a ed…

conttiinuattiion off prosecuttiion iiniittiiatted by respondentts…woulld do greatt

con nua on o prosecu on n a ed by responden s…wou d do grea

harm tto tthe maiinttenance off peace and order iin tthiis Ciitty and,,

harm o he ma n enance o peace and order n h s C y and

tthereffore,, iitt iis a ffiitt case where powers under S.. 482 off tthe Code off

here ore sa case where powers under S 482 o he Code o

Criimiinall Procedure oughtt tto be exerciised.. We are consciious tthatt tthe

Cr m na Procedure ough o be exerc sed We are consc ous ha he

exerciise off powers shoulld be iin excepttiionall cases and powers shoulld

exerc se o powers shou d be n excep ona cases and powers shou d

nott be exerciised tto sttiifflle tthe prosecuttiion,, butt on tthe ffactts and

no be exerc sed o s e he prosecu on bu on he ac s and

ciircumsttances off tthe presentt case,, we have no hesiittattiion iin conclludiing

c rcums ances o he presen case we have no hes a on n conc ud ng

tthatt tthe prosecuttiion mustt be quashed..”

ha he prosecu on mus be quashed ”



It is interesting to note submissions of the State Government as quoted in the decision



“…tthe Governmentt iis nott concerned wiitth tthe meriitts off tthe pendiing

“… he Governmen s no concerned w h he mer s o he pend ng

prosecuttiion butt has approached tthiis Courtt seekiing relliieff under Secttiion

prosecu on bu has approached h s Cour seek ng re e under Sec on

482 off tthe Code off Criimiinall Procedure as tthe Governmentt apprehends

482 o he Code o Cr m na Procedure as he Governmen apprehends

tthatt conttiinuance off tthe prosecuttiion woulld ffoull tthe attmosphere and

ha con nuance o he prosecu on wou d ou he a mosphere and

break tthe spiiriitt off settttllementt arriived att.. IItt was conttended tthatt as tthe

break he sp r o se emen arr ved a was con ended ha as he

iissue iinvollved lled tto viiollentt acttiion,, tthe Governmentt had tto iinttervene tto

ssue nvo ved ed o v o en ac on he Governmen had o n ervene o

briing aboutt amiicablle settttllementt and conttiinuance off tthe prosecuttiion

br ng abou am cab e se emen and con nuance o he prosecu on

woulld deffeatt tthe purpose…every offffence has a sociiall,, economiic or

wou d de ea he purpose…every o ence has a soc a econom c or

relliigiious cause and afftter careffull consiiderattiion,, tthe Governmentt has

re g ous cause and a er care u cons dera on he Governmen has

come tto tthe concllusiion tthatt elliimiinattiion or eradiicattiion off tthese causes off

come o he conc us on ha e m na on or erad ca on o hese causes o

tthe criime woulld be betttter served by nott proceediing wiitth tthe

he cr me wou d be be er served by no proceed ng w h he

prosecuttiion…Shrii Advocatte Generall allso submiitttted tthatt tthe observattiion

prosecu on…Shr Advoca e Genera a so subm ed ha he observa on

off tthe Addiittiionall Chiieff Mettropolliittan Magiisttratte whiille iissuiing process

o he Add ona Ch e Me ropo an Mag s ra e wh e ssu ng process

tthatt tthe Courtt iis tthe bestt pllace tto resollve variious conttroversiies iis

ha he Cour s he bes p ace o reso ve var ous con rovers es s

enttiirelly iincorrectt.. IIn case tthe conttroversy iis reopened tthen iitt woulld llead

en re y ncorrec n case he con roversy s reopened hen wou d ead

tto biitttterness bettween tthe ttwo ffacttiions and tthe publliic ttranquiilliitty woulld

o b erness be ween he wo ac ons and he pub c ranqu y wou d

be jjeopardiized..”

be eopard zed ”







State Government issued a statement in an attempt to calm tensions. Some days after the statement was

issued Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate criminal complaints against Respondent 3, which were

sought to be quashed by the State Government.

The Supreme Court in Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar74 observed that, ―The

criminal law is not to be used as an instrument of wrecking private vengeance by

an aggrieved party against the person.‖



At this stage some discussion on the role of the State, administration and local

authorities would be useful. Riots, carnage, and the like it is clear from

independent and government inquiries over the years cannot occur without the

involvement of the administration. So embedded is the administrative structure

left behind by the British that it is impossible for events to unfold, particularly

violent events, without the knowledge, if not active involvement of administrative

agencies. Accordingly, it is when they take swift and immediate action that

violence is prevented. [Add from Sikh carnage – police stations that resisted and

those that didn‘t.] The effectiveness of local administration is perhaps well

demonstrated by the drama surrounding Pravin Togadia‘s speeches across the

country in 2002-2003. [See Box 2]. In several States, Mr. Togadia was prevented

by local administration from making his ‗speeches‘ on the ground that they

incited violence and unrest. When challenged in the SC [discussed elsewhere], the

SC too pointed out the centrality of local administration in preventing and

controlling violence.



Does this recognition of their role conflict with the discomfort over State

approvals for sanctions of cases where there is an attempt to access justice for

speech that has promoted hatred? But the scenarios are very different. In the latter

as in the case of Mr. Togadia, the administration acts to prevent what it perceives

as propensity for violence. [to complete argument.] In the case of incidents of hate

speech, the role of the State in sanctioning or otherwise prosecutions allows them

to predetermine who has access to justice and who doesn‘t. Justice – peace!



Elections laws





Elections in India are regulated under the Representation of Peoples Act [ ].

