Hate Speech – Handful Of Hate http://handfulofhate.com/ Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:05:52 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2 http://handfulofhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/icon-150x150.png Hate Speech – Handful Of Hate http://handfulofhate.com/ 32 32 Hate speech is a fashion these days, says Gurgaon court while denying bail to Jamia shooter http://handfulofhate.com/hate-speech-is-a-fashion-these-days-says-gurgaon-court-while-denying-bail-to-jamia-shooter/ http://handfulofhate.com/hate-speech-is-a-fashion-these-days-says-gurgaon-court-while-denying-bail-to-jamia-shooter/#respond Fri, 16 Jul 2021 19:05:52 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/hate-speech-is-a-fashion-these-days-says-gurgaon-court-while-denying-bail-to-jamia-shooter/

Four days after teenage shooter Jamia was arrested for an allegedly provocative speech he gave during a mahapanchayat in Pataudi in Haryana on July 4, a local court on Thursday rejected his bail request, saying that “hate speech” has become a “fad” and that its release would send the message that “this type of act is acceptable in society”.

Last year, the then 17-year-old opened fire on anti-CAA protesters near Jamia Millia Islamia.

Claiming that the “conscience of the court” is “totally shocked” by the video of the teenager’s speech in Pataudi, judicial magistrate Mohammad Sageer said in his order on Thursday: “Hate speech based on religion or caste is It has become fashionable nowadays. Police also seem powerless (to) deal with such incidents. This kind of activity actually disrupts the secular fabric of our country and kills the spirit of the Constitution of India. “

The court declared that “the common man is constantly threatened with violence in the name of religion, caste, etc. “And that the incident at Pataudi” cannot be viewed solely with respect for the religious intolerance of a young man; rather, it is much more serious and has dangerous hidden consequences. If this type of person is allowed to move around freely and engage in this type of activity, the very existence of community harmony can be disrupted and this will give the wrong message that this type of act is acceptable in the community. society “.

Comparing the threat posed by people who “create discord” to the pandemic, the ordinance says the former is more harmful to the country since the pandemic will “kill anyone without seeing religion or caste” while community violence hate speech has the potential to result in the loss of “many innocent lives”.

“The video produced by the police in this case raises a very vital question:” Should our society first tackle the discriminating force of the Covid-19 pandemic or those kinds of people, who are filled with so much hatred that if given the chance they would organize a host of mass murderers to kill innocent lives on the basis of their own religious hatred, ”the order states.

Taking note of the accused’s criminal history, the court said: “To release the accused on bail despite his heinous crime which amounts to dividing peaceful society on the basis of religion or caste would send the wrong message to the forces of division. However, keeping the accused behind bars will send a strong message against dividing forces. “

While rejecting the request for release on bail, the judicial magistrate declared that if the accused is released, “there is every possibility that a situation of public order could arise and that the accused could again find himself. engage in such unconstitutional and illegal activities and actually disrupt community harmony and the peace of society.

“At this stage, the right of the accused to his personal liberty cannot be preferred to the right of society. [to live in] in harmony and peaceful community balance rests in favor of the latter, ”declares the order.

Pleading on behalf of the teenager, his lawyer said he was “falsely implicated” and that the video recording of the mahapanchayat is “false and fabricated”.

After the Jamia incident on January 30, the accused was arrested and sent to a reformatory by the Juvenile Justice Board, from where he was released a few months later.


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/hate-speech-is-a-fashion-these-days-says-gurgaon-court-while-denying-bail-to-jamia-shooter/feed/ 0
Gurugram court denies release on bail of gunman Jamia http://handfulofhate.com/gurugram-court-denies-release-on-bail-of-gunman-jamia/ http://handfulofhate.com/gurugram-court-denies-release-on-bail-of-gunman-jamia/#respond Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:05:25 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/gurugram-court-denies-release-on-bail-of-gunman-jamia/ New Delhi: A court in Gurugram has rejected the bail application of the gunman Jamia, who was recently arrested by Haryana police after giving a provocative speech during a mahapanchayat in Pataudi. Judicial magistrate Mohammed Sageer, in a strongly worded order, said speaking hate speech has become a “fad” and those who encourage sectarian violence […]]]>

New Delhi: A court in Gurugram has rejected the bail application of the gunman Jamia, who was recently arrested by Haryana police after giving a provocative speech during a mahapanchayat in Pataudi.

Judicial magistrate Mohammed Sageer, in a strongly worded order, said speaking hate speech has become a “fad” and those who encourage sectarian violence are doing more damage to the country than the COVID-19 pandemic.

The young man from Jewar, who was underage when he shot a crowd of Jamia Millia students protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act in early 2020, was arrested on July 12 after a complaint was filed against his speech at the mahapanchayat.

In the order, the judicial magistrate said the hate speech goes beyond causing distress to individual members of the group.

“It can have a societal impact. Hate speech lays the foundation for broader and future attacks on vulnerable people [sections] this can range from discrimination to ostracism, segregation, deportation, violence and, in the most extreme cases, genocide, ”notes the ordinance.

Rejecting the argument of the applicant’s lawyer that the man is young and innocent, Magistrate Sageer said: “The accused in court is not just an innocent young boy knowing nothing, he rather shows that what he has done in the past has now become able to execute his hatred without any fear and also that he can move the masses[es] at [be] involve[d] in his hatred.

The court referred to the fact that according to the information provided by the investigator, and admitted by the applicant’s lawyers, this is the same person who brandished an illegal weapon and opened fire on students from Jamia.

