A/HRC/28/64

United Nations

General AssemblyDistr.: General
5 January 2015
Original: English

Human Rights Council
Twenty-eight session
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development

Report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues,
Rita Izsák
Summary
The present report provides an update of the activities of the Special Rapporteur on
minority issues during 2014. It includes a thematic discussion on “Hate speech andincitement to hatred against minorities in the media”. Media, in its diverse forms, is an
essential component of today’s societies, providing huge benefits and possibilities,
including in the field of minority issues. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur highlightsthat media can also be misused as a platform for discrimination, exclusion and theincitement of hostility and violence against particular individuals and groups, through hatespeech as well as xenophobic discourse.
The Special Rapporteur identifies and analyses factors that influence and perpetuate
hate speech in the media. She urges States to adopt legislation prohibiting national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, in linewith article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and to put inplace practical policy and programme measures to prevent hate speech from leading to hatecrimes.

GE.15-00032 (E)

A/HRC/28/64

Contents
Page

I.

Introduction .............................................................................................................

1–2

3

II.

Activities of the Special Rapporteur .......................................................................

3–24

3

A.

Country visits ..................................................................................................

3–5

3

B.

Communications .............................................................................................

6

4

C.

Additional activities ........................................................................................

7–22

4

D.

Update on the Forum on Minority Issues........................................................

23–24

6

Hate speech and incitement to hatred against minorities in the media ....................

25–50

6

A.

Introduction ....................................................................................................

25–34

6

B.

Examples ........................................................................................................

35–42

8

C.

International legal framework .........................................................................

43–50

9

Factors that lead to hate speech and incitement to hatred in the media ...................

51–79

11

A.

Absence of or unclear legislation on incitement to hatred ..............................

52–61

11

B.

Negative/stereotyped portrayal of minority groups in the media ....................

62–70

14

C.

Structural inequalities .....................................................................................

71–73

15

D.

Changing media landscape .............................................................................

74–79

16

Good practices for addressing and responding to hate speech andincitement to hatred in the media ............................................................................

80–100

17

A.

Education and media literacy ..........................................................................

81–84

17

B.

Establishment of specialized institutions ........................................................

85–86

18

C.

Promotion of ethical standards, regulatory bodies and participationof minorities in media outlets .........................................................................

87–93

18

Civil society initiatives to address online hate speech ....................................

94–10019

Conclusions and recommendations .........................................................................

101–117

20

III.

IV.

V.

D.
VI.

2

Paragraphs

A/HRC/28/64

I. Introduction
1.
The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues was established by theCommission on Human Rights in resolution 2005/79, as an Independent Expert, andrenewed by the Human Rights Council in resolutions 7/6 of 27 March 2008 and 16/6 of 24
March 2011. On 28 March 2014, the Council renewed the mandate of the Special
Rapporteur, in resolution 25/5. The current mandate holder assumed her functions on
1 August 2011. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur is, inter alia, to promote theimplementation of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, including through consultation with
Governments.
2.
The present report covers the period from January to December 2014. Chapter II
contains an overview of the Special Rapporteur’s activities during the reporting period. In
chapters III and IV, the Special Rapporteur focuses on the thematic issue of hate speech andincitement to hatred against minorities in the media, and provides her conclusions andrecommendations in chapter V.

II. Activities of the Special Rapporteur
A.

Country visits
3.
The Special Rapporteur visited Nigeria from 17 to 28 February 2014. With over 350
ethnic groups and even more languages, harmonious and peaceful inter-ethnic relations
prevail in most of the country. However, violent intercommunal clashes have affected theNorth and Middle Belt regions, with the underlying causes of the violence including
poverty, good governance deficits, impunity and polarization of ethnic and religious
characteristics. Minority communities in the Niger Delta suffer from dire environmental
degradation owing to frequent oil spills. They have been deprived of their traditional
livelihoods and face difficulties accessing basic services. Language issues include thedecline of numerous mother-tongue languages. The report on the visit is contained in
document A/HRC/28/64/Add.2.
4.
The Special Rapporteur visited Ukraine from 7 to 14 April 2014. Representatives ofcommunities described a history of harmonious inter-ethnic and interfaith relations and alegislative, policy and social environment generally conducive to the protection of theirrights, including cultural and linguistic rights. Nevertheless, minority issues became highly
politicized as the situation of political and social unrest increased in 2014, particularly in
the East, creating and widening fractures along national, ethnic and linguistic lines, andresulting in conflict. While challenges relating to minority issues include a lack ofinstitutional attention to minority rights, she notes that minority rights have been
inappropriately used to justify or support violent actions. The report on the visit iscontained in document A/HRC/28/64/Add.1.
5.
The Special Rapporteur thanks the Governments of Nigeria and Ukraine for theircooperation during her visits to the respective countries, and the Governments of Botswana,
Brazil and the Russian Federation, respectively, for agreeing to visits in 2015. She also
thanks the Government of Belarus for extending an invitation to conduct an official visit.
She urges other States to which she has requested invitations to respond positively to her
requests.

