Archives

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

Inasmuch as there would be no peace if normalcy in daily human intercourse were not restored. It is incontrovertible that there will be no lasting peace in any peace process if the attendant hatred that goes into a war is not eradicated and obviated. In this context, the classic meaning of the word "obviate" ( which is to make unnecessary) is intended. Inherent in any process of racial or national hatred is a certain intellectual abdication of the values instilled in a society, through a democratic process, encompassing legal, philosophical and epistemological principles. Also endemic to hatred from a national perspective, is the preeminent role played by hate speech. It is therefore imperative that a peace process brings to bear an irrevocable resurgence calculated to apprehend this social phenomenon both in its individual and collective incarnations. Above all, the issue must as of necessity be addressed with an openness to unforeseen questions which may divide nationalities and races and estrange them from their foundational bases.

Hate speech may involve any word or utterance intended to injure, denigrate, degrade, humiliate or ridicule people on the basis of a distinguishing feature that is represented as inferior or unacceptable. The most insidious version of hate speech lies in hateful discourse which, if indulged in for sustained periods, will ensure its social acceptability. The inevitable corollary to this process is hate propaganda which often ingrains itself in a social system where the social degradation of the subject occupies the forefront of political discourse. Hate propaganda, spawned by hate speech, dehumanizes and depersonalizes the subject, degrading him to an imaginary persona and relegating him to the lowest depths usually assigned to a political enemy. The immediate reaction of a society to this phenomenon is the recognition of hate crimes which emerge from hate speech and propaganda as any other crime, thus obfuscating the hatred that inspired such crimes and trivializing their qualitatively different nature. The ultimate result is of course the social acceptability of hate crimes and their desirability. This odious conclusion to a parasitic process is almost ephemeral and pervades the intellectual consciousness of a society to its ultimate destruction. Extreme cases of hate speech often result in genocide, as in the Holocaust of the Second World War, and, more recently in Rwanda, Eastern Zaire, Tajikistan and certain parts of Eastern Europe.

Social setting

The intellectual openness to questions that may arise from a peace process has ineluctably to "meditate"on such extremities as genocide in order to avoid them. The juridical apprehension ingrained in a democratic system, admitting of "freedom of speech" has to be given cautious consideration so that safeguards are entrenched in a legislative structure in a "post peace"social setting that would prevent the use of hate speech and hate propaganda. The law must essentially distinguish between the classic dichotomy between speech and conduct, in order to arrogate a definitive place to speech that would tantamount to conduct based on the injury that the speech causes. Principles of causation must be identified in order to ensure that boundaries between speech and conduct are not obfuscated and purveyors of hate speech are not exonerated of their overall responsibilities to society. Social consciousness must transcend parochial considerations of legal dogma and embrace the compelling need to recognize and envision "clear and imminent danger" that hate speech may cause. A certain curative logic based on imputation must be ingrained in the legislative minds of a post-peace era. In a sense, this approach can analogically be likened to the preventive reasoning of risk management that is capable of conceptualising possible harm to national harmony.

Truth and justice are unhappily mutually exclusive. While in legal terms, legislative parameters will define acts and qualitize their reprehensibility, in truth, speech and conduct that ingratiate themselves to a society have to be addressed politically. This is the dilemma that legislators will face in dealing with racial hatred. Hate speech and hate propaganda primarily erode ethical boundaries and convey an unequivocal message of contempt and degradation. The operative question then becomes ethical, as to whether societal mores would abnegate their vigil and tolerate some members of society inciting their fellow citizens to degrade, demean and cause indignity to other members of the very same society, with the ultimate aim of harming them? Conversely, is there any obligation on a society to actively protect all its members from indignity and physical harm caused by hatred? The answer to both these questions lies in the fundamental issue of restrictions on racist speech, and the indignity that one would suffer in living in a society that might tolerate racist speech. Obviously, a society committed to protecting principles of social and political equality cannot look by and passively endorse such atrocities, and much would depend on the efficacy of a State's coercive mechanisms. These mechanisms must not only be punitive, but should also be sufficiently compelling to ensure that members of a society not only respect a particular law but also internalize the effects of their proscribed acts.