Although an FIR was registered at the New Friends Colony Police Station in Delhi at the time, it was a minor at the time. “The concession granted by the courts because of his minority was not taken in the right direction by this accused. Rather, it seems he took the concession from the wrong perspective that he can do anything, even to destroy the very basic feature of the constitution that we have called ‘secularism’ through its hate speech, ”he said. the magistrate.

“He posed a real threat by his act of doing what he wants, what would the forces responsible for maintaining law, order and peace do?” He also posed a question to the state and the courts as to whether he had the power to uphold the rule of law? Said the order.

Every citizen has the right to express his thoughts, but not in a speech that targets a particular community and while promoting hostility, the order said, noting that during his speech the accused “can be seen inciting the crowd to commit illegal acts … inciting the kidnapping of girls from a particular community and their forced conversion ”.

“He seems to be very proud of his background. He even instigated killing people from a particular community and changing the slogans in this regard. The slogans and languages ​​he uses are clearly offensive and aim to outrage the religious feelings of a particular group and promote enmity between different religious groups / communities, ”the magistrate said.

“Such activities cannot be tolerated in any civilized society. Hate speech based on religion or caste has become fashionable these days. The police also seem helpless in the face of such incidents. This kind of activity actually disrupts the secular fabric of our country and kills the spirit of the Constitution of India, ”he said, adding that anyone who poses a threat to the peace of society and in particular to the religious harmony cannot be allowed to wander. freely.

“These kinds of people actually disrupt the secular character of our nation and are the biggest obstacle. [to] nation building… the common man is constantly threatened with violence in the name of religion, caste etc. », Indicates the order.

The incident cannot be seen solely as a young man’s religious intolerance as it has “far more serious and … dangerous hidden consequences”. If the accused is released on bail, the very existence of community harmony may be disrupted and the wrong message will be sent that hate speech is acceptable in society.

“The faith of the common man must be restored that the state has [a] secular character and not in favor of such people, encouraging hatred and enmity in the name of religion, caste, etc. It is time to give a strong message to these antisocial elements which spread hatred based on religion etc. hate speech that the rule of law still prevails, ”said the magistrate.

Holding the defendants behind bars will send a strong message that India is an inclusive society where people of all faiths thrive and respect each other. The court will also ensure that the rule of law reigns supreme, the order says.

“Our Constitution protects even non-Indian citizens, so it is the duty of the state as well as the judiciary to ensure that Indian citizens of any religion, faith or caste do not feel unprotected and that such hate-mongers cannot walk freely without any fear, ”he said.

People like the accused are more dangerous than the COVID-19 pandemic, since the latter takes “the life of anyone without seeing religion or caste”. If communal violence follows hate speech like that made by the accused, then many “innocent lives will be lost solely on the basis of religion and without any negligence on the part of these innocent people.”

The court also feared that if released on bail, the accused could again engage in unconstitutional and illegal activities, but could also hamper the investigation by threatening the complainant and other witnesses.

“At this stage, the rights of the accused to his personal freedom cannot be preferred to the right of society to peaceful community harmony and the balance is in favor of the latter,” said the magistrate.

The applicant’s lawyers argued that at the same mahapanchayat several other people had also made hate speech, but that only the applicant was charged and arrested “because he is a foreigner and has no political ties”. The lawyer also argued that other speakers, “who are powerful people”, made inflammatory speeches but no action was taken against them. This shows the biased attitude of the Haryana police against his client, the lawyer argued.

Although the lawyer did not name anyone, it may have been a reference to BJP spokesman Suraj Pal Amu, who incited the residents of Pataudi against the Muslims.

Magistrate Sageer said the court was informed that the police had received a complaint only against the current accused and that later if any evidence was found during the investigation against others, it would also be arrested in accordance with the law.

Kaushik Raj and Alishan Jafri, in a play for Thread, had recently reported that Jamia’s shooter social media posts contained a slew of hate speech he made at public events. Since being released on bail after shooting CAA protesters last year, he has given at least three collective speeches inciting violence against Muslims. There are also articles suggesting that the shooter and his “group” may have shot and / or injured several people as part of the vigilante violence under the guise of “cow protection”.

Jamia’s shooter bail denied by The Wire on Scribd


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/gurugram-court-denies-release-on-bail-of-gunman-jamia/feed/ 0
Hate speech law needs to be carefully calibrated http://handfulofhate.com/hate-speech-law-needs-to-be-carefully-calibrated/ http://handfulofhate.com/hate-speech-law-needs-to-be-carefully-calibrated/#respond Thu, 15 Jul 2021 01:56:17 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/hate-speech-law-needs-to-be-carefully-calibrated/ “Incitement to violence” should not be the only threshold to define hate speech in New Zealand, writes Eddie Clark. The regulation of hate speech is difficult to master. As media law scholar Steven Price has pointed out, the challenge of a democratic society is to target the alleged evil of hate speech without grasping too […]]]>

“Incitement to violence” should not be the only threshold to define hate speech in New Zealand, writes Eddie Clark.

The regulation of hate speech is difficult to master. As media law scholar Steven Price has pointed out, the challenge of a democratic society is to target the alleged evil of hate speech without grasping too broadly other legitimate forms of speech.

It is true that the scope, application and effectiveness of the hate speech law must be carefully calibrated. But these are practical and mechanical questions of how hate speech laws might work, not claims that the harm caused by hate speech is something the law cannot regulate.