3

A/HRC/28/64

B.

Communications
6.
The Special Rapporteur received information from diverse sources about humanrights violations perpetrated against national, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities.
Based on that information, she sent communications in the form of letters of allegation andurgent action letters relating to minority issues to the Member States concerned – mostjointly with other relevant mandates. Those communications and the responses from theGovernments concerned are available to the public in the joint communications reports ofthe special procedures submitted to the Human Rights Council.1

C.

Additional activities
Events, conferences and outreach7.
On 16 and 17 January 2014, the Special Rapporteur participated in the second
international colloquium on “Roma Segregated Housing as a Human Rights Challenge”,
organized in Madrid by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR), Regional Office for Europe, and the Government of Spain.
8.
On 17 and 18 January 2014, she gave the keynote speech on “The rights and securityof religious minorities” at the International Conference-Symposium on “Religious Liberty
and Religious Minorities”, organized by the International Association for the Defence ofReligious Liberty and Complutense University, in Madrid.
9.
On 5 February 2014, the Special Rapporteur delivered a lecture at the Central
European University, in Budapest, on “The role of the United Nations Independent Expert
on minority issues”, as part of the course “Peoples’ Rights and Minority Rights”.
10.
From 4 to 6 March 2014, she participated in the first international meeting of“Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes” (GAAMAC), in San José, where she
addressed the role of prevention through urgent and coordinated actions in the light ofearly-warning signs.
11.
On 26 March 2014, she gave a lecture at the Hungarian National Public Service
University, in Budapest, on “The rights and challenges on Roma, possible policy responses
and the role of the media”.
12.
On 12 May 2014, the Special Rapporteur delivered the 2014 annual Sabhal Mòr
Ostaig lecture on the Isle of Skye, Scotland, in which she focused on the general United
Nations framework for minority rights protection, with specific attention to the trends andconcerns regarding linguistic minorities.
13.
On 17 June 2014, she participated in the side event on “Caste-based violence against
women and girls”, organized by the International Dalit Solidarity Network, in Geneva. She
discussed the role of special procedures in combating caste-based discrimination andviolence.
14.
On 18 June 2014, the Special Rapporteur participated in a panel discussion on“Preventative tools of human rights mechanisms in Geneva – Part I: Special Procedures
Mandate Holders”, organized by the Responsibility to Protect Core Group, in which she
addressed how special procedures could help prevent human rights violations, particularly
mass atrocity crimes, by identifying situations at risk.

1

4

See www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx.

A/HRC/28/64

15.
On 31 July and 1 August 2014, she participated in a conference in Krakow, Poland,organized by TernYpe International Roma Youth Network, to commemorate the 70th
anniversary of Roma Holocaust Day on 2 August.
16.
On 3 September 2014, she participated as a guest speaker in a seminar on“Incitement to hatred, xenophobia and related intolerance in cyberspace”, in Minsk, which
was organized by OHCHR and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus.
17.
On 18 September 2014, the Special Rapporteur participated as a panellist in the
Human Rights Council panel discussion on “The role of prevention and protection ofhuman rights”, in Geneva.
18.
On 24 September 2014, she participated as an expert in the round table on “Persons
with albinism: violence, discrimination and way forward”, organized by OHCHR and theOrganisation Internationale de la Francophonie, in Geneva.
19.
On 23 October 2014, the non-governmental organization (NGO) Committee on
Freedom of Religion or Belief organized a discussion with the Special Rapporteurs on
minority issues and on freedom of religion or belief, at the Bahá’í International Community
New York Office.
20.
On 19 November 2014, she participated in the round table on “The role of educationin the prevention of atrocity crimes” organized by the Central European University, in
Budapest, and on 20 and 21 November, she spoke at the 7th Budapest Human Rights
Forum.
Statements
21.
The Special Rapporteur issued public statements, many jointly with other mandates,
highlighting issues of concern involving minorities,2 including: on 26 March 2014, callingon the Vietnamese authorities to intervene in a case of forced eviction of the last remaining
residents of Con Dau, home to a small Catholic community; 7 April, on the human rights
situation of the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar, raising the alarm on the further
deterioration of their human rights situation; 8 April, marking International Roma Day,
calling for inclusion of Roma in decision-making processes; 10 April, to the Cameroonian
authorities regarding the eviction and demolition of houses of a Mbororo pastoralist
community; 25 April, regarding the evacuation of religious minorities under threat in theCentral African Republic; 19 May, expressing alarm to the Government of Sudan over thedeath sentence imposed on a pregnant Christian woman and urging the repeal of
discriminatory legislation on the grounds of gender and religion; 21 May, to theGovernment of the Islamic Republic of Iran urging it to halt the execution of two Ahwazi
Arab human rights activists.
22.
The Special Rapporteur, together with other mandate holders, issued jointstatements: on 2 July 2014, urging the Government of Sri Lanka to take measures to stop
racial and faith-based hatred and violence against Muslim and Christian communities;
23 July, calling on the Government of Nigeria to address the situation of over three million
internally displaced persons; 25 July, regarding threats to several minority groups in Iraq by
the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); 31 July, to commemorate the 70th
anniversary of the Roma Holocaust, calling on governments for stronger measures andinitiatives to keep the memory of the Roma Holocaust alive; 12 August, warning of thedanger of massacre of the Yazidi population in Northern Iraq by ISIL; 14 August,2

