By Odigwe Jilams
“As I have said, we have drawn a line against hate speech, it will not be tolerated, it will be taken as an act of terrorism and all of the consequences will follow” – Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, August 17TH, 2017.
The above quote shows the stance of the then Acting President of Nigeria, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo and by extension the administration of the Federal Republic of Nigeria against hate speeches. In as much as this is a welcome development bearing in mind the sporadic increase in this vice and the possible consequences like in the case of ethnic cleansing via genocide that occurred in Rwanda in 1994, there must be a line the government must be conscious of not crossing which is knowing when an utterance is made solely for the purpose of inciting hatred and violence or when it is infringing on the fundamental human rights of citizens which is their right to freedom of speech. This is important so that the good work the government is trying to do don’t turn into something catastrophic and self-destruction.
First, we define hate speech using the dictionary. According to Cambridge English dictionary, hate speech can be defined as the “expression of public hate or encouraging violence towards a person or group based on issues such as religion, race, sex, etc. According to Wikipedia, hate speech is a speech which attacks the person or a group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, disability, gender, etc. and the penalty for such acts varies from country to country with France and the UK having the same number of prison term which is six (6) months, but different amounts in payment of fines. In Canada, the penalty ranges from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and lastly in the United States, hate speech is not clearly defined and so therefore penalties varies, but there has not been a notable conviction on provocative speech or action.
In Nigeria, it is important to note that there is no defined law on hate speech and so therefore declaring it an act of terrorism is stretching it too far. The legal definition of terrorism is defined according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “as the unlawful use of threat or violence especially against a state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion”. Therefore, in as much as hate speech has done the country more harm than good and it is unhealthy for the peace and stability of the nation, it cannot be equated with the acts of terrorism, because if that is what it means, then two towns who clash over lands in which scores are killed is also an act of terrorism. It is therefore important that this administration do not add infringement on basic fundamental human rights of freedom of speech to their already numerous grievances to the people.
This is important because in the course of implementing this decision even the government will necessarily, infringe on our freedom of speech, but also citizen’s right to privacy will be attacked and the chain-reaction of self-destruction is escalated in enormous proportions. The executive should therefore work closely with the other arms of government to bring a bill on hate speech into law and such that it will not favour any particular group, but that all parties must feel satisfied when the bill is passed into law.
This requires drawing a very distinct line. It must not be drawn with stick but etched in concrete as this will bring a lasting solution and curb the menace of hate speech in Nigeria. This is needed because the problem with drawing lines with stick in the sand is that with a breath of air, they disappear. This means that the supposed good work the government is trying to do will cut into constitutional rights of various individuals and the efforts in the long run will be counter-productive.
This distinction must be drawn because of some previous incidents in which government officials used the law enforcement agencies to arrest some individuals because they expressed their views and when one looks closely, these views being expressed are not malicious for all intents and purposes, but it was a method of creating awareness to the citizens about certain issues. That incident still remains fresh and the individual who was reprimanded by the police at that time was grossly intimidated. This and other incidents have become the norm of the government particularly this administration in which citizens are stifled and intimidated from expressing themselves as the constitution demands.
However, as earlier said, hate speech has not helped the country, but rather has heat up the polity in all sphere of our life. People cannot stay a day without attacking a person based on his religion, ethnicity or region and this is very prominent on the social media. These provocative utterances have further served to polarize the country and it is so unfortunate that it is the young ones who are championing this cause and have turned social media to a place where their venom is easily spilled and hastily transported to all parts of the country for bitter accommodation and consumption. This is just like what the bible says “their throat is an open sepulchre……..the poison of asps is under their lips:…….their feet are swift to shed blood” (Romans 3:13,15). This is what their provocative speech does at the end of the day: violence. This is evidence in recent comments by some youths of a particular section of the country that a certain group of people should leave that part of the country (where the youths are staying) before October 1ST of this year. This not only brings unrest and further breeds ethnic division, but hinders investments. I say this because in discussion with some people on their business plan, they are afraid to invest until the threat is nullified or that at least October 1ST comes and go.
There are negative effects of this vermin which is hate speech. In his engaging new book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” the legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron begins with the premise that in a “well-ordered society” not only must all people be protected by the law; they are entitled to live in confidence of this protection. “Each person . . . should be able to go about his or her business, with the assurance that there will be no need to face hostility, violence, discrimination or exclusion by others.” Hate speech undermines this essential public good. “When a society is defaced with anti-Semitic signage, burning crosses and defamatory racial leaflets,” Waldron says, this assurance of security “evaporates. A vigilant police force and a Justice Department may still keep people from being attacked or excluded,” but the objects of hate speech are deprived of the assurance that the society regards them as people of equal dignity.
Even when the hate speech comes from isolated fringe elements, themselves despised by a majority of the public, Waldron tells us, we should not regard the harm as insignificant. “Precisely because the public good that is under attack is provided in a general, diffuse and implicit way,” he explains, “the flare-up of a few particular incidents can have a disproportionate effect.”
Also in an article published online “The Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD) called on religious leaders to stop using hate speech to express their grievances, political or social misunderstanding with others. The group also pointed out that religion has topped the CITAD’s January hate speech monitoring report with 444 statements, ethnicity got 347, Biafra issue had 18, while farmers/herdsmen crises had 11 statements. The above statement is very disheartening because it shows that religion which is supposed to be a messenger of peace rather brings destruction closer to our shores than all other secular issues. Has the place of worship become a place for merchandising bitterness anger and hatred where the Pastor or Iman uses the pulpit to preach provocative and destructive messages? Nigerians are known to be most religious people on earth, so therefore are their religious vulnerability being exploited to bring conflict?… They are supposed to preach peace and the fact that they do not and rather do the opposite gives reasons for some states to promote laws to check their utterances because when civil unrest and chaos occurs, the government will be blamed and the clerics who instigated the restlessness in the first place will still blame the government for failing to protect lives and properties of citizens.
This is very unfortunate. However they are not the only problem as the Vice-President Prof. Yemi Osinbajo was right at some point in his speech when he said that “when leaders in communities that speak in such a manner to create dissension or intimidate the population are quiet, they do a great disservice to our unity, they do a great disservice to our nation…. Your silence in such situation can only be seen as an endorsement”. This is right in every score as people who called themselves leaders in the country claim they want ONE NIGERIA, but allow their youths to say inciting comments about other parts of the country which clearly instigated division and secessionist claim….what kind of leaders are they? Those kinds of leaders are a sickened bunch of belly-centered men who do not care about this country and who has contributed to the situation we are presently. However, when it is time for election, it is the only time they can rein these youths and influence their decision. This is so not patriotic and does not inspire patriotism at all.
However, the government also has its blame ; to allow this menace go on for so long with its infectious signs and symptoms is also a disservice to our nation Nigeria. this menace started in the past administration and became a norm in this present administration and truth be told, the present administration began this provocative utterances while they were in opposition and now it has festered unchecked in their administration. I again reiterate that I do not encourage any form of provocative languages or utterances and that is why I encourage them to draw the line in the sand with concrete so that decision will not be used for malicious and personal intentions. This will go a long way to check anybody who is tasked with the duty of implementing the hate speech law and also give the person a fair trial because right now, there is no law on hate speech and equating it with terrorism is not a fair and tactful decision at all. It is their own mess, hence am fully in support of them cleaning it up.
Finally to those who have and abused their fundamental human rights by inciting and causing unrest in the society, I leave this with you “The wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips….. Proverbs 12:13)
Odigwe Jilams from Warri, Delta State.
Ji68946@gmail.com 08160274120
