IPS-English MEDIA: When Hate Speech Turns Deadly, Who Can Stop It? Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:05:50 -0700 Ernst-Jan Pfauth UNITED NATIONS, Apr 13 (IPS) - Thirteen years ago, Rwanda's Hutu majority slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis in just a few months, partly thanks to a media campaign that exaggerated their cultural differences and made the two groups bitter enemies. While tensions already existed due to high population density and the poisonous historical influence of Rwanda's former coloniser, Belgium, the Hutus and Tutsis had lived in peace for several years, speaking the same language and inter-marrying. Yet relentless hate speech helped turn ordinary neighbours into ruthless killing machines. The campaign was led by Hutu extremists through the Radio Television Libre des Milles Collines. Its main message consisted of a warning to the Hutu people that the Tutsis were subhuman traitors, often referring to them as ”cockroaches”. ”Every year, an enormous number of people become victims of genocide, caused by efficient propaganda,” said Cees Hamelink, a professor in international communications at the University of Amsterdam and a former advisor to recently departed U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Hamelink has long argued that by detecting a hate campaign at an early stage, future genocides can be prevented. So he founded the International Media Alert System (IMAS), which monitors the media in a systematic way and if necessary, issues a warning. IMAS teams regularly brief a global institute that is in direct contact with the International Criminal Court in The Hague. ”Genocide never starts with one suddenly deciding to start killing people,” Hamelink told IPS. ”The deadly effect of hate speech implies that all those who propagate beliefs in support of genocide, through whatever media, have to be treated as perpetrators of crimes against humanity.” In August 2003, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, located in Tanzania and charged with prosecuting offences committed during the genocide, sentenced two journalists who encouraged fellow Hutus to kill to life in prison, while a third received 35 years in jail. But for hundreds of thousands of people, justice came too late. ”The international community must bring perpetrators of hate speech to justice before the actual killing takes place,” Hamelink stressed. Ideally, IMAS would have local teams in place in the world's conflict zones. Hamelink says he has received a mainly positive reaction toward his plan, even from his former boss, Kofi Annan. But some worry that IMAS, while well-intentioned, could negatively impact freedom of speech. ”One caution would be the danger of criminalising balanced, factual reporting because it might have the effect of triggering a bad public reaction,” Brian Buchanan of the Freedom Forum and the First Amendment Centre Online told IPS. Tala Dowlatshahi of Reporters Without Borders said that,” Certain parts of the IMAS are interesting to examine. If journalists in conflict areas are carefully monitored, it can ensure an open, free and democratic working atmosphere for them -- as described in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” According to Article 19, ”Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” However, Dowlatshahi stresses that reporters in conflict areas should not be harassed for their work. ”Journalists in certain regions of Africa, China and Iraq, for example, are already suffering on a daily basis from threats, affecting their personal lives,” she said. ”It would be a disappointment if IMAS were to worsen this situation,” Dowlatshahi said. ”Journalists must not be limited in their possibilities to inform the people about their country and its current affairs.” Hamelink insists that, ”You have to choose between two evils -- the evil of limiting freedom of speech on the one hand, and allowing incitement of violence on the other hand.” ”Persons who propagate hate speech take away their victim's right of free speech,” he added. ”Moreover, hate speech often occurs in societies where the government censors the media. If the international community stops hate propaganda in those countries, the press freedom of other media will increase.” Nevertheless, before IMAS expands its operations, several critical issues must be weighed -- including that of free expression. Is hate speech or incitement to genocide covered by the protection of freedom of expression? Can prohibition of incitement be justified? And on what grounds? Then there is the issue of the substantial funding needed to build a worldwide system like IMAS, which would start with a smaller pilot phase. ”Afghanistan will probably be the first test case,” Hamelink said, ”since the presence of hate speech is increasing there.” Hamelink is now looking for investors. He says that Swiss universities are interested in helping the plan to get to the Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs. And he is nothing if not determined. ”I'm an extraordinary optimistic person, the plan is important enough to really get it going,” he said. ***** +BOOKS: Tales of Rwanda's Survivors in Poetry and Prose (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37324) +More IPS Coverage of Press Freedom (http://ipsnews.net/new_focus/expressfreedom/index.asp) (END/IPS/WD/AF/HD/IP/IC/PF/EJP/KS/07) = 04132319 ORP017 NNNN