Links to the Special Rapporteur’s press releases can be found on her webpage, www.ohchr.org/
en/issues/minorities/iexpert/pages/ieminorityissuesindex.aspx.

5

A/HRC/28/64

expressing concern over Pakistani asylum seekers in Sri Lanka being detained andforcefully deported to Pakistan without adequate assessment of their asylum claims;
5 December, regarding two grand jury decisions in the United States not to bring to trial thecases of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, African-Americans killed by police.

D.

Update on the Forum on Minority Issues
23.
The Special Rapporteur was requested, in resolution 25/5, to guide the work of theForum on Minority Issues, prepare its annual meetings and report on its recommendations
to the Human Rights Council. The seventh annual session of the Forum was held in
Geneva, on 25 and 26 November 2014, with a thematic focus on preventing and addressing
violence and atrocity crimes against minorities.
24.
Over 500 delegates participated, representing Member States from all regions,
United Nations mechanisms, treaty bodies and specialized agencies, intergovernmentalorganizations, regional organizations, national human rights institutions and NGOs andincluding academics and experts on minority issues. Issues addressed included
understanding the root causes of violence; improving prevention of violence and atrocity
crimes; essential measures for resolution, protection and security once violence has broken
out; and avoiding renewed violence through peace-building and managing diversity.
Interventions identified challenges involving minorities as well as solutions and effective
practices for preventing and addressing violence. Three side events were organized in themargins of the Forum on related themes. Recommendations from the Forum will bepresented to the Council at its twenty-eighth session.

III. Hate speech and incitement to hatred against minorities
in the media
A.

Introduction
25.
The Special Rapporteur is alarmed by the high number of complaints reaching her
about hateful messages and incitement to hatred that have fuelled tensions and often led tohate crimes. In her 2014 report to the General Assembly (A/69/266), she focused on
violence and atrocity crimes against minorities and listed cases of attacks against minority
groups that she had brought to the attention of Member States concerned, either throughcommunications (letters of allegation or urgent action letters) or public press releases. She
believes that more should be done to monitor and react, in a timely manner, to hate speech
and incitement to hatred and violence to prevent tensions and violence which damage theentire social fabric, unity and stability of societies. Tolerance and inaction reinforce thesubordination of targeted minorities, making them more vulnerable to attacks, but also
influencing majority populations and potentially making them more indifferent to thevarious manifestations of such hatred.
26.
Although not all hateful messages result in actual hate crimes, hate crimes rarely
occur without prior stigmatization and dehumanization of targeted groups and incitement tohate incidents fuelled by religious or racial bias. Few countries collect data on hate crimes,
their causes and victims that would enable policy-makers to better protect populationgroups at risk.
27.
In the United States, in 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Uniform
Crime Reporting Program, recorded almost 6,000 hate crimes incidents: 48.5 per cent were
racially motivated (66 per cent anti-Black, 21 per cent anti-White, 5 per cent anti-Asian,6