While I accept that these practical difficulties exist, in my opinion the harm caused by hate speech is clearly something the law should be concerned with. But neither can we ignore the lingering skepticism about whether to use the law to regulate this kind of speech.

When the Race Relations Commissioner raised the possibility of hate speech reforms in 2017, Act New Zealand leader David Seymour argued that there were already adequate laws controlling defamation or incitement to violence.

The link with violence

The insistence on a link to incitement to violence as a precondition for restricting freedom of expression has been repeated several times since the government announced its intention to reform the hate speech law after the attacks on the Christchurch mosque.

Opposition leader Judith Collins pledged that “the National Party will quash all attempts by Jacinda Ardern’s government to criminalize speech beyond the incitement to violence threshold.”

Likewise, when a division of the Auckland Council canceled a room reservation for controversial Canadian speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux in 2019, a spokesperson for the Free Speech Coalition said the organization was accepting a “genuine hate speech ”that incites violence or illegal activity should be blocked.

But restricting free debate under the threat of disruption is neither desirable nor acceptable in a free and democratic society.

Not everyone who is skeptical of hate speech law reform is following this line. But it demands attention when the leaders of the two main opposition parties and a prominent lobby group insist that a link to violence is needed before regulation of hate speech can be justified.

What do other laws of speech do

The problem with the argument, however, is that this is not how we treat many other existing forms of speech regulation in New Zealand law.

Defamation, for example, deals with the damage to a person’s reputation and the related effects this has on their ability to interact with friends, family, colleagues and the world at large.

The interference with these social ties caused by defamation is considered sufficient justification in itself to allow the recovery of civil damages. No connection to violence is required.

Similar protections exist under privacy breach laws. These allow people to be sued if they share private facts about another person in a very offensive way.

The damage here is to the dignity and autonomy of the affected person. Again, no connection to violence is required, even from a distance.

Harmful forms of speech

It could be argued that these are torts and that the proposed hate speech laws include criminal liability. But a civil regulation of hate speech is also proposed. Conversely, we already criminalize many types of speech unrelated to physical violence.

Obtaining by deception and blackmail are two obvious examples. These focus on speech which, without threats of violence, causes loss to the victim and / or an advantage to the offender.

No connection to violence is required – in fact, no financial loss is required. The heart of the damage covered by these offenses is that of the autonomy of the victim, which has been compromised by blackmail or fraudulent statements.

More generally, a diffuse public interest is supported by offenses such as perjury, which deals with systemic attacks on the administration of justice, and public order offenses, which defend our collective right to enjoy public spaces.

None of these elements require a link to violence. Moreover, the protected interests – dignity, autonomy, collective public good – are exactly the kinds of things that influential legal scholars argue are protected by the regulation of hate speech.

Focus on the real concerns

In my opinion, therefore, the argument that a link to violence is a prerequisite for the regulation of hate speech is false.

This is not to say that there are no good arguments against the reforms proposed by the government. It’s hard to do it right, and there are things that can and should be changed. As Steven Price also pointed out, the proposition is eerily equivocal as to whether speech intended to provoke hatred should also cause (or be likely to cause) hatred in society.

In addition, serious consideration needs to be given to whether the potential inclusion of each group protected from discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act is too broad in the context of the regulation of human rights. hate speech.

We should focus on these very real concerns – public submissions on the bill end on August 6 – rather than insisting on a threshold of speech regulation that our legal tradition simply does not require. – theconversation.com

  • Eddie Clark is Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington.


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/hate-speech-law-needs-to-be-carefully-calibrated/feed/ 0
require social media companies to perform a duty of care to users http://handfulofhate.com/require-social-media-companies-to-perform-a-duty-of-care-to-users/ http://handfulofhate.com/require-social-media-companies-to-perform-a-duty-of-care-to-users/#respond Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:26:17 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/require-social-media-companies-to-perform-a-duty-of-care-to-users/ Hate speech is proliferating online, and governments, regulators and social media companies are struggling to keep pace with their efforts to combat it. Again this week, the racist abuse of black English soccer players on Facebook and Twitter brought the issue to the fore and showed how slow and inefficient tech companies have been in […]]]>

Hate speech is proliferating online, and governments, regulators and social media companies are struggling to keep pace with their efforts to combat it.

Again this week, the racist abuse of black English soccer players on Facebook and Twitter brought the issue to the fore and showed how slow and inefficient tech companies have been in trying to control it and the urgent need for laws. more stringent.

Australia’s piecemeal approach

In Australia, the regulation of this type of harmful online practice is still in its infancy.

In February, a digital industry body drew up an Australian code of conduct on disinformation and disinformation, which most major tech companies have adopted.

However, this self-regulatory approach has been criticized by community organizations for its voluntary and opt-in nature. Some have argued that the code sets its threshold too high by requiring an “imminent and serious” threat from any of the damage identified. This could make it ineffective.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has been tasked with reporting on the effectiveness of the code, which is expected to happen soon.



Read More: 6 Actions The Australian Government Can Take Right Now To Target Racism Online


Australia also has the “Safety by Design” framework, developed by Commissioner eSafety. This is another voluntary code of practice that encourages tech companies to mitigate risk in the way they design their products.

At the end of June, the federal parliament also promulgated a new law on online security. This legislation was developed in the wake of the Christchurch Massacre that was broadcast live. It regulates certain types of relevant harm, such as cyberbullying of children and live broadcasts that could promote or incite extreme violence.

The law creates a complaints-based system to remove harmful material, and in some cases the Electronic Security Commissioner has the power to block sites. It also has a broad mandate in terms of covering a variety of online services. Yet it only addresses a few specific types of harm, not all of the harmful discourse.

An investigation into extremist movements and radicalization is also underway by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS). It is charged with examining steps the federal government could take to disrupt and deter hate speech, terrorism and extremism online, as well as the role of social media and the internet in enabling extremists to operate. organize.

The investigation was due to report to the Home Secretary in April, and it is now overdue.

A much deeper problem

These measures are a step in the right direction, but they still attempt to approach each specific type of hate speech as a separate issue.

ASIO recently reported the issue of hate echo chambers online. And Australian researchers have highlighted how right-wing extremists routinely dehumanize Muslims, Jews and immigrants as a way to rally their support behind radical worldviews and to socialize people towards violent responses.

On mainstream platforms, this is achieved through a relentless regime of warped news that supports conspiracy theories and the “other” of marginalized communities.



Read more: Facebook’s inability to pay attention to languages ​​other than English allows hate speech to flourish


We know that the existing laws to combat these types of hate speech and disinformation are inadequate.

For example, we have civil laws against discrimination and hate speech, but they rely on victims to take legal action themselves. Members of targeted communities can deeply fear the repercussions of legal action and this can lead to enormous personal costs.

What other countries are doing

Governments around the world are grappling with this problem as well. In New Zealand, for example, there has been considerable debate about reforming the hate speech law, particularly whether there needs to be a clear link to violence before the regulation of hate speech can. be justified.

Germany has enacted one of the toughest hate speech laws online, fining social media companies up to € 50 million for failing to remove “clearly illegal” content. Civil rights activists, however, argue that it infringes on freedom of expression.

France also passed a law last year that would have required online platforms to remove hateful content reported by users within 24 hours, but a court overturned the provision on the grounds that it infringed on the freedom of the public. ‘expression in a way that was unnecessary, appropriate and proportionate.

A potential new model in the UK

There is another more holistic approach in the UK that could lead the way.

The Carnegie Trust has developed a proposal to introduce a legal duty of care in response to online harm. In the same way that we require builders of roads, buildings or bridges to exercise a duty of care to the people who use them, the idea is that social media companies should be required to remedy the damage that their platforms can cause users.

The UK government incorporated the idea into its online safety bill, which was just released in May for public discussion. Presented as a “new framework to fight harmful online content”, the gigantic legislation (which has 145 pages) is built around due diligence obligations.

There are still some concerns. The Carnegie Trust itself has criticized a number of aspects of the bill. And the powers conferred on the Secretary of Culture are of particular interest to defenders of freedom of expression.

Despite these concerns, there is a lot to be said about the comprehensive approach being pursued. First, the legislation fits within the existing framework of negligence law, in which companies owe a duty of care, or accountability, to the general public who use the facilities they create and enable.

Second, it places the burden of responsibility on the social media companies to protect people from the damage that might be caused by their products. This is a better approach than the government penalizing social media companies after the fact for hosting illegal or harmful content (as happens under German law), or forcing an electronic security commissioner to do the heavy lifting on the regulations.



Read more: Will the government’s online safety laws for social media come at the expense of free speech?


More importantly, this approach allows for broad coverage of existing and emerging types of online damage in a rapidly changing environment. For example, online speech that poses a threat to the democratic process would fall under the new law.

While the details of the UK bill will undoubtedly be debated in the coming months, it offers an opportunity to effectively tackle a problem that many say is growing and growing, but at the same time. very difficult time to solve. A legal duty of care may be just what you need.


Rita Jabri Markwell, Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) Advisor, contributed to this article. The civil society organization monitors online hate and engages directly with Facebook, Twitter and the Global Counterterrorism Internet Forum.


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/require-social-media-companies-to-perform-a-duty-of-care-to-users/feed/ 0
Free Speech Bill Gives Legal Protection to Hate Speech, Says Labor Party | Communal room http://handfulofhate.com/free-speech-bill-gives-legal-protection-to-hate-speech-says-labor-party-communal-room/ http://handfulofhate.com/free-speech-bill-gives-legal-protection-to-hate-speech-says-labor-party-communal-room/#respond Mon, 12 Jul 2021 19:06:00 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/free-speech-bill-gives-legal-protection-to-hate-speech-says-labor-party-communal-room/ The government has denied that its controversial new free speech legislation will provide a platform for Holocaust deniers on campuses, arguing that the bill is vital to tackling “growing intolerance” in universities. The Higher Education (Freedom of Expression) Bill has come under sustained attack by Labor, who have argued that the legislation is nothing more […]]]>

The government has denied that its controversial new free speech legislation will provide a platform for Holocaust deniers on campuses, arguing that the bill is vital to tackling “growing intolerance” in universities.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Expression) Bill has come under sustained attack by Labor, who have argued that the legislation is nothing more than “legal protection against hate speech “as they tried to block it during its second reading in the Commons on Monday.

Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green told MPs there was no free speech crisis at universities that necessitated the bill, which she described as “a zone without evidence “.

On the contrary, she said, “This is a bill that enshrines legal protections against hateful, harmful and divisive speech. The kind of speech that we would not tolerate in this House would be protected in universities across the country.

“This is a bill that creates a new legal framework to allow those responsible for such damaging speech to take legal action against universities, eating away at the resources that should educate our young people and support our world-class research programs.”

“It is a bill that is unnecessary, it is poorly drafted, but above all it is deeply flawed, and on this side of the House we will not support it.”

