- The etymology of anti is defined as “one that is opposed,” according to the online dictionary of Webster’s. One that is then opposed to an established race or ethnicity cannot fathom tolerance, much less understanding or communal spirit toward diverse groups of people. This is especially problematic when such anti-ethnic speech is exercised in the country of Rwanda. The residents of this country, in particular the Hutu and Tutsis have been raised, persuaded and acted upon established oppositions of each other which have produced deadly results.
- To begin with, quite shockingly, as recently as 1990’s, 50 years after the Holocaust- after a genocide of Jewish and marginalized people, oppositional sentiments – those similar to Nazi propaganda can be found to be outlined in a declaration titled, “The Hutu Ten Commandments.” The history of such oppositional sentiments and actions of the Hutu and Tutsis dates back to the 1950’s when in 1952 the Belgian ruling society of Rwanda gave the Tutsi minority privileges in politics, economic and social status. Five years later in 1957, the Hutus of Rwanda incited a manifesto citing political representation of their ethnic majority, and establishing ethnic based political parties.
- Yet, foreign control over territory and structure of government can be one to blame in the anti-ethnic battles of Rwanda. A timeline of such atrocities is beings the story of this genocide in 1884 a German explorer by the name of Carl Peters established reign and control of partial territories in Rwanda, thus establishing foreign dictatorship over a country that should have established its own structure of governmental rule among its own people. Due to the lack of leadership among the people of Rwanda, because of its foreign rule, violent, deadly chaos soon began. In 1959 ruler, Mwami Mutara III died and Kigeri V assumed power. Hutus, contending impropriety in the succession process, instigate warfare against the Tutsis. After a Hutu victory some 100,000 Tutsis, including Kigeri V, they seek refuge in neighboring countries. Belgian administrators declare a state of emergency and summon troops from the Congo to restore order.
- Shortly thereafter, local elections cite Hutus as having political power, by 1962 independence was granted to the people, a divorce by the UN terminate the Belgian trusteeship agreements, and Tutsi refugees are met with anti-sentiments when attempting to return to Rwanda as their are forced back and slaughtered in thousands. Violence continues and the Tutsis are marginalized from society, without being able to secure education or jobs by 1973. Politics are polarized, and Hutus and family take reign over the country. Print is used a means to manipulate and further separate the Tutsi and Hutu people by the late 1980's and early 1990's. Military regimes are established, encouraging more anti sentiments coupled with fear of violence. Trusted people in the community, incite fear of the other - the Tutsis. In 1992, The US intends to keep peace among the people, yet violence prevails and US peacekeepers are killed and injured. The US policy of humanitarian efforts is challenged before retreating. During the early 1990's more UN peacekeeping attempts occur, yet with no avail as Anti-Tutsi propaganda now moves to the radio airwaves, inciting violence against Tutsis. More anti-Tutsi propaganda and violence and fear spreads in the mid 1990's and heavily intensifies. People prepare with medical supplies, and radio and print sources continue with threats of genocide in all of Rwanda. In April 6. 1994 horrific killings are enforced to many political Tutsis, and the next day, Belgium withdraws its personnel as 10 soldiers were abducted, tortured and murdered. The Hutu militia regime continues fighting. In 1994, now with fewer forces from the world attempting dialogue and peace, many Hutus are forced into refugee camps outside the country as "campaigns of terror," continue. by mid 1994 it appears as though the worst is over when Pasteur Bizimungu, a Hutu RPF leader is declared President of Rwanda. They announce that the war is over, even though ousted regimes continue to claim legitimacy and vow to keep fighting against the Tutsis. Recognition is granted to this new political structure after an estimated 800,000 civilians have been reported to have been beaten, clubbed and hacked to death by their fellow residents and neighbors in three months time since President Habyarimama was killed. This same month of July 1994, millions of Hutu and displace Tutsis overwhelmed refugee cams beyond the Rwandan borders. Even as humanitarian aid arrives, many former leaders recreate communal structures within the camps to continue the genocidal regime and continue ethnic killings. In 1995 justice is attempted at a UN appointed tribunal, based in Tanzania, as the beginning of indicting leaders of the genocide for crimes against humanity under the General convention begins. Yet, many of the most powerful figures have found sanctuary abroad and cannot be located for extradition. By March 1998 US acknowledgement and confirmation take place in the city of Kigali. Here, President Clinton delivers a speech of apology to the victims of genocide. Citing responsibility, and not enough quick action when the killings began. Also, an apology for not citing the crimes under the appropriate and rightful term - "genocide."