In Dr. Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Nanasaheb Kadam and others (1995) 5

SCC 123 the Supreme Court considered a poster where the appellant appealed for

votes to ―teach a lesson to Muslims.‖ The SC held that, ―Such appeal, to say the least,

was potentially offensive and was likely to rouse passion in the minds of the voters on

communal basis. Such appeal to teach a lesson was also likely to being disharmony

between the two communities namely the Hindus and the Muslims and offended the

secular structure of the country.‖ The SC noted that speeches delivered in elections

had to be appreciated dispassionately keeping in mind their context as the atmosphere

is often surcharged with partisan feelings and emotions. Keeping these factors in

mind, the SC found that the poster ―cannot be justified in any manner even by giving

reasonable latitudes in election speeches.‖



In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others ( (1976)

2 SCC 17), The SC noted:



74

AIR 1966 SC 911

―Our Constitution-makers certainly intended to set up a Secular Democratic Republic

the binding spirit of which is summed up by the objectives set forth in the preamble to

the Constitution. No democratic political and social order, in which the conditions of

freedom and their progressive expansion for all make some regulation of all activities

imperative, could endure without an agreement on the basic essentials which could

unite and hold citizens together despite all the differences of religion, race, caste,

community, culture, creed and language. Our political history made it particularly

necessary that these differences, which can generate powerful emotions, depriving

people of their powers of rational thought and action should not be permitted to be

exploited lest the imperative conditions for the preservation of democratic freedoms

are disturbed.



It seems to us that Section 123, sub-sections (2), (3) and (3A) were enacted so as to

eliminate, from the electoral process, appeals to those divisive factors which arouse

irrational passions that run counter to the basic tenets of our Constitution, and, indeed,

of any civilsed political and social order. Due respect for the religious beliefs and

practices, race, creed, culture and language of other citizens is one of the basic

postulates of our democratic system. Under the guise of protecting your own religion,

culture or creed you cannot embark on personal attacks on those of others or whip up

low herd instincts and animosities or irrational fears between groups to secure

electoral victories. The line has to be drawn by the courts, between what is

permissible and what is prohibited, after taking into account the facts and

circumstances of each case interpreted in the context in which the statements or acts

complained of were made.



―As already indicated by us, our democracy can only survive if those who aspire to

become people‘s representatives and leaders understand the spirit of secular

democracy. That spirit was characterised by Montesquieu long ago as one of ―virtue‖.

It implies, as the late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru once said, ―self-discipline‖. For such a

spirit to prevail, candidates at elections have to try to persuade electors by showing

them the light of reason and not by inflaming their blind and disruptive passions.

Heresy hunting propaganda on professedly religious grounds directed against a

candidate at an election may be permitted in a theocratic State but not in a secular

republic like ours. It is evident that, if such propaganda was permitted here, it would

injure the interests of members of religious minority groups more than those of others.

It is forbidden in this country in order to preserve the spirit of equality, fraternity, and

amity between rivals even during elections. Indeed such prohibitions are necessary in

the interests of elementary peace and order.‖



After discussing the meaning and implication of the term ‗secular‘ in philosophy,

religion and personal spheres, the SC said, ―The Secular State, rising above all

differences of religion, attempts to secure the good of all its citizens irrespective of

their religious beliefs and practices. It is neutral or impartial in extending its benefits

to citizens of all castes and creeds. Maitland had pointed out that such a State has to

ensure, through its laws, that the existence or exercise of a political or civil right or

the right or capacity to occupy any office or position under it or to perform any public

duty connected with it does not depend upon the profession or practice of any

particular religion. Therefore, candidates at an election to a Legislature, which is part

of ―the State‖, cannot be allowed to tell electors that their rivals are unfit to act as

their representatives on grounds of their religious professions or practices. To permit

such propaganda would be not merely to permit undignified personal attacks on

candidates concerned but also to allow assaults on what sustains the basic structure of

our Democratic State.‖



Interestingly, these observations of the Court, based primarily on the nature of the

secular state were made prior to the Constitutional amendment adding the word

‗Secular‘ to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Of course, the SC had previously

in Keshavanand Bharti‘s case declared ‗secularism‘ a basic unamendable part of our

Constitution. The issue of secularism has however continued to dog the SC and its

understanding and explanations have varied and blurred over the years. The issue of

secularism becomes relevant to hate speech restrictions as religion has over the years

been a primary [center] for hate speech particularly during elections. How the SC

looks at secularism impacts how law looks at hate speech restrictions particularly in

the light of equality.



Pratap Bhanu Mehta: If the insult is to one‘s religion, or an exhortation is made in the

name of religion, we are incapable of receiving the expression on our own terms;

incapable of managing our own responses, condemned to receiving these expressions

unfreely and helplessly, incapable as it were of self discipline. We can manage our

impressions, exercise our religious choices and practice judgment, only when left

alone. Hence the court‘s emphasis that the right to freedom of religion just means the

right to freedom from other people‘s religion. Our choices are impaired, or faculties

numbed, more so because we have undeveloped minds. This is the ‗secret‘ rationale

behind both anti-conversion legislation and the RPA.



Hatte speech and sediittiion

Ha e speech and sed on



Hiisttoriicalllly hatte speech llaw iin IIndiia has evollved ffrom sediittiious lliibell -- agaiinstt

H s or ca y ha e speech aw n nd a has evo ved rom sed ous be aga ns

Chriisttiianiitty -- breakdown off sociietty..