The bill proposes a series of new laws that the government says are necessary to “protect” free speech in universities, including the introduction of a “champion of free speech and academic freedom ”to investigate alleged violations of freedom of expression in higher education and then recommend redress.

It will also demand that the university regulator in England, the Office for Students (OfS), introduce a new registration requirement on freedom of expression, with the power to impose penalties, including fines for breach.

Higher education providers – and student unions – will have a duty to ‘actively promote’ freedom of expression under proposed legislation which also seeks to introduce a legal offense for breach of duty, allowing individuals to seek legal redress for any loss they have suffered as a result of any breach.

Outlining the details of the bill, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson told MPs: “Our universities must not become spaces where ideas are debated as part of a close consensus with those who challenge ideas. majority opinions and are themselves censored.

He continued, “It is absolutely clear that this bill will not and never create a platform for deniers. Public Order Act 1986, Equality Act 2010, introduced by Labor, as well as preventive duties in 2015 – this bill, if passed, will not create space to tolerate deniers and never will.

Williamson added: ‘These legal obligations are essential to ensure that the higher education sector in England continues to be an environment in which students, staff and guest lecturers are not only able but invited to express their views freely. opinions as long as those opinions are legal. “

Green, however, told MPs that an assessment by the Students’ Office found that only 53 of 59,574 events with external stakeholders were denied clearance in 2017-18. “So maybe it was an unusually slow year to cancel cultivation, and there is a real problem. But last year, a survey found that out of 10,000 events with external stakeholders, only six had been canceled. “

She said it was not acceptable, when there were so many other priorities, to use precious parliamentary time to bring forward legislation to tackle “a small number of cases” which might be of concern. anyway be dealt with more effectively without additional legislation.

Supporting the government’s proposed legislation, however, former minister David Davis called the so-called cancellation culture “modern McCarthyism.”

He told the Commons: “The bill before us is to correct a small one, and I grant you, it is a small, but extremely important symbolic aspect of this modern McCarthyism, namely an attempt to not put up a number of speakers including Amber Rudd, Julie Bindel, Peter Hitchens, Peter Tatchell and others. I hope this is in fact just the first step in a program to bring freedom of speech back to Britain. “


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/free-speech-bill-gives-legal-protection-to-hate-speech-says-labor-party-communal-room/feed/ 0
Juvenile Hate Speech Offender: The Path of Shooter Jamia | News from Noida http://handfulofhate.com/juvenile-hate-speech-offender-the-path-of-shooter-jamia-news-from-noida/ http://handfulofhate.com/juvenile-hate-speech-offender-the-path-of-shooter-jamia-news-from-noida/#respond Sun, 11 Jul 2021 02:26:00 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/juvenile-hate-speech-offender-the-path-of-shooter-jamia-news-from-noida/ NOIDA: In January last year, months before his 18th birthday, a 17-year-old boy showed up near Jamia Millia Islamia with a gun and shot at Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protesters . He was convicted of attempted murder and under sections of the Weapons Act, but as a minor he was remanded in custody. Sources said […]]]>
NOIDA: In January last year, months before his 18th birthday, a 17-year-old boy showed up near Jamia Millia Islamia with a gun and shot at Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protesters .
He was convicted of attempted murder and under sections of the Weapons Act, but as a minor he was remanded in custody.
Sources said the boy was later released on bail after assurances from him and his family that he had been “repented” and that he had been “misled”. But the path he has taken since achieving freedom does not suggest it.
Last week, during a mahapanchayat in Pataudi, he called for attacks on the Muslim community. Since then, the pseudonym he uses has become a hashtag on social media.
The enraged conflagration of hatred has been almost uniformly denounced or disowned across the ideological divide of political opinion. But that doesn’t seem to matter to the 19-year-old. In a video making the rounds on Twitter, the boy says he sticks to what he says. And repeat them. A support hashtag was trending at the right time.
A ‘fan page’ on Instagram gives a glimpse into a very different life from that of the class XI student who left his home in a village in Gautam Budh Nagar on January 30 last year and turned in infamy.
The boy is seen among the cars, strutting on background scores and sitting behind a desk. The latest posts are screenshots that show it above the kappa variant of the coronavirus and promotions from Farhan Akhtar’s latest film.
This is not, however, proof of organic popularity for his opinion – another post specifies the date and time for ‘supporters’ to tweet in his favor (a video allegedly featuring the boy also had surfaced on social media in social media accounts were banned, an arrest hashtag was all the rage on Twitter, and his “followers” ​​should respond by turning the support hashtag into a trend).
His fanatical views, which are said to have been broadcast in multiple media outlets, are also recorded on the fan page, as is a note alleging police refusal to allow a proposed march to West Bengal ahead of assembly elections. early this year. An article marking the year of Jamia’s shooting – which took place on Martyrs Day (January 30) – describes the boy as the second Nathuram Godse.
“He’s in the netagiri now. The elders are supporting him too, ”said Satish, who lives in the same neighborhood as the boy. The boy’s family insist on their distance from him, claiming that he no longer lives with them and is an infrequent visitor. In a video on social media, however, the boy is seen wearing a garland as he is greeted at the village. In the crowd are both neighbors and relatives.
The boy’s grandfather confirmed to TOI that he was on bail and even enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program at an open university.
“He studies at the Ghaziabad center of the university. It is inter-pass. Sometimes he comes home, ”he says. His father, however, said the boy had stayed mainly in Delhi and elsewhere and had not discussed his plight with him. The family, he insisted, had “no connection” with him.
Local youth, however, keep a regular track of him on social media and WhatsApp groups.
“He is very active on social networks. He had been to Rajasthan and uploaded a video to Instagram about it, ”Satish said. While local groups, including the Bajrang Dal unit, denied any association with him, local youth said he had patronage. “He seems to be only interested in Bajrang Dal. He’s the main person here, ”said a local resident, who declined to give his name. On WhatsApp groups that connect local Bajrang Dal supporters, videos of the boy are shared widely.
Lalit Sharma, Gautam Budh Nagar chairman of Bajrang Dal, told TOI that the outfit does not support anyone who violates the Constitution.
“Since the BJP government came to power, there are so many young people who use the flags in our outfits without knowing anything about the outfits,” he said.
The boy’s cousin is a BJP Mandal Secretary in Gautam Budh Nagar. He told YOU that the boy had nothing to do with the party.
“We have tried to explain it to him on several occasions, but his thoughts have become completely ‘Hindutvawadi’ and he remains involved only in these activities,” he said.