A/HRC/28/64

4 per cent anti-American Indian or Alaska Native); 17.4 per cent were motivated byreligious bias (59 per cent anti-Semitic, 14 per cent anti-Islamic, 6 per cent anti-Catholic);
and 11.1 per cent stemmed from ethnicity bias (53 per cent anti-Hispanic or Latino biased).328.
In Europe, in 2008, the Fundamental Rights Agency conducted a survey of 23,500
respondents from ethnic minority and immigrant groups to assess how many had been
victims of assault, threat or serious harassment with a perceived racist motive. The survey
found that between 16 per cent and 32 per cent of Roma, and between 19 per cent and32 per cent of persons of African origin reported being victims of racial discrimination.
Another survey of 5,900 respondents in nine European Union Member States found that up
to one third of Jewish people had experienced verbal abuse or physical anti-semitic
violence.4 The Special Rapporteur considers that many incidents could be prevented withtimely and appropriate responses to hateful messages, including through better
representation and inclusion of minorities in mainstream communication platforms.
29.
No country or society is free from hatred and it is most often those belonging tonational, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities who are the targets of hate. But what are
the causes of such hatred and how does it evolve from a thought or a viewpoint to infect awhole society or result in acts of violence? This is an essential question that we must
become better at answering if we are to effectively confront hatred in all its forms.
30.
Hatred is often constructed, fuelled, maintained and directed by certain individuals
or groups against other individuals and communities who are different, in ethnicity,
language or religion from the dominant majority, often for political reasons or due to longstanding and entrenched discrimination. Hateful messages may fall on particularly fertile
ground where there are wider social, economic or political problems or divisions in society.
The root causes of hatred often lie beyond purely ethnic or religious difference.
31.
Hatred very often stems from wider societal shortcomings, including the lack of or
unequal access to resources; partisan politics; corruption; deficits in good and inclusive
governance; and the reality or perception of bias and favouritism along ethnic or religiouslines, which can fuel distrust, suspicion and anger. It was found that where inclusive
governance, equality and human rights prevail and communities have placed trust in theirleadership, there were fewer communal fractures and concerns about minority rights.
32.
Governments, civil society and the international community must be alert to thewarning signs of hatred and violence much earlier: when the first words of hate speech areuttered; when media start to promote negative stereotypes; or once there is an atmosphereof discomfort and animosity when minorities exercise their right to freely and openly
practise their religion, use their language, or assert their right to have a voice in political life
and the decisions that affect them.
33.
Many States continue to lack domestic anti-discrimination and anti-hate speech laws
and, even where they exist, implementation of the law is often poor and court cases are rare.
States must not make quick or easy assumptions that minorities feel secure because of
constitutions and laws that codify minority rights on paper. It is essential that States findways to understand the feelings and concerns of minorities and that the required
institutional attention to minority issues and consultative bodies and processes is in place.
34.
The present thematic study provides an overview of the role of media in relation tohate speech and incitement to hatred and violence. It refers to the role of international
standards and processes with regard to the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or3

See www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2013/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses/
incidentsandoffenses_final.
4
See http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-brief_hatecrime_en.pdf.

7

A/HRC/28/64

religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and willaddress the major challenges to combating hate speech in the media. Different measuresand good practices that can be implemented by States and civil society actors will beanalysed.

B.

Examples35.
There are numerous examples, both historical and present-day, of how media is used
as a means of portraying minority groups in an offensive and stereotyped way and, in themost extreme cases, to directly incite violence. The Nazi regime used media for a massive
propaganda campaign against Jews, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals and others.
A propaganda ministry controlled the media, exerting censorship on books and authors tosuppress opposing viewpoints and to reinforce Nazi ideology of racial superiority and antiSemitism. Jews were repeatedly portrayed as the cause of societal problems anddehumanized in the public discourse. Around six million Jews, as well as Roma and others
were murdered in the Nazi Holocaust.
36.
During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, media played a major role in supporting andinciting ethnic hatred and violence against Tutsi and moderate Hutu populations. The
newspaper Kangura spread hatred against Tutsis, publishing articles and graphic cartoonsin which Tutsis were attacked. A wider audience was reached by radio stations, which were
key in transmitting hate propaganda and incitement to violence. Radio Rwanda and Radio
Télévision des Milles Collines (RTML) instigated, encouraged and directed massacres.
Hate messages broadcast during the genocide referred to Tutsis as “cockroaches” andissued instructions to kill them. Nearly one million people were killed.
37.
In the post-9/11 era, Islam and Muslims have been subject to stigmatization andhostility in Western media. Certain media outlets have identified Islam with terrorism,
which, according to the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, is a major driver of resurgent
Islamophobia around the world (E/CN.4/2006/17). Despite many civil society organizationsdelivering pro-Muslim discourses after the September 11 attacks, anti-Islamic fringeorganizations have exploited mass media to spread messages of fear and anger. The former
Independent Expert on minority issues noted in a report (A/HRC/13/23/Add.2) thatmembers of Muslim and Arab communities in Canada stated that negative stereotypes had
been reinforced since September 2001, including in the mass media, resulting in theirreluctance to engage in public debate or raise their concerns.
38.
Prejudices and entrenched stereotypes against Roma are common and Romacommunities are frequently the target of degrading and inflammatory language. In 2013,
the case of a young blonde girl who was found living in a Roma settlement in Greece,
prompted a wave of anti-Roma reports and accusations that Roma had abducted her. Suchallegations prompted additional allegations from other countries. The accusations were
subsequently found to be unfounded. Indeed, they were made prior to a comprehensive
investigation and were based on sensationalist media coverage. The Special Rapporteur
called5 on media and commentators to refrain from generalizations on the supposed
criminality of Roma and warned that hateful rhetoric would trigger further stigmatizationand even violence against Roma.
39.
In the Central African Republic, hate speech has been recognized as having played arole in inflaming and fuelling violence and has been described by United Nations officials

5

8

See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13915&.