Chr s an y breakdown o soc e y



Today -- jjudgmentts lleave tthe ttwo conceptts vague whiich iiff iintterspersed wiitth realliitty

Today udgmen s eave he wo concep s vague wh ch n erspersed w h rea y

means tthiis::

means h s



IIsllamiic criittiiciism coulld iimplly sediittiion -- wellll tthey dontt realllly lliike tthe counttry anyway..

s am c cr c sm cou d mp y sed on we hey don rea y ke he coun ry anyway



•Hate Speech and Sedition

–Historically controlling hate speech began with controlling speech against the government

–Indian law, introduced by the British and evolved from their Sedition laws

–Does the connection between hate speech, sedition and public order reinforce ideas of

anti-nationalism in speeches by minority group leaders

•Hate Speech and anti conversion laws

–Prohibition of conversion by force, fraud, inducement

–„Force‟ includes threats of divine punishment or displeasure

–„Inducement‟ includes offer of gift or gratification to include „intangible benefits.‟



Today hate speech restrictions appear in ‗black‘ laws traditionally used to tackle

sedition and ‗terrorism‘ when the crimes connected to them are so great as to overawe

the State machinery requiring ‗special‘ powers and procedures to assist law

enforcement in controlling and preventing such crimes. Thus, the Unlawful Activities

Prevention Act provides…Provisions relating to speech and hate speech exist in the

Punjab Security of State Act 1953 (extended to Manipur), The Disturbed Areas

(Special Courts) Act, 1976 [Scheduled Offences include 153A and B, 295A and 298 -

summary trial by Special courts for acts committed in a 'disturbed area' i.e. where

tensions, disharmony etc. exist.],



Between the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, POTA and case law under 153A, the

effect of the law is such that in [ ]‘s case, if the author of Chaman Islam ki Sair been

part of an organisation declared unlawful under the Unlawful Activities prevention

Act, and in possession of an unlicensed gun, he would then face the [ ]

Saamna



―The Muslims in India are behaving as if they are Pakistani citizens. It is as if there

are two countries within this one. Hindus, open your eyes and see what is going on!

Your funeral pyres are burning.‖



January 14: ―Our tolerance has limits. All this was started by the traitors. The Hindus

went back four steps and then displayed their strength. That‘s when the traitors put up

white flags on their armed strongholds. Why should we die without fighting? And at

the hands of traitors like (police officers) Khan and Ghafoor?‖



January 23 – Thakerey: ―I have nurtured a new, fiery generation of Hindus in the form

of the Shiv Sena, and Saamna has been instrumental in this task….Hindus woke up in

Hindustan after December 6 (1992), and it is time we all burned like a torch.

Anti-national traitors should be burned to ashes in this flame.‖



A Hysterical Campaign, Praveen Swami with Anupama Katakam, Frontline,

Volume 18, Issue 17, Aug 18-31, 2001 available at

http://www.flonnet.com/fl1817/18170440.htm



------

Frrom "Burrniing Pyrres",, ediittorriiall,, Saamna,, Januarry 11,, 1993::

F om "Bu n ng Py es" ed o a Saamna Janua y 11 1993

* Hindus have been burned alive in Jogeshwari, and that is why they have taken to the

streets. Dawood Ibrahim's man (ACP) A.A. Khan has tried to shoot these people.

There is no justice, for fanatic traitors go scot-free while the terrorist Khan fires at

Hindus. The people and the police have been fired at from mosques with Pakistani

weapons. Why are we protecting them? It is not fair that you should allow them to do

namaaz on their streets and let their loudspeakers blare out while our maha aa rtis are

stopped. There should be equal justice.

* Muslims in India are behaving as if they are Pakistani citizens. It is as if there are

two countries within this one. The police are waiting for orders to shoot these people.

Even they feel the anguish of innocent citizens. When the Muslims had finishe d what

they want to do and when the Hindus decided to retaliate, (Chief Minister)

Sudhakarrao Naik, Babanrao (Pachpute) and their Khan gangster friends including

(ACP) Khan descended upon the Hindus. Hindus, open your eyes and see what is

going on! Your funeral pyres are burning.

* Innocent Hindu boys are being killed, and you wait for orders to destroy the fanatic

traitors in Bhendi Bazaar (a Muslim area in south Mumbai)? Have the police also

become playthings in the hands of politicians? We predict that these traitors will kill

you also. Since the police had not done anything, our young boys retaliated for the

murders of Hindus on January 6. And what do we get? You kill those brave boys.

* (Sharad) Pawar and the police will never be able to live in peace from this moment

on, because they have received the curses of these dead boys. It is easy to face people

when they are alive, but the embers from their funeral pyres will be impossible t o

confront. You could kill these children, but how will you stop these embers... People

will spit on your corpses.

From "They Were Turned Into Lambs", editorial, Saamna, January 14,

1993:

* Relliigiious ffanattiics broughtt ttheiir relliigiion on tto tthe road,, and made lliiffe miiserablle ffor

* Re g ous ana cs brough he r re g on on o he road and made e m serab e or

iinnocentt ciittiizens.. The governmentt supportted tthiis.. Butt when Hiindus reactted agaiinstt

nnocen c zens The governmen suppor ed h s Bu when H ndus reac ed aga ns

tthiis tterroriism,, and broughtt ttheiir relliigiion on tto tthe roads,, tthe governmentt,, polliittiicii ans

h s error sm and brough he r re g on on o he roads he governmen po c ans

and ttraiittors were tturned iintto llambs.... IIn spiitte off Thackeray''s appeall ffor peace,, tthe

and ra ors were urned n o ambs n sp e o Thackeray s appea or peace he

riiotts diid nott sttop.. Allll we have tto say aboutt tthiis iis tthatt iiff iitt was nott ffor hiis appeall,, tthe

r o s d d no s op A we have o say abou h s s ha was no or h s appea he

enttiire ciitty woulld have been reduced tto ashes and nott one relliigiious ffanattii c ttraiittor

en re c y wou d have been reduced o ashes and no one re g ous ana c ra or

woulld have lliived.. Even governmentt servantts lliike Ghaffffoor and Khan came outt tto hellp

wou d have ved Even governmen servan s ke Gha oor and Khan came ou o he p

tthese ffanattiics.. We have sttopped ffor now,, and wiillll be quiiett ffor tthe momentt..

hese ana cs We have s opped or now and w be qu e or he momen

* We are ttollerantt,, butt our ttollerance has lliimiitts.. Allll tthiis was sttartted by tthe ttraiittors..