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/juvenile-hate-speech-offender-the-path-of-shooter-jamia-news-from-noida/feed/ 0
Johnston and Iowa residents ‘outraged’ by Boat House bar sign http://handfulofhate.com/johnston-and-iowa-residents-outraged-by-boat-house-bar-sign/ http://handfulofhate.com/johnston-and-iowa-residents-outraged-by-boat-house-bar-sign/#respond Fri, 09 Jul 2021 16:30:14 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/johnston-and-iowa-residents-outraged-by-boat-house-bar-sign/ Johnston is exploring legal options following complaints from residents last week about a controversial sign posted outside The Boat House bar. The sign is protected by the First Amendment, but council members are still hoping to find a way to change it or remove it from the roof of the bar. Mayor Paula Dierenfeld told […]]]>

Johnston is exploring legal options following complaints from residents last week about a controversial sign posted outside The Boat House bar.

The sign is protected by the First Amendment, but council members are still hoping to find a way to change it or remove it from the roof of the bar.

Mayor Paula Dierenfeld told a city council meeting on Tuesday evening that she was briefed on the sign late last week. She asked city lawyer Tim Pearson to look at the city’s legal options.

The sign reads: “TRUMP 2024 NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS. BEFORE YOU END THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, MAKE SURE THE NEXT LIFE THEY WILL SAVE IS NOT YOURS.”

The sign also used an insulting word for a woman in reference to Vice President Kamala Harris and said that she and President Joe Biden “should go.”



Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/johnston-and-iowa-residents-outraged-by-boat-house-bar-sign/feed/ 0
The law should give a clear description of what constitutes hate speech http://handfulofhate.com/the-law-should-give-a-clear-description-of-what-constitutes-hate-speech/ http://handfulofhate.com/the-law-should-give-a-clear-description-of-what-constitutes-hate-speech/#respond Thu, 08 Jul 2021 19:00:18 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/the-law-should-give-a-clear-description-of-what-constitutes-hate-speech/ Interior CS Fred Matiang’i (left) with IG Hillary Mutyambai. [Denish Ochieng, Standard] Interior CS Fred Matiang’i said the government has put measures in place to ensure Kenyans have peaceful elections. He added that a multi-agency team had been formed to, among other things, monitor vernacular radio stations and map so-called “hot spots” in order to […]]]>

Interior CS Fred Matiang’i (left) with IG Hillary Mutyambai. [Denish Ochieng, Standard]

Interior CS Fred Matiang’i said the government has put measures in place to ensure Kenyans have peaceful elections.

He added that a multi-agency team had been formed to, among other things, monitor vernacular radio stations and map so-called “hot spots” in order to make special arrangements for the deployment of personnel and resources to respond. adequately to the threat of hate speech and violence.

Since the 2007 general elections, Kenya has implemented a series of political reforms to foster national unity and combat rhetoric that threatens peace. This includes passing the National Cohesion and Integration Act (NCIC) which criminalizes hate speech and creates a commission that can investigate problematic speech.

Yet many politicians have been identified as causing ethnic discord and hate speech, especially during stormy political times such as elections. Despite the law and a commission charged with investigating such speeches, the prosecutions, and especially the convictions, are far from over.

Section 13 of the law prohibits discrimination and hate speech on ethnic grounds. However, many observers find the law problematic because it loosely and broadly defines “hate speech,” making the law somewhat moribund when it comes to bringing charges against those accused of hate speech. Critics argue that the words “threatening”, “abusive” and “insulting” are too vague and broad and even subjective.

For example, what one person would consider abusive or insulting would be perfectly normal or appropriated by another. Another challenge has been the lack of understanding of hate speech among law enforcement officials who are often too zealous to protect the establishment rather than seek justice. They seem to conflate offensive language against politicians with hate speech against protected groups, and thus end up illegally arresting and sometimes prosecuting people for partisan political purposes.

Another emerging area of ​​concern is the process and procedure by which the government determines and classifies so-called “hot spots” and what such a determination means for people residing in those areas. For example, if parts of the Rift Valley, Nyanza, Nairobi or Mombasa are classified as “hot spots”, will the state’s response affect the ability of residents to participate freely and equitably in the process? Politics ? Will they be criminalized?

To give it teeth, the NCIC Act must be amended to promote freedom of expression and free, fair and democratic political protest. It should clearly define hate speech, as required by the Constitution. Any legal mechanism aimed at combating hate speech must take into account the social and political context; speaker’s status; intention to incite the public against an identifiable target group; and the content and form of the speech.