A/HRC/28/64

as a possible precursor to serious human rights violations, including potential genocide.6 In
March 2014, the United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide alerted the
media that Muslims were being “deliberately and systematically targeted by the antiBalaka” in attacks referred to as “cleansing operations”. He referred to reports of hatespeech by anti-Balaka (Christian armed groups) on public media referring to Muslims as“rotten potatoes” and public justification of their actions.
40.
On 2 July 2014, the Special Rapporteur called on Sri Lanka to stop racial and faithbased hatred and violence directed at Muslim and Christian communities by Buddhist
groups with extremist views, and to bring perpetrators to justice.7 Various statements havepromoted extremist views, proclaiming the racial superiority of Sinhala Buddhists andalleging that statues of Buddha are being bulldozed by religious minorities or thatevangelical Christians are forcibly converting vulnerable people. Those statements
reportedly contributed to over 350 violent attacks against Muslims and over 150 attacks
against Christians in the past two years.
41.
Social media is a fertile ground for radical and terrorist groups to spread hatefulmessages. ISIL uses online platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and
Youtube, to deliver updates on their actions as well as to reach out to potential donors andrecruits, including posting videos and graphic material. The misuse of social media by ISIL
has been described by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as “theproduct of a perverse and lethal marriage of a new form of nihilism with the digital age”.8
42.
Social media platforms have also been used to disseminate hate speech content
against groups, which has fuelled intercommunal tensions and led, in some cases, to violent
clashes among communities. Following a country visit in July 2014, the Special Rapporteuron the situation of human rights in Myanmar expressed her concern over the spread of
misinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence, discrimination and hostility in the
media and Internet, particularly targeted against Muslim communities.9

C.

International legal framework
43.
The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious
and Linguistic Minorities establishes that “States shall protect the existence and the nationalor ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective
territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity” and requiresthat States adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends (art. 1).
The Declaration also emphasizes that persons belonging to minorities “have the right toenjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use theirlanguage, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of
discrimination” (art. 2.1). The commentary on the Declaration10 encourages States to adopt
laws protecting against acts or incitement to acts which physically threaten the existence ofgroups or threaten their identity.
44.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
recognizes that genocide is an international crime, which entails the national andinternational responsibility of individual persons and States. According to article 3 of the6

See www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/2014/03/hate-speech-in-the-central-african-republic-maybe-precursor-to-genocide/.
7
See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14812&LangID=E.
8
See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15173&LangID=E.
9
See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14910&LangID=E.
10
See www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/minorities/group/11session.htm.

9

A/HRC/28/64

Convention, the following acts shall be punishable: (a) genocide; (b) conspiracy to commit
genocide; (c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to commit
genocide; and (e) complicity in genocide.
45.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits “any propaganda
for war” as well as “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” (art. 20).
46.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
obligates States to condemn “all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas
or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or
which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, andundertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to,or acts of, such discrimination” (art. 4). Furthermore, three situations constitute offences
punishable by law: (a) all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred,
incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts
against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also theprovision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;(b) organizations, organized and all other propaganda activities which promote and incite
discrimination—which must be declared illegal and prohibited—, and participation in suchorganizations or activities; (c) promotion or incitement of racial discrimination by publicauthorities or public institutions, national or local.
47.
In its general recommendation No. 35 (2013) on combating racist hate speech, theCommittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stresses, inter alia, the role of racist
hate speech in processes leading to mass violations of human rights and genocide and in
conflict situations and points out that racist hate speech can emanate from individuals orgroups, can be disseminated orally, in print, through electronic media (Internet, social
networking sites), as well as by non-verbal expression (racist symbols, images, behaviour atpublic gatherings). It emphasizes that media representations of ethnic, indigenous and othergroups should be based on principles of respect, fairness and the avoidance of stereotyping.
It formulates specific recommendations, including the adoption of appropriate legislation inline with international standards, the establishment of codes of professional ethics and press
codes, the promotion of media pluralism and the facilitation of access to and ownership ofmedia by minorities.
48.
The Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence11
constitutes a comprehensive framework to assist States in implementing their obligations tocombat incitement to hatred. It contains specific recommendations and guidance onbalancing freedom of expression enshrined in article 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, with the prohibitions in article 20, through a six-part threshold
test for forms of speech that are prohibited under criminal law. Among the key factors put
forward in the Plan to prevent incitement to hatred are the collective responsibility ofStates, media and society, and the need to foster social consciousness, tolerance, mutual
respect, and intercultural dialogue.
49.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights does not contain provisions
referring specifically to the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred.
However the Charter states that: “all peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same
respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people byanother” (art. 19) and that “every individual shall have the duty to respect and consider his

11

10

See www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/opinion/seminarrabat/rabat_draft_outcome.pdf.