- Due to the historical analysis of Rwanda’s history discussed above, and the nearly one million lives lost, without including the millions injured and forever displaced due to this attempted genocide, I would choose to side with philosopher Zechariah Chafee Jr. in terms of freedom of speech. Among Chafee’s Alien Registration Act of 1940, Section 2 punished speech that advocated the “necessity, desirability, or propriety,” of overthrowing the government by force and made it illegal to organize any group to teach the overthrow of the government. The catalyst to the beginning of this genocide was the overthrow of the Government of Rwanda when President Habyarimana’s plane was shot down. Afterwards, violence erupted against the Tutsis and Hutus, beginning with much of the political figures. Also, Section 3 and 4 calls attention to the importance of philosopher Chafee’s as it outlines the punishment of any person who conspired with others to violate this act as well as allowed seizure of printed matter intended for use in violation of the act. If the printed material and well as the radio propaganda was seized and stopped as it headed for mass production, then such anti-ethnic propaganda against the marginalized Tutsis would not have been distributed. I believe this would have caused a decrease of hateful sentiments against these two groups, allowing for peaceful dialogue by other foreign nations to have a great chance of success. Past theories that would support this would be the respect and harm theory for bad tendency. These precedents would protect groups inflicted with such hate speech because it would be degrading and would not constitute a space of multicultural understanding. Because such hate speech would lead to harm and disturb the peace, especially after the incident of newspapers distribution depicted, then such hate speech would not be tolerated and would be stopped. In addition I would add that the Case of Chaplisky v. N.H. 1942 supports the intermediate scrutiny that I would apply to the anti-ethnic speech inflicted to the Rwanda people. The government would have substantial reason to punish such speech in order to protect the government structure and all people. When the case of Chaplisky v. N.H. was being determined, the “fighting words,” stated did inflict injury to the listener, and tended to incite an immediate break of peace, as calls to violent action were stated such that the propaganda against the Tutsis inflicted.
- In current events, and in an urgent call to address future anti-religious speech, like anti-ethnic speech, in direct relation to the theories cited above- respect and harm theory for bad tendency in the cartoon depictions of “the little bride,” and its distribution by a Singapore couple to Muslim recipients, I would support the punishment of this couple by their government. I would also add that past evidence of violent attacks against such Islamophobia sentiments like those of “the little bride” as seen in artist Kurt Westergaard’s Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy should act as precedents to suppress such mass distribution of such hate speech and seize to stop it before violence occurs. We live in a nation that is greatly impacted by speech, especially during times of war in what can be said as a majority Christian versus Islam nations. We must not let the repetitive acts of violence occur, if we can deter them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Firstly, I would agree with your point that hate-speech shouldn’t be tolerated when leading to acts of violence, however, I think that the matter is much more difficult in the US with our country’s guarantee to the right of free speech. Thus, I would disagree and state that Kangura should be protected, although the other two publications that published nothing short of a hit-list and how/where to find and kill them should not be. Perhaps consider Emerson’s philosophy of expression-action. Kangura, like the couple involved in the case of The Little Bride, clearly used expression, but they did not call for action. These publications posed questions and opinions in their speech, but did not, in what Bradenburg v. Ohio’s precedents set, incite an imminent and immediate harm. I wouldn’t doubt that Kangura contributed to helping to fuel the fire against the Tutsis people, but Kangura stopped those publications before all of the killings and the genocidal outbreak and the threat of the publishing was not immediate. If they had been, the killings would have happened earlier when the publications had just come out. In the case of the Little Bride, the couple may have offended and perhaps disrespected some citizens (J.S. Mill’s philosophies on offense theory, the harm principle, and the citizen respect theory), but they did not harm and they certainly did not incite an immediate or imminent harm. For Kangura, although harm may have been intended, and the speech did use “fighting words”, I think that the government would have to use strict scrutiny and provide a compelling reason to criminalize this speech, as it does involve a fundamental, explicit, constitutional right involving the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and of the press. The same goes for the case of the Little Bride. Also, for both cases, I see the plaintive winning because neither incited immediate danger or true, imminent threat or harm, which is what would be needed in order to punish the speech under strict scrutiny. I can’t deny that I find Kangura’s speech to be more justifiably punishable than the couple from the case of the Little Bride, but we must consider that if we are applying our country’s rights and laws in these cases, that freedom of expression is a fundamental and guaranteed right, whether we like the content of the speech or not. We also know that we cannot discriminate against a speech on the basis of content. We also should consider that Kangura’s speech was political, not private, which gives it absolute protection according to Mielkejohn. Overall, I would agree that hate speech should be restricted, especially when considering the speech that the Westboro Baptist Church uses. However, I couldn’t support restricting this speech based on a personal dislike or of bad taste of the speeches because that would be discriminating against content, which would be too much of a slippery slope. On that note, I also couldn’t support restricting speech simply because there is opposition to it or because people are offended by it – consider the anti-Nazi speech that was censored during the Holocaust because it wasn’t the majority opinion. In the case of Kangura, the speech didn’t incite immediate and imminent harm, and I would conclude that it is also on equal parts of the journalist as well as the consumer to be responsible in their media intake and outtake (so to speak).