In addition, the scope and extent of its dissemination and the likelihood of harm, including the imminence of violence, must be taken into account. Until we amend the NCIC Act to address this, we will continue to have toothless law that does not meet our needs.


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/the-law-should-give-a-clear-description-of-what-constitutes-hate-speech/feed/ 0
“Anti-Muslim rhetoric online as dangerous as street attacks” http://handfulofhate.com/anti-muslim-rhetoric-online-as-dangerous-as-street-attacks/ http://handfulofhate.com/anti-muslim-rhetoric-online-as-dangerous-as-street-attacks/#respond Wed, 07 Jul 2021 13:33:00 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/anti-muslim-rhetoric-online-as-dangerous-as-street-attacks/ Anti-Muslim hate speech expressed on the Internet is as dangerous as attacks in the streets, according to a study conducted by the Council of Europe.The study, carried out by Daniel Holtgen, director of communications, special representative on anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim and other forms of religious intolerance and hate crimes, which was carried out among Muslim organizations […]]]>

Anti-Muslim hate speech expressed on the Internet is as dangerous as attacks in the streets, according to a study conducted by the Council of Europe.
The study, carried out by Daniel Holtgen, director of communications, special representative on anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim and other forms of religious intolerance and hate crimes, which was carried out among Muslim organizations in eight European countries, focused on focused on hate rhetoric online.
The countries included Germany, France and Great Britain.
During a briefing in Berlin, Holtgen said this is a dangerous path and Muslims frequently face death threats online. He noted that calls for violence against Muslims cannot be considered within the framework of freedom of expression.
While hate speech is generally posted anonymously, people openly sharing anti-Muslim messages using their names are on the increase, Holtgen said, adding that some segments of society find it acceptable to insult and use hate speech against Muslims.
The special representative also noted that Muslim organizations in these countries believe that states are not taking enough action to protect Muslims from anti-Muslim attacks, as many public institutions are not sufficiently sensitized on the issue.
The president of the Central Council of Muslims of Germany, Aiman ​​Mazyek, also criticized European countries for rarely taking anti-Muslim hate crimes seriously. Calling the current state of events “worrisome,” Mazyek said more than 1,000 anti-Muslim hate crimes were committed last year.
Every two days during the year 2019, a mosque, a Muslim institution or a religious representative in Germany has been the target of anti-Muslim attacks, according to an investigation by the German Left Party (Die Linke).
Germany has seen a rise in racism and anti-Muslim hatred in recent years, fueled by propaganda from neo-Nazi groups and the far-right opposition party Alternative for Germany (AfD). Germany is home to 81 million people and is home to the second largest Muslim population in Western Europe after France. Of the nearly 4.7 million Muslims in the country, at least 3 million are of Turkish origin.
Turkish officials, including President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, have frequently urged European policymakers and politicians to take a stand against racism and other types of discrimination that have threatened the lives of millions living within the bloc’s borders. .

For example, communications director Fahrettin Altun said European racists hide behind words like freedom and democracy to incite violence against Muslims.
Racist attacks targeting Muslims or immigrants in Europe are increasingly making headlines as white supremacists become more effective at a time when their ideals, or at least some of them, become mainstream. There is not a single large group orchestrating these attacks on Muslims and immigrants. On the contrary, individual attacks lead to more copy attacks.
The tolerant political climate under the guise of free speech helped far-right supporters with violent tendencies to broaden their support.


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/anti-muslim-rhetoric-online-as-dangerous-as-street-attacks/feed/ 0
Opinion: Jacinda Ardern knows she has problems with proposed hate speech laws http://handfulofhate.com/opinion-jacinda-ardern-knows-she-has-problems-with-proposed-hate-speech-laws/ http://handfulofhate.com/opinion-jacinda-ardern-knows-she-has-problems-with-proposed-hate-speech-laws/#respond Mon, 05 Jul 2021 16:52:19 +0000 http://handfulofhate.com/opinion-jacinda-ardern-knows-she-has-problems-with-proposed-hate-speech-laws/ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Photo / George Heard The article was first published by the Democracy Project NOTICE: During last year’s election campaign, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern raised her eyebrows when she blithely told reporters she expected “broad support” to expand existing hate speech laws to include religion. When asked if sexual orientation, age or […]]]>

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Photo / George Heard

The article was first published by the Democracy Project

NOTICE:

During last year’s election campaign, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern raised her eyebrows when she blithely told reporters she expected “broad support” to expand existing hate speech laws to include religion.

When asked if sexual orientation, age or disability could be included, she replied, “Yes. “

The PM, who had just unveiled a commemorative plaque at Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch, added that she could not understand why there would be resistance from other political parties. “I don’t see why there should be any, so it’s probably a question for every political party, but it’s definitely our point of view.”

After a firestorm erupted last week with the announcement of a new hate speech offense to be included in the crimes law, carrying a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a fine of $ 50,000, his show of confidence last September seems less naive than completely deceived.

The fiery reaction was quite predictable for anyone who understands New Zealand’s passive-aggressive relationship with authority. While most will tolerate strict restrictions on their freedom in an emergency – such as during war or the height of a pandemic – marked hostility to being told what to say or how to behave. hiding not far below.

The furious opposition to Helen Clark’s anti-butt law in 2007 should have given Ardern at least a small clue as to how his hate speech proposals might be received.

Strong opposition to the proposed changes – which would expand the list of protected groups to include not only religion but possibly sexuality, gender, age, disability and employment status as well – has come from all sides. political backgrounds, ranging from John Minto on the left to Richard Prebble and Family First on the right and many other critics in between.