A/HRC/28/64

fellow beings without discrimination, and to maintain relations aimed at promoting,safeguarding and reinforcing mutual respect and tolerance” (art. 28). The American
Convention on Human Rights states that: “any propaganda for war and any advocacy ofnational, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any
other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including thoseof race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses
punishable by law” (art. 13.5).
50.
The European Court of Human Rights, in its recommendations and jurisprudence on
the European Convention on Human Rights, has identified a number of forms of expression
which are considered offensive and contrary to the Convention, including racism,
xenophobia, anti-Semitism, aggressive nationalism and discrimination against minorities
and immigrants.12 The Court makes a distinction between genuine and serious incitement to
extremism and, on the other hand the right of individuals (including journalists andpoliticians) to express their views freely and to “offend, shock or disturb” others. Other
relevant standards include the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and its
Additional Protocol and the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating
certain forms and expression of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.

IV. Factors that lead to hate speech and incitement to hatredin the media
51.
Hate speech has been described as “the special scourge of minorities and indigenous
peoples”.13 Unfortunately, hate speech and incitement to hatred are on the rise in many
countries across all continents and these hateful messages are frequently transmitted
through traditional media and the Internet. A number of factors are involved in making
minority groups the targets of hate speech in the media.

A.

Absence of or unclear legislation on incitement to hatred
52.
There is no universally accepted definition of “hate speech”. The term encompasses
a wide array of hateful messages, ranging from offensive, derogatory, abusive and negative
stereotyping remarks and comments, to intimidating, inflammatory speech inciting violenceagainst specific individuals and groups. Only the most egregious forms of hate speech,
namely those constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, are generally
considered unlawful. Cultural paradigms must be understood and taken into account when
considering whether certain comments or images constitute hate speech, incitement or
defamation, and States have a margin of appreciation in establishing such thresholds.
Nevertheless, a balance must be struck that does not unduly restrict the rights of individuals
or place individuals under the threat of violence.
53.
Discussion over what constitutes hate speech poses a recurring dilemma vis-à-vis theright to freedom of expression and its limits. It remains necessary to protect freedom of
expression while at the same time guaranteeing the rights of others, public order and, insome cases, national security. Nevertheless, as stressed by the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, far from being
12

Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R 97 (20) of the Committee of Ministers to Member Stateson “hate speech”, adopted on 30 October 1997, at the 607th meeting of the Minister’s Deputies.
13
Susan Benesch, “Defining and diminishing hate speech”, in Freedom from hate, State of the World’s
Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2014, Peter Grant, ed. (London, Minority Rights GroupInternational, July 2014).

11

A/HRC/28/64

incompatible, the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the prohibition ofincitement to hatred are “mutually supportive”, as the public debate of ideas as well asinterfaith and intercultural dialogue can prevent hate and intolerance.14
54.
In order to develop consistent and effective legislation and measures to prohibit andpenalize incitement to hatred, hate speech should not be confused with other types ofinflammatory, hateful or offensive speech. As experts have stated,15 the intended or actual
effects of speech can be a useful indicator to distinguish incitement to hatred from othercategories of hate speech: in the case of incitement to hatred, the speaker seeks to provoke
reactions on the part of the audience, specifically to influence the audience to share theviews expressed or implied in the speech and to respond against the victim groups withhostility, discrimination or violence.
55.
The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers uses a broader approach: “the term
“hate speech” shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite,
promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti‐Semitism or other forms of hatred basedon intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism andethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people ofimmigrant origin.”1656.
Lack of clear definitions of the content and elements of the prohibition of advocacyof national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to hatred, in legal systems,
may lead to misapplication of the law, including the use of anti-hate speech legislation topersecute and suppress critical or dissenting voices.17 For example, so-called “blasphemylaws” may result in the censure of inter- and intra-religious dialogue, debate and criticism;
many of those laws are also applied in a discriminatory manner, as they offer different
levels of protection to different religious beliefs.18 As highlighted by the Special Rapporteuron freedom of religion or belief, “the risk that legal provisions prohibiting hate speech areinterpreted loosely and applied selectively by the authorities underlines the importance of
having unambiguous language and of devising effective safeguards against abuses of thelaw”.19
57.
A series of consultations involving OHCHR, civil society and academics were held
to provide a clearer definition of the key terms contained in article 20, paragraph 2, of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of which resulted in “The Camden
Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality”.20 Principle 12 states as follows: (a) theterms “hatred” and “hostility” refer to intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium,
enmity and detestation towards the target group; (b) “advocacy” must be understood as
requiring an intention to promote hatred publicly towards the target group; (c) “incitement”
14

See A/67/357.
See, for example, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Others2011/
SBenesch.doc.
16
Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R 97 (20) of the Committee of Ministers, appendix (seenote 12 above).
17
See A/67/357.
18
Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred, section 19(see note 11 above).
19
Joint submission by special procedures to Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) 2011 Expert workshop on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious
hatred for Europe, held in Vienna, 9 and 10 February 2011. Available fromwww.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Vienna/CRP3Joint_SRSubmission
for_Vienna.pdf.
20
See www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/the-camden-principles-on-freedom-of-expressionand-equality.pdf.
15

12

A/HRC/28/64

refers to statements about national, racial or religious groups which create an imminent riskof discrimination, hostility or violence against persons belonging to those groups; (d) the
promotion, by different communities, of a positive sense of group identity does notconstitute hate speech.
58.
A six-part test has been developed by the NGO Article 19 to determine theappropriate threshold for assessing the types of expressions constituting “incitement tohatred”:21 (1) context of the expression, including consideration of existing conflicts withinsociety, existence and history of institutionalized discrimination, history of clashes andconflicts over resources, the legal framework and the media landscape. In relation to media,
issues to be examined include censorship, existence of barriers to establishing media
outlets, limits to the independence of the media or journalists, broad and unclear restrictions
on the content to publish or broadcast and evidence of bias in the application of therestrictions, absence of criticism of government or wide-ranging policy debate in the media
and access by the audience to a range of alternative and easily accessible views andspeeches; (2) speaker, including consideration of his/her official position, level of authority
or influence over the audience and whether the statement was made by a person in his/her
official capacity. Politicians and public officials or persons of similar status should be given
special consideration; (3) intent of the speaker to incite hatred, not mere recklessness or
negligence; (4) content of the expression, including what was said, the targeted audienceand the targeted potential victims, tone and form of the speech; (5) extent and magnitude ofthe expression, including the means of dissemination (press, audiovisual media, work of art,etc.); (6) likelihood of harm occurring, including its imminence.
59.
As underscored by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of theright to freedom of opinion and expression (A/66/290), it is necessary to differentiate
between illegal expression, which States are required to prohibit under international law,and expression considered harmful, offensive, objectionable or undesirable, but which
States are neither required to prohibit or criminalize. It is important to differentiate between
three types of expression: (a) expression constituting an offence under international law thatcan be prosecuted criminally; (b) expression not criminally punishable but that may justify
a restriction and a civil suit; (c) expression that does not give rise to criminal or civil
sanctions but still raise concerns in terms of tolerance, civility and respect for others.
Negative or stereotyped characterizations of minority groups may fall under any of those
three categories.
60.
The Special Rapporteur considers that, while much attention is rightly paid to legal
responses to hate speech, equal attention and discussion should be dedicated to non-legal
and social responses. She was impressed by community initiatives, in which hate groups
have been confronted and halted by ordinary citizens,22 and alternative and creative waysthat have been initiated to tackle hate speech.
61.
Although several constitutions and legislative acts regulate incitement to hatred,
practice in respect of national case law differs greatly. In African societies, the importanceof traditional conflict resolution methods, the limited number of applicable modern judicial
remedies, the lack of public awareness of such remedies, and the weakness of national
policies to prevent incitement to hatred were identified as contributing factors to low levels

21

Article 19, “Prohibiting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, Policy Brief 2012, pp.27–
40.
22
See, for example, the Not In Our Town initiative at www.niot.org.

13

A/HRC/28/64

of prosecution.23 In the Americas, judicial decisions have been made in Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, Colombia, Peru and the United States of America, but none has been made inCentral America or in the Caribbean.24

B.