* We are o eran bu our o erance has m s A h s was s ar ed by he ra ors

The Hiindus onlly wentt back ffour stteps and tthen diispllayed ttheiir sttrengtth.. Thatt''s when

The H ndus on y wen back our s eps and hen d sp ayed he r s reng h Tha s when

tthe ttraiittors putt up whiitte ffllags on ttheiir armed sttronghollds..... We have tto deffend our

he ra ors pu up wh e ags on he r armed s rongho ds We have o de end our

sellves,, siince tthe Khans and Ghaffffoors,, iin whom tthe governmentt has vestted tthe

se ves s nce he Khans and Gha oors n whom he governmen has ves ed he

responsiibiilliitty ffor our prottecttiion,, are hand--iin--gllove wiitth tthe ttraiittors.. And so,, we wiillll

respons b y or our pro ec on are hand n g ove w h he ra ors And so we w

have tto be careffull.. Why shoulld we diie wiitthoutt ffiighttiing? And att tthe hands off relliigiious

have o be care u Why shou d we d e w hou gh ng? And a he hands o re g ous

ttra iittors lliike Khan and Ghaffffoor?

ra ors ke Khan and Gha oor?

* The governmentt sentt Syed Bukharii,, tthe son off tthe IImam off tthe Juma Masjjiid,, tto

* The governmen sen Syed Bukhar he son o he mam o he Juma Mas d o

Mumbaii despiitte tthe siittuattiion.. He had sttartted tthe anttii--nattiionall Adam Sena,, whiich had

Mumba desp e he s ua on He had s ar ed he an na ona Adam Sena wh ch had

shaken tthe governmentt.. Thiis iis tthe same snake who asked ffor miilliittary prottecttiion tthe

shaken he governmen Th s s he same snake who asked or m ary pro ec on he

miinutte he llanded att tthe Mumbaii aiirportt,, because he does nott ttrustt tthe polliice.. IIs tthiis

m nu e he anded a he Mumba a rpor because he does no rus he po ce s h s

Bukharii IIndiia''s Presiidentt,, tto ask ffor miilliittary prottecttiion? We congrattullatte tthe polliice

Bukhar nd a s Pres den o ask or m ary pro ec on? We congra u a e he po ce

ffor haviing sentt tthiis anttii--nattiionall parcell back tto Dellhii..... Beffore lleaviing he had spoken

or hav ng sen h s an na ona parce back o De h Be ore eav ng he had spoken

tt o A..A.. Khan on tthe phone,, and we are sure off tthiis news.... He gave Khan''s uniitt tthe

o A A Khan on he phone and we are sure o h s news He gave Khan s un he

responsiibiilliitty off kiilllliing pattriiottiic IIndiians.. We have been sayiing tthiis agaiin and agaiin..

respons b y o k ng pa r o c nd ans We have been say ng h s aga n and aga n

The peoplle mustt know aboutt tthe conspiiracy bettween Khan and tthe IImam''s son.. When

The peop e mus know abou he consp racy be ween Khan and he mam s son When

Mumba ii was burniing,, how coulld tthey allllow tthiis kiind off expllosiive tto lland att tthe

Mumba was burn ng how cou d hey a ow h s k nd o exp os ve o and a he

Mumbaii aiirportt? They shoulld have been sttopped.. Butt no!! IIff tthey are sttopped,, whatt

Mumba a rpor ? They shou d have been s opped Bu no hey are s opped wha

wiillll tthe Muslliims tthiink off tthe governmentt?..... Diilliip Kumar wiillll be pllayiing criickett iin

w he Mus ms h nk o he governmen ? D p Kumar w be p ay ng cr cke n

Dubaii ffor iintter nattiionall peace.. We say,, you shoulld ttellll hiis ffanattiic brotthers iin Bhendii

Duba or n er na ona peace We say you shou d e h s ana c bro hers n Bhend

Bazaar,, Dongrii and Behrampada tto maiinttaiin peace..... IIff tthe Muslliims had sttopped

Bazaar Dongr and Behrampada o ma n a n peace he Mus ms had s opped

ttheiir lleaders,, none off tthiis woulld have happened..

he r eaders none o h s wou d have happened

From "Behrampada Reverberates to a Maha Aarti", report, Saamna,

January 21, 1993:

* The wholle off Behrampada reverberatted tto a maha aarttii perfformed att tthe Ganesh

* The who e o Behrampada reverbera ed o a maha aar per ormed a he Ganesh

Templle ttoday afftternoon.. The Stthaniiya Lokadhiikar Samiittii announced tthatt

Temp e oday a ernoon The S han ya Lokadh kar Sam announced ha

Behrampada woulld henceffortth be calllled Rampada..... "Pullll outt allll tthe Banglladeshiis