The intrinsic value to a society and perhaps to the whole world, of eschewing racial and national hatred is portrayed in the aftermath of the Holocaust - the defining event of this century. Human rights in our lifetime cannot be comprehended without touching our own conceptual proximity to this and other recent events which marred the dignity of human civilization. The result of the Holocaust was the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has now stood its ground over the past 50 plus years. The Universal Declaration, which has flourished both internationally and nationally, has been supplemented by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted in 1966. Both the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant have committees established to oversee their implementation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is composed of 30 articles which asserts a human being's just rights to civilized and dignified living. However, these articles and rights resonate just two words "never again" in their message.

Universal decliration

Recently, when I was in New York on mission at the United Nations Headquarters, I walked in to the United Nations book shop and picked up, for my nine year old son, an adaptation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for children. This book has instant appeal not only to a child but equally also to an adult. Here is what it says:

"One day, a large number of people gathered. They came from different places and they were quite different from one another. Some were men, and some were women. Their skin, their hair and their eyes were different colours. Their bodies and faces were different shapes. Many people had been hurt or killed because of their religion, their race or their political opinions. What brought those people together was the wish that there should be no more war, that nobody should ever be hurt again and that people who had not done other people any harm should never be punished again. So, all together, they wrote a document. In this document they tried to make a list of rights that every human being has, and that everyone else should respect."

"This document is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and this is what it says: All people are born fee; all people are born equal and so have equal rights. People can think for themselves and understand what's going on around them. Everyone should act as brothers and sisters. It does not matter what race you are; it does not matter whether you are a man or a woman; it does not matter what language you speak, what your religion is, what your political opinions are, what country you come from or who your family is. It does not matter whether you are rich or poor. It does not matter what part of the world you come from; whether your country is a kingdom or republic - these rights and freedoms are meant to be enjoyed by everyone."

"Everyone has the right to live, the right to be free and the right to personal safety. No one can be someone else's slave. No one is to be hurt or to be punished in cruel or humiliating ways. The law must be the same for everyone. The law must protect everyone. People have the right to be protected by the courts, so that their rights are respected. People cannot be arrested or sent away from their country, unless it is for a very serious reason. Everyone has the right to a fair trial. No one has the right to interfere in other peoples lives, in their families, in their homes or in their correspondence. People have the right of free movement within their country. People have the right to leave any country, even their own, and then return. No person or people shall have their nationality taken away from them This means everyone has the right to belong to a nation. And they also have the right to change their nationality, if they want to.

"All men and women have the right to get married and start a family, once they have reached a certain age. It does not matter what race, nationality or religion they are. A man and woman can only get married if they want to.

Rights

"Everyone has the right to own property. Anything that belongs to a person cannot be taken away from him or her unless there is a fair reason. Everyone has the right to think the way they like. People have the right to hold opinions and tell other people what their opinions are, and they have the right to practice their religion in private or in public. All people have the right to meet together and to form associations. But no one can be forced to join an association if he or she does not want to."

"A government's authority comes from the will of the people. People must show what they want their government to do by voting. Everyone has the right to vote. Everyone has the right to work and people have the right to choose the kind of job they want to do. Everyone has the right to good working conditions. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work. People should earn enough to keep themselves and their families healthy, to give them enough food to eat and enough clothes to wear, somewhere to live and medical attention when they are ill. Everyone has the right to rest. They should have a limited number of working hours and should be paid while they are on holiday".

"All children have the same rights, whether their parents are married or not. Everyone has the right to go to school and school must be free. Everyone should have the right to be taught a trade. Education should emphasise understanding, comprehension, tolerance and friendship."

"People have duties towards the place where they live and towards other people who live with them. Nothing that is written in this document may be used to justify taking away the rights and freedoms set out in this Declaration.

"Many years ago, this Declaration was approved. However, not all countries respect this document, and this is why everyone ought to read this document, and why it should be taught in schools all over the world."

It is important to remember that the spontaneity brought to bear in the powerful feelings expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a direct result of the collective suffering of people through hatred among mankind. Therefore, any peace process would be destitute of effect if it merely caters to the cessation of war. Surely there is more to it than that, such as educating our children on the viciousness of hatred and the need to recognize respect. Respect for others; respect for oneself; and responsibility for our actions.

The author is a senior international civil servant employed in the United Nations system, and works at the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal 

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager