Anti-ethnic speech and its tribulations

- 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.

Communication Rights to all People

As a member of a society, one would be expected to know, understand and exercise their rights when necessary. Therefore, a government, founded upon a self-governance theory would be formed to protect the rights of all people in their jurisdiction. This government would be one that is just and democratic to all people would then need to be active as a form of accountability to the people. Specifically, if laws are to protect all people, then laws governing communication must protect not just a majority, but also a minority opinion. Therefore, laws governing communication should primarily protect individual civil liberty even if asserted against the group majority. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives validity to this statement as is states that “ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” This is of vital importance because progress, individual liberty and freedom and a just democratic society will then be exercised for the good of the people. Progress will occur due to the flow of new and improved ideas. An individual will then be more freely open-minded about their religious or non-religious and cultural/non-cultural expression(s). Therefore, allowing their neighbor to do the same, which will then create a community of not just tolerance, but respect and a welcoming spirit of ideas.

To continue, the Greek Areopagitica story of law presents an ideal example of freedom of speech were citizens must be actively involved in their civil liberties, especially when elements of conflicting opinions arise. This story is important to a foundation of government due to its availability for discourse. All of the parties involved in this story were able to have representatives who argued for their case. Inclusively, those who were under persecution were able to have the floor and argue for their own interests and protections for a just, fair, due process in court. This will be an important aspect of free speech to keep in mind when controversial religious speakers are presented later in this essay. Individual liberty and freedom will occur in accordance to progress because when one neighbor exercises tolerance and respect for their neighbor, and these feelings are supported and acknowledged by the government, then “fear of the other,” will be very much decreased. This is because each person will then be living their life to their own morals and standards and letting the other do the same. A just democratic society will then be the umbrella to progress and individual liberty and freedom as laws and the judicial system will be created and exercised as a form of protecting these rights. In accordance to any country that identifies as democratic, it will not be perfect but it will have a strong foundation to support a just democratic society.

In relation to the case of the speakers in “Ecce Homo,” satirizing Jesus and in the artists in Jyllands-Posten satirizing Muhammed, based on my representation of law above; I would therefore protect the artists. Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin and Kurt Westergaard would be protected even though they are considered a minority to a group majority opinion. As cited above, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects these speakers, as they are simply, yet quite controversially exercising their freedom of thought. Following Article 18, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acts as support to these speakers as this right is elongated to “include freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Therefore the form in which this information was dispersed, via newspapers, online, and visually in places of gatherings is protected. My decision is based on the foundation to a just democratic nation. I would then protect anyone or any group of people who supported these artists – either vocally, in print, in tangible showcases, or any other form that represents communicative support for these artists. Equally, I would protect those who do not support these artists as their right to individual freedom and liberty.
On a personal note, as a practicing Mexican-Catholic, I would not find the visual representations of Ecce Homo,” offensive, and would therefore not protest to these publications even if they would be cited offensive by leaders of my religious beliefs. Members of my family identify themselves as proud members of the lesbian, gay and bisexual community, and we do not use our Theo-centric origins and beliefs to discriminate and much less hate our family members. We embrace and love our family members in the spirit that was cited by those in the LGBT community -supporting the images as representation of an all-loving God. Inclusively, a mentality to love all people as we love ourselves and love and appreciate and accept our family for who they are in a holistic manner while also respecting and providing validity their individuality – not solely based on each individual’s sexual orientation (s).

In conclusion, these protections, which could include violent protests, as was seen in the case of Kurt Westergaard, would not be tolerated. Such violent protests would not be an acceptable form of individual liberty and freedom. The artists behind the work did not express themselves through violence (and if so, it would not be tolerated), so it would be expected that the intended or non-intended audience would do the same. A governing society cannot express a bias towards a representation of established faiths by siding with the artists or the protesters when it comes to non-violent expression. A governing society – a just and democratic one must therefore respect and lawfully protect the individual liberty and freedom by respecting the non-violent expressions of artists, supporters and protesters.