Behrampada wou d hence or h be ca ed Rampada "Pu ou a he Bang adesh s

and Pakiisttaniis ffrom Behra mpada,," says Bamanrao Mahadiik,, "tthey are tthe ones who

and Pak s an s rom Behra mpada " says Bamanrao Mahad k " hey are he ones who

are ruiiniing our counttry.." "IItt''s ttiime tto send tthese green hordes back tto ttheiir

are ru n ng our coun ry " " s me o send hese green hordes back o he r

counttry"..... Shiiv Sena lleader Madhukar Sarpottdar saiid,, "Javed Khan,, A..A.. Khan and

coun ry" Sh v Sena eader Madhukar Sarpo dar sa d "Javed Khan A A Khan and

Hassan Ghaffffoor Khan,, tthese tthree Khans,, have murdered onlly Hiindus.. Butt

Hassan Gha oor Khan hese hree Khans have murdered on y H ndus Bu

remember tthatt Hiindus can allso kiillll cruelllly.. You are bound tto burn tto ashes iin tthe ffiire

remember ha H ndus can a so k crue y You are bound o burn o ashes n he re

tthatt you have lliitt"..... Shiiv Sena MLA Ramdas Kadam says,, "IIff iitt was nott ffor Shiiv Sena

ha you have " Sh v Sena MLA Ramdas Kadam says " was no or Sh v Sena

Pramukhs and tthe Shiiv Sena,, Mumbaii woulld have becom e Pakiisttan.. Those who llove

Pramukhs and he Sh v Sena Mumba wou d have becom e Pak s an Those who ove

Pakiisttan shoulld be sentt back tthere.. IIff tthey can ttake tthe llaw iintto ttheiir hands,, we wiillll

Pak s an shou d be sen back here hey can ake he aw n o he r hands we w

do so ttoo.."

do so oo "

From "Hindu Pride Must Be Upheld: The Country and Hindu Dharma

Must Triumph", editorial, Saamna, January 23, 1993:

* Today iis Saamna''s ffiifftth biirtthday.. We woulld have lliiked tto cellebratte tthiis eventt as we

* Today s Saamna s h b r hday We wou d have ked o ce ebra e h s even as we

have done every year.. The siittuattiion does nott permiitt us tto do so because ffanattiics have

have done every year The s ua on does no perm us o do so because ana cs have

kiilllled llarge numbers off our Hiindu brotthers and siistters.. Allll off tthem have gii ven ttheiir

k ed arge numbers o our H ndu bro hers and s s ers A o hem have g ven he r

lliives ffor tthe holly war tto keep tthiis nattiion alliive.... Saamna and II have ffoughtt lliike reall

ves or he ho y war o keep h s na on a ve Saamna and have ough ke rea

men iin tthiis holly war,, regardlless off tthe consequences..

men n h s ho y war regard ess o he consequences

* Some peoplle suggestted tthatt we ttone down tthe sharpness off our llanguage,, butt we iin

* Some peop e sugges ed ha we one down he sharpness o our anguage bu we n

tturn ask,, why? Whatt wiillll tthey do? Throw me iin priison? II have keptt my bags and allll

urn ask why? Wha w hey do? Throw me n pr son? have kep my bags and a

my mediiciines ready.. II am nott botthered by tthe tthoughtt off goiing tto priison..... IIff II am

my med c nes ready am no bo hered by he hough o go ng o pr son am

arrestt ed,, iiff tthe governmentt ttakes any rash deciisiion,, whiille onlly Mumbaii has seen

arres ed he governmen akes any rash dec s on wh e on y Mumba has seen

riiottiing so ffar,, tthen tthe wholle off tthe counttry up tto Jammu and Kashmiir wiillll riise up.. II

r o ng so ar hen he who e o he coun ry up o Jammu and Kashm r w r se up

am prepared.. Thiis iis nott a tthreatt.. II am jjustt ttelllliing tthe ttrutth.. The counttry has enough

am prepared Th s s no a hrea am us e ng he ru h The coun ry has enough

probllem s.. Don''tt add tto tthem by arresttiing me.. II am nott sayiing tthiis outt off vaniitty.. IIff a

prob em s Don add o hem by arres ng me am no say ng h s ou o van y a

holly war iis tto begiin because off me,, tthan so be iitt..

ho y war s o beg n because o me han so be

* II have nurttured a new,, ffiiery generattiion off Hiindus iin tthe fform off tthe Shiiv Sena,, and

* have nur ured a new ery genera on o H ndus n he orm o he Sh v Sena and

Saamna has been iinsttrumenttall iin tthiis ttask.... Hiindus woke up iin Hiindusttan afftter

Saamna has been ns rumen a n h s ask H ndus woke up n H ndus an a er

December 6 ((1992)),, and iitt iis ttiime we allll burned lliike a ttorch.. Anttii--nattiionall ttraiitto rs

December 6 1992 and s me we a burned ke a orch An na ona ra o rs

shoulld be burned tto ashes iin tthiis ffllame.... IIn some polliice sttattiions tthere are monstters

shou d be burned o ashes n h s ame n some po ce s a ons here are mons ers

who are pulllliing outt tthe naiills ffrom tthe hands and ffeett off our young chiilldren,, and

who are pu ng ou he na s rom he hands and ee o our young ch dren and

sllappiing ffallse cases agaiinstt tthem.. ((ACP)) Khan has become ffamous because off

s app ng a se cases aga ns hem ACP Khan has become amous because o

((muniiciipa ll corporattor)) Miilliind Vaiidya.. Muslliims sttartted riiottiing iin Vaiidya''s area,,

mun c pa corpora or M nd Va dya Mus ms s ar ed r o ng n Va dya s area

Mahiim,, and everyone knows whatt kiinds off relliigiious ffanattiics tthey are.. Vaiidya iis a