ReplyDeleteHello. I totally agree with you that anti-ethnic speech should not be allowed, and there are millions of lives lost in this case. It is obviously offensive enough to apply offense theory and respect theory. I also thought that intermediate scrutiny is applicable for this case. However, after reading this case once again, I found that there are some elements that probably support Kangura’s side. Fist of all, he stopped publishing the offensive medium before all the killings and violence happened. Although his speech may be directly attacking the ethnic group, it is hard to say that his speech triggered the immediate violence to these people. Therefore, it may not be “clear and present danger” since there was a period of time before the violence activities occurred. In addition to that, I think you are right that his speech may be absolutely protected under the U.S. law because it’s “political” and possibly “worthwhile.” Although he was found guilty in Rwanda, the different between two countries (such as “judging on content of speech is not allowed”) would make a big difference in this case. I think that although his speech is very offensive and should not be allowed, his freedom of speech may be protected at least in the U.S. As you wrote, we can’t judge his speech based on what we like or dislike….
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the point you made about how anti-ethnic speech should be criminalized. The background information you gave regarding the animosity between the Hutus and the Tutsis is a great example of two different groups of people who did not have to suffer so much loss, discrimination and social hardships as they did--if it weren't for promoted ideas of racial superiority by the Belgian government. Though the incident with the Hutus and Tutsis may be an extreme example of what anti-ethnic speech can evolve into, this is not to say that it could not happen in other places, including the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you related this issue back to current events such as the case of free speech involving the Singaporean couple who distributed copies of "The Little Bride". I agree with your view that it was justified that the couple was punished. Not only was "The Little Bride" outlawed in the country of Singapore, it promoted slanderous views of Islam and pushed for the idea of Christianity as a superior religion. Like you said, we live in a nation that is greatly impacted by speech. Without the proper knowledge of different religions and religious tolerance, people who are uninformed may possibly be provoked to cause harm and discriminate towards individuals of the Islamic religion.
The historical perspective you take on this issue effectively demonstrates the ill effects of unregulated and unpunished hate speech. Kangura and “The Hutu Ten Commandments” do nothing to remedy the enduring rift between the Hutu and Tutsi groups and are effectively responsible for escalating the tensions between the two groups. I agree with your argument that the radio and propaganda that was released not only supported further marginalization of the Tutsi but also incited genocide and therefore should not be considered protected speech.
ReplyDeleteThough Hassan Ngeze, the editor and publisher of Kangura did cease to operate the publication before the genocide began and even though no killings were linked directly to the messages he published, I do believe he holds some responsibility for the genocide. As Susan Benesh of Amnesty International writes, “To believe that incitement is a critical causal element in genocide, on need only recognize that people do not spontaneously rise up to kill en masse.” The incendiary remarks published in Kangura, especially text like that which on appeared on the cover of Kangura in 1991, accompanied by a picture of a machete, “What Weapons Shall We Use To Conquer The Inyenzi Once And For All??” are sufficient to reinforce hateful ideas and to assuage feelings of guilt for committing violence against the Tutsi. Just because the affects of these messages are not immediate, does not mean that they are not culpable for what followed.
Looking at this issue historically, it’s easy to see that this publication was contributing hateful messages to an already volatile situation. Benesh uses Mill’s corn dealer example to condemn genocide-inciting speech http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/, saying that speech must be analyzed in a situational context. In addition, the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire precedent referring to fighting words would not protect the speech published in Kangura. Based on these two examples and with the historical situation in mind, I too would choose to prosecute the Kangura verbal attacks on the Tutsi.