This would have been extremely helpful, of course, if Ardern and his Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, had been able to answer questions put to them by TV reporters about the scope and implications of the changes in the law, but both politicians – faced perfectly with reasonable queries on real-life situations – have failed miserably.

Ardern was initially adamant that political opinion would not be added as a protected category, but later admitted that it could be.

The fact that neither of the two politicians have taken the time to fully educate themselves on the changes under discussion for several years is an extraordinary dereliction of duty – in addition to being deeply insulting to voters who fear their freedoms. restricted fundamentals.

Ardern realized she was in trouble. As Act leader David Seymour put it, she “spins and spins” so much hate speech “that she could almost qualify to represent New Zealand in gymnastics” in her attempts to get down to it. out of harm’s way.

Act leader David Seymour.  Photo / Mark Mitchell
Act leader David Seymour. Photo / Mark Mitchell

His first line of defense is Pontius Pilate’s classic maneuver of shirking his responsibilities. If not identified as the driving force behind the push for a law change, it will look much less like personal failure if the intense public reaction forces a pullback.

Interviewed last week, she said: “The reason we are having this debate is because the Royal Commission [into the mosque attacks] told the New Zealand government: “You have to include religion. “

It’s a sentiment she repeated in Parliament, but the Royal Commission report was released on December 8 last year, while new hate speech laws were promised weeks after the attacks on mosques in 2019.

Ardern also campaigned to extend legal protections to groups who are the subject of hate speech ahead of last year’s election in October.

In addition to trying to shift responsibility to the Royal Commission, Ardern appears to be seeking to secure a way out by declaring that such a change in law requires bipartisan support.

Speaking to RNZ, she managed to pull together her main lines of defense into one – albeit convoluted – sentence: “So I would like to reach out to those on all sides of the House and say, ‘Listen, given that we were called to do this, I would be very interested in their perspective and what they would see as a way to ensure that we bring those who were at the most extreme end of an experiment. ‘”

National Party Leader Judith Collins.  Photo / Mark Mitchell
National Party Leader Judith Collins. Photo / Mark Mitchell

In this interview, she acknowledged that bipartisan support was needed to ensure the sustainability of any such legislation. And in responding to National Party Leader Judith Collins in the House, she reinforced that point of view by saying, “Ultimately, I want these provisions to last as long as the last one.” [hate speech] provisions, which are broadly similar and were introduced 50 years ago.

Yet Ardern already knows – and for some time – that National and Act are relentlessly opposed. Last week, David Seymour described the moves as “cancel cultivation on steroids”; in April, he began a series of meetings on freedom of expression across the country to oppose any extension of existing restrictions; in his response address last november, he pledged to collect signatures for a citizen-led referendum to overturn any law imposing further restrictions on freedom of expression.

Last September, following Ardern’s visit to the Al Noor Mosque, Collins insisted she would no longer support any loss of freedom of speech. “I am very clear that our human rights law already deals with what needs to be addressed.”

She also pledged last week that National would repeal such a law if a government she led came to power, and described the debate as “a total bunch, frankly, and the government needs to stop this now and back off.”

Its justice spokesperson, Simon Bridges, called the proposals “Orwellian”.

So if Ardern knows there is absolutely no chance of bipartisan support across the parliamentary divide, why does she continue to lead this particular line? The only plausible explanation for a prime minister holding an absolute majority is that she seeks to avoid humiliation on a retreat by blaming the opposition’s lack of support.

In what looks like another move to ease its path away from passing hate speech legislation, Ardern also points out that the proposals are a “discussion document.” Presumably, this is an attempt to make the proposed law change appear more interim than many suspects intended before the extent and intensity of the opposition was revealed.

If Ardern had wanted a thorough discussion of the proposals with a genuine intention to listen and respond, she would have made sure that the window for public input was much wider than the six weeks allowed.

Giving the public only until August 6 to make submissions on the changes came as a surprise to University of Canterbury dean of law Ursula Cheer. As she told RNZ: “I would have thought of a very complex consultation and proposed changes to a law like this, it would take a little longer. I would have thought at the end of August at least.”

The fact that the opportunity to comment for the public is so short – and in fact the public has been kept in the dark for so long – does not appear to be coincidence. The Justice Department was obviously not as optimistic about the popularity of a law change as Ardern claimed to be during his campaign.

The ministry has been quietly consulting “affected groups” – including the Muslim community – for some time, as part of a behind-the-scenes process led by the Human Rights Commission, which has long been in favor of more. speech restrictions.

As the Ministry of Justice said: “In 2019, the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission met with the groups most likely to be the target of hate speech in order to better understand their experiences and their views. Of course, these are the groups most likely to be strongly in favor of changing the law.

In March 2020, Justice Department Director General Andrew Kibblewhite said hate speech was a “hard thing” to navigate. One of the ministry’s goals was to “have a conversation about it and avoid protests.”

Kibblewhite reportedly said the Human Rights Commission led some of the work around a law change alongside the ministry because it wanted the conversation to take place away from the political fray – given that a change proposed law could easily be derailed with so many people. perspectives.

The kind of strong opinions, in fact, that have erupted in public opinion this week that seem like they could derail the Prime Minister’s cherished plans after all.

Graham Adams is a journalist, columnist and critic who has written for Metro, North & South, Noted, The Spinoff and Newsroom.


Source link

]]>
http://handfulofhate.com/opinion-jacinda-ardern-knows-she-has-problems-with-proposed-hate-speech-laws/feed/ 0