Mah m and everyone knows wha k nds o re g ous ana cs hey are Va dya s a

responsiiblle Corporattor and iis on tthe peace commiittttee off tthe area,, butt Khan has

respons b e Corpora or and s on he peace comm ee o he area bu Khan has

attttacked Vaiidya,, and pu tt hiim behiind bars on a ffallse charge off murder.. Thiis iis Khan''s

a acked Va dya and pu h m beh nd bars on a a se charge o murder Th s s Khan s

llaw!!

aw

* The governmentt ttelllls us 1,,75,,00,,000 Banglladeshii iinffiillttrattors are lliiviing iin tthiis

* The governmen e s us 1 75 00 000 Bang adesh n ra ors are v ng n h s

counttry.. Why are you giiviing us tthese numbers? Whatt kiind off securiitty are you

coun ry Why are you g v ng us hese numbers? Wha k nd o secur y are you

maiinttaiiniing att tthe borders? We have ttroublle comiing tto Mumbaii ffrom Dellhii.. How

ma n a n ng a he borders? We have roub e com ng o Mumba rom De h How

tthen do Banglladeshii Muslliims manage tto gett here? Vasantt Saraff saiid tthatt whiille he

hen do Bang adesh Mus ms manage o ge here? Vasan Sara sa d ha wh e he

was tthe Diirecttor--Generall off Polliice,, he had warned tthe governmentt tthatt a llarge

was he D rec or Genera o Po ce he had warned he governmen ha a arge

number off Banglladeshii Muslliims had enttered IIndiia.... Earlliier,, tthere was onlly one

number o Bang adesh Mus ms had en ered nd a Ear er here was on y one

Bhendii Bazaar.. Today tthere iis Deonar ,, Govandii,, Behrampada,, Mahiim.. Thiis iis

Bhend Bazaar Today here s Deonar Govand Behrampada Mah m Th s s

preciiselly where riiottiing ttook pllace and iinnocentt peoplle were kiilllled..

prec se y where r o ng ook p ace and nnocen peop e were k ed

Frrom "Keep tthe Nattiion Alliive",, ediittorriiall,, Saamna,, Januarry 9,, 1993::

F om "Keep he Na on A ve" ed o a Saamna Janua y 9 1993

* Whoever comes is preaching to Hindus as if it is we who started the riots. What do

we have with us to start riots with? All we have are rags dipped in kerosene! In

Bhendi Bazaar, Dongri and Behrampada weapons brought from Pakistan and

Bangladesh are be ing used. These weapons have been used to kill cruelly everyone

from little babies who have not yet opened their eyes to old people. (ACP) Mundkur

and (ACP) Khan have actually attacked unarmed Hindus in Dharavi and Kurla. They

should go to Bhendi Bazaar and stop their brothers there. Now we can clearly see

their real colours and their real loyalties. Whatever we had predicted has come true. A

Muslim, irrespective of his country or status, will remain a Muslim. His religion and

his community come before his country. The attacks on patriots over the last two days

are an insult to the nation.

* Even policemen say this government is made up of gandus (an abusive term). They

have their service revolvers with them but all they can do is count corpses. That is the

only work the government is doing... The Indian and Maharashtrian people spi t on

this government. The government is wearing a green burkha and standing at the

Bhendi Bazaar crossroads wearing bangles.

* I am not provoking people. I am only expressing anguish.

Transllattiions by Archana Chaudhary ((The Hiindu Busiiness Liine,, Mumbaii))..

Trans a ons by Archana Chaudhary The H ndu Bus ness L ne Mumba

Frrom Whatt Saamna Saiid,, Frronttlliinee,, Vollumee 17,, IIssssuee 16,, Auggusstt 5--18,, 2000 avvaiillabllee att

F om Wha Saamna Sa d F on n Vo um 17 u 16 Au u 5 18 2000 a a ab a

htttp:://www..fflloonneett..ccoom/ffll1716/17160160..httm

h p //www nn m/ 1716/17160160 h m

The argument of multiculturalism is to an extent reflected in the Togadia judgment.

The SC noted, ―Our country is the world‘s most heterogeneous society, with rich

heritage and our Constitution is committed to high ideas of socialism, secularism and

integrity of the nation. As is well known, several races have converged in this

sub-continent and they carried with them their own cultures, languages, religions and

customs affording positive recognition



Our counttry iis tthe worlld‟‟s mostt hetterogeneous sociietty,, wiitth riich heriittage and our

Our coun ry s he wor d s mos he erogeneous soc e y w h r ch her age and our

Consttiittuttiion iis commiitttted tto hiigh iideas off sociialliism,, secullariism and tthe iinttegriitty off

Cons u on s comm ed o h gh deas o soc a sm secu ar sm and he n egr y o

tthe nattiion.. As iis wellll known,, severall races have converged iin tthiis sub--conttiinentt and

he na on As s we known severa races have converged n h s sub con nen and

tthey carriied wiitth tthem ttheiir own cullttures,, llanguages,, relliigiions and custtoms affffordiing

hey carr ed w h hem he r own cu ures anguages re g ons and cus oms a ord ng

posiittiive recogniittiion tto tthe noblle and iideall way off lliive:: „„Uniitty off Diiversiitty‟‟.. Though

pos ve recogn on o he nob e and dea way o ve Un y o D vers y Though

tthese diiversiittiies creatted probllems,, iin earlly days,, tthey were mosttlly sollved on tthe basiis

hese d vers es crea ed prob ems n ear y days hey were mos y so ved on he bas s

off human approaches and harmoniious reconciilliiattiion off diifffferences,, useffulllly and

o human approaches and harmon ous reconc a on o d erences use u y and

peaceffulllly.. Thatt iis how secullariism has come tto be ttreatted as a partt off ffundamenttall

peace u y Tha s how secu ar sm has come o be rea ed as a par o undamen a

llaw and an unalliienablle segmentt off tthe basiic sttructture off tthe counttry‟‟s polliittiicall

aw and an una enab e segmen o he bas c s ruc ure o he coun ry s po ca

systtem..

sys em



As noted in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India etc., (1994(3) SCC 1), freedom of religion

iis grantted tto allll persons off IIndiia.. Thereffore,, ffrom tthe poiintt off viiew off tthe Sttatte,,

s gran ed o a persons o nd a There ore rom he po n o v ew o he S a e

relliigiion,, ffaiitth or belliieff off a parttiicullar person has no pllace and ((iis)) giiven no scope ffor

re g on a h or be e o a par cu ar person has no p ace and s g ven no scope or

iimposiittiion on iindiiviiduall ciittiizen((s)).. Unfforttunattelly,, off llatte,, vestted iintterestts ffanniing

mpos on on nd v dua c zen s Un or una e y o a e ves ed n eres s ann ng

relliigiious ffundamenttalliism off allll kiinds,, vyiing wiitth each otther,, are attttempttiing tto subjjectt

re g ous undamen a sm o a k nds vy ng w h each o her are a emp ng o sub ec

tthe consttiittuttiionall machiineriies off tthe Sttatte tto greatt sttress and sttraiin wiitth certtaiin

he cons u ona mach ner es o he S a e o grea s ress and s ra n w h cer a n

quaiintt iideas off relliigiious priioriittiies tto promotte ttheiir own sellffiish ends,, unffettttered and

qua n deas o re g ous pr or es o promo e he r own se sh ends un e ered and

unmiindffull off tthe diisharmony iitt may ullttiimattelly briing aboutt,, and even undermiine

unm nd u o he d sharmony may u ma e y br ng abou and even underm ne

nattiionall iinttegrattiion achiieved wiitth much diiffffiiculltty and llaudablle dettermiinattiion off

na ona n egra on ach eved w h much d cu y and audab e de erm na on o

tthose sttrong spiiriitted savantts off yestteryears..

hose s rong sp r ed savan s o yes eryears



Relliigiion cannott be miixed wiitth secullar acttiiviittiies off tthe Sttatte and ffundamenttalliism

Re g on canno be m xed w h secu ar ac v es o he S a e and undamen a sm

off any kiind cannott be permiitttted tto masquerade as polliittiicall phiillosophiies tto tthe

o any k nd canno be perm ed o masquerade as po ca ph osoph es o he

dettriimentt off a wellffare Sttatte.. Relliigiion sans spiiriittuall vallues may even be periillous and

de r men o a we are S a e Re g on sans sp r ua va ues may even be per ous and

briing aboutt chaos and anarchy allll around.. IItt iis,, tthereffore,, iimperattiive tthatt iiff any

br ng abou chaos and anarchy a around s here ore mpera ve ha any

iindiiviiduall

nd v dua



Conclusion



Peerrhapss tthee appeeall off Canadiian llaw iiss iin tthatt atttteempttss tto addrreessss diissccrriimiinattiion iittsseellff and iin

P hap h app a o Canad an aw n ha a mp o add d m na on and n

doiingg sso IIss peerrhapss morree accccurrattee iin iittss abiilliittyy tto rreeccoggniissee diissccrriimiinattorryy accttss.. Thee llawss fforr

do n o p hap mo a u a n ab o o n d m na o a Th aw o

iinssttanccee pllaccee lliittttllee eemphassiiss on peenall cconsseequeencceess.. [[Based on tthe diiscussiion off hattrred

n an p a mpha on p na on qu n Based on he d scuss on o ha ed

and conttemptt iin Neally tthe Courrtt helld tthatt tthiis diid nott fforrm an

and con emp n Nea y he Cou he d ha h s d d no o m an

unrreasonablle iimpaiirrmentt on tthe ffrreedom off speech and exprressiion despiitte

un easonab e mpa men on he eedom o speech and exp ess on desp e

tthe llack off excepttiions fforr ttrrutth and llack off iinttenttiion as iitt was necessarry tto

he ack o excep ons o u h and ack o n en on as was necessa y o

addrress systtemiic diiscrriimiinattiion.. The ffactt tthatt tthe acttiion ttaken agaiinstt hatte

add ess sys em c d sc m na on The ac ha he ac on aken aga ns ha e

[speech] was a cease and desiistt orrderr and iimprriisonmentt onlly as conttemptt

[speech] was a cease and des s o de and mp sonmen on y as con emp

off tthatt orrderr was ciitted as a rreason fforr holldiing tthatt llack off a rrequiirrementt fforr

o ha o de was c ed as a eason o ho d ng ha ack o a equ emen o

iinttenttiion diid nott make tthe sttattutte overrbrroad.. [Lack off emphasiis on

n en on d d no make he s a u e ove b oad [Lack o emphas s on

iimprriisonmentt,, sancttiions]]

mp sonmen sanc ons]]

It is clear that Indian laws or rather their interpretation by courts tend to prove the

case against hate speech restrictions. The test case of Togadia and the evidence it

provides to show the ability of administrative and judicial action to thwart violent

speech notwithstanding…It is not the purpose of this paper to support existing hate

speech restrictions or suggest amendments to Indian penal, election or media laws in

favour of hate speech restrictions. Rather it tries to present a slightly different

argument than that presented by censorship debates. That the role of speech,

symbols, written words in inciting violence is clear is perhaps not in issue. As stated

early in this paper, despite this role, those favouring free speech tend to argue that the

benefits of free speech or the grave dangers of censoring speech outweigh the effect

of speech on violence. This well articulated position however, become fuzzy when

equality and non-discrimination become the planks supporting hate speech

restrictions.



The argument then does not dwell on or get lost in trying to prove the immediate or

remote links to violence – did the phrase Kill the Sikhs broadcast on national

televisions after Indira Gandhi‘s assassination really cause the massacre of Sikhs that

took place in the following days? Is it perhaps sufficient to show that while not a

single witness or murderer in that massacre would directly attribute their actions to

those words, they were sufficient to instil a fear psychosis within a community and

further justify and make acceptable to others the actions that followed? The Canadian

approach that clearly identifies hate speech as discrimination reflects…



Lawrence Liang argues for caution in the regulation of hate speech, ―We need to

be a little cautious in our responses to forms of speech that offend our liberal

sentiments. Very often the assumption of desirable forms of speech presumes a

pre-tailored relationship between media and the properly constituted public

sphere (much like the imagination of the seamless web), and a plea to the State to

rule out undesirable forms of speech abandons the site of politics and converts it

into a site of regulation that will merely heighten the crisis rather than resolve it.‖75

Successive commissions of inquiry, judgments and our own experience would

show that this is not an issue of liberal sentiments. As the Canadian SC/Human

Rights Tribunal has noted…This very real connection to discrimination and

equality let alone violence is overlooked in these debates. Perhaps more empirical

data to support the feeling of isolation and fear that targeted communities feel is

required. Perhaps it is that, like me, though I read and understand these

discussions have never really felt the fear of being a ‗minority‘, of being branded

terrorists, of having to look for ghettoes to live in to feel secure amongst my own,



“Mosstt peeopllee aggrreeee tthatt,, iin tthee aggee off tthee IIntteerrneett,, cceenssorrsshiip ccoulld onllyy bee a ssyymbolliicc ggeesstturree..”76

“Mo p op a ha n h a o h n n n o h p o u d o n b a m bo u ”

Undoubtteedllyy.. Ass tthee ccassee off tthee Zundeellssiittee ((Seeee Box )) iilllussttrratteess,, iittss sshutt down iin Canada onllyy

Undoub d A h a o h Zund S Bo x u a hu down n Canada on

rreessulltteed iitt iin beeiingg hosstteed ffrrom tthee US,, tthee vvangguarrd off ffrreeee sspeeeecch.. Wass tthee upholldiingg tthee rriigghtt

u d n b n ho d om h US h an ua d o p h Wa h upho d n h h

tto eequalliittyy and non diissccrriimiinattiion meerreellyy a „„ssyymbolliicc ggeesstturree‟‟ orr onee wiitth ttanggiibllee eefffeeccttss on tthee

o qua and non d m na on m a m bo u o on w h an b on h

sseeccurriittyy and [[ ]] off ssurrvviivvorrss off tthee holloccausstt – peerrhapss iitt woulld bee arrggueed tthatt tthiiss iiss ass

u and o u o o h ho o au – p hap wou d b a u d ha h a

iimaggiinattiivvee ass tthee harrmss tthatt hattee sspeeeecch ccaussee..

ma na a h ha m ha ha p h au

75

Liang, Lawrence, ‗Reasonable Restrictions and Unreasonable Speech,‘ Sarai Reader, 2004: Crisis

Media, p. 439

76

Ghosh, Shohini, ‗Censorship Myths and Imagined Harms,‘ Sarai Reader, 2004: Crisis Media, p. 447

Technology was indeed meant to be the ultimate leveller – the anarchy hoped for and

dreamed of by web activists that would oppose all centers and cultures of oppression

– but centers of power work as insidiously with technology and so technology

continues to be controlled to manipulate…



A ccllassssiicc arrggumeentt oppossiingg hattee sspeeeecch rreessttrriiccttiionss wheen cconneeccttiionss tto vviiolleenccee arree poiintteed outt iiss

A a a um n oppo n ha p h on wh n onn on o o n a po n d ou

tthatt tthee peerrsson who ccommiitttteed tthee vviiolleenccee musstt bee puniissheed – fforr cconssumiingg tthee hattee iin tthee

ha h p on who omm d h o n mu b pun h d – o on um n h ha n h

sspeeeecch and puttttiingg iitt iintto accttiion.. Thee sspeeakeerr meerreellyy utttteerreed worrdss – tthee poweerr off ssuggggeessttiion

p h and pu n n o a on Th p ak m u d wo d – h pow o u on

ssurreellyy iiss nott tto bee ccrriimiinalliizeed iin tthee manneerr accttuall vviiolleenccee,, kiillliingg and sseexuall assssaulltt iiss..

u no o b m na z d n h mann a ua o n k n and xua a au

“IImaggee bllamiingg ccan eeassiillyy tturrn tthee ccrriimiinall aggeentt iintto a vviiccttiim and abssollvvee tthee peerrsson off anyy

“ m a b am n an a u n h m na a n n o a m and ab o h p on o an

rreessponssiibiilliittyy fforr hiiss/heerr accttiionss..” Forr iinssttanccee,, “IInsstteead off heellpiingg tthee woman,, tthee

po n b o h /h a on ” Fo n an “ n ad o h p n h woman h

„„porrn--madee--mee--do--iitt‟‟ arrggumeentt iiss onllyy lliikeellyy tto harrm heerr..”77

po n mad m do a um n on k o ha m h ”



Poverty and discrimination – India religion census – Muslims figure in most dismal

statistics of literacy, work participation etc. Many argue that the non economic

dimensions of poverty are linked to discrimination, fear and exploitation.









77

Shohini, p. 449

The Hiinduttva Judgmentts

The H ndu va Judgmen s



In Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v.

Mullttiiculltturiism

Mu cu ur sm