Negative/stereotyped portrayal and lack of representation of minority
groups in the media
62.
Minorities are often portrayed in a stereotyped manner in the media, through broad
generalizations of perceived characteristics of the group as a whole, which, in many cases,
are negative or derogatory. The repeated presentation of broad negative stereotypes ofminority groups, as, for example, criminals, violent, untrustworthy, disloyal, alien or dirty,
nurtures inaccurate and false assumptions and opinions that may eventually develop into
discriminatory attitudes and entrenched prejudices. Stereotypes may have the objective ofor result in stigmatizing and dehumanizing whole communities.
63.
There is a broad spectrum of either deliberate or unintentional negative stereotypingof minority groups in the media, ranging from emphasis on the ethnic or religious
background of a person responsible for an offence or repeated association of derogatory anddangerous characteristics with specific groups, to the most virulent attacks against minority
members, which commonly highlight alleged differences between “us” versus “them”. Insome cases, there is direct incitement to violence. Such negative portrayals may reinforce
entrenched views of ethnic or religious minorities as “others” and perpetuate ideas ofstructural disadvantage and inequality, as they fail to present a broader and more accurate
representation of the situation and challenges faced by minority groups.25
64.
Studies26 reveal that poor reporting by the media on features such as ethnicity andreligion involves, inter alia, labelling, selected use of data, generalizing incidents, negative
stereotyping, giving one side of a story, use of derogatory words, mixing facts and views,
absence of fact checking, and mismatching of the content of the text and headlines, images
and sound. Lack of knowledge about ethnic and religious issues by media reporters,
absence of in-house training, poor financial situation of media outlets, heavy workload andscarce time to prepare reports were highlighted as obstacles to good, unprejudiced
reporting.
65.
Pluralistic media is key to providing independent and objective information as it
incorporates diverse viewpoints. Media diversity not only refers to the existence of varied
media outlets but to the access to mass media by minority groups, as well as to theexistence of a plurality of viewpoints within media outlets. Underrepresentation ofminorities in the media means that their voices and influence are absent to counter negative
expressions. Minorities face numerous challenges both in their access to and representationin the media.

23

OHCHR, “Study on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred in Africa”, by
Doudou Di ne, orkshop for Africa, Nairobi, 6 and 7 April 2011. Available fromwww.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Nairobi/NairobiStudyE.pdf.
24
OHCHR, “Study on the prohibition of incitement to hatred in the Americas”, by Eduardo Bertoni,Workshop for the Americas, Santiago, 12 and 13 September 2011. Available fromwww.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Santiago/SantiagoStudy_en.pdf.
25
Simon Cottle, ed., Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing Cultural Boundaries (Berkshire, Open
University Press, 2000).
26
Verica Rupar, Media Diversity Institute, Getting the facts right: reporting ethnicity and religion(Brussels, International Federation of Journalists, 2012).

14

A/HRC/28/64

66.
There are few statistics available about representation of minorities in media organs
due to the lack of disaggregated data. One study in the United Kingdom confirmed a grossimbalance between white and ethnic minority journalists in relation to training andemployment patterns and opportunities within the news media. Only 0.5 per cent of
national newspaper journalists and only 0.2 per cent of provincial press journalists wereBlack or Asian. In the broadcasting industry, an estimated 2.7 per cent of editorial staff
were Black or Asian. While equal opportunities policies, ethnic minority monitoring andtraining schemes of the BBC have helped, half of all Black staff work on black-only radio
and television programmes.27
67.
Access by minority groups to the media in many countries is limited or completely
restricted. Persons belonging to linguistic minorities are typically disadvantaged in the
media marketplace, and the resulting lack of linguistic plurality within the media has beenreferred to as “soft assimilation”, in that the only available media is in the language of the
majority, which fails to reflect minority needs, preferences and issues.
68.
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in its generalrecommendation No. 35 (2013) on combating racist hate speech, stressed the importance ofmedia pluralism to counter racist hate speech and highlighted that it entails “facilitation ofaccess to and ownership of media by minority, indigenous and other groups …, including
media in their own languages” (para. 41). Representation of minority groups in the media isa crucial means to promote the participation of minorities in society and to incorporate
pluralistic approaches. The Council of Europe has stressed the fundamental role of minority
media in both playing a mediating role between communities and providing access tominority networks and to alternative sources of information.
69.
While minority media can fulfil an important role in preserving language, culture
and minority identity, it has very limited potential to balance negative stereotyping,stigmatization, homogenization or fight back against hate speech emanating frommainstream media. This is partly due to the fact that minority media tends to be accessed byminority audiences and messages broadcast by them are often regarded as inferior by thesociety at large, compared to differing majority media viewpoints.
70.
Representation of minority groups in mainstream media is essential to ensure
diversity in content and in the make-up and structures of media bodies themselves.
However, this is hindered by the constant struggle of media organs to survive incompetitive marketplaces where priorities are to reach maximum audiences and advertisers.
The perception is that those goals can be best achieved by catering to the needs andinterests of majority populations, so minority interests, voices and opinions tend be
marginalized.28 The recruitment of journalists and media workers with diverse ethnic,
religious and linguistic backgrounds in today’s multicultural societies is a pressing need toachieve a more objective and “stereotype-free” media.

C.

Structural inequalities
71.
Some scholars consider the right to freedom of expression as absolute, suggestingthat democratic societies should not permit the exclusion of any views, even if they are
offensive or inflammatory. Such theories often fail to recognize the fundamental existence27

Simon Cottle, ed., Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing Cultural Boundaries (Berkshire, Open
University Press, 2000).
28
See OSCE-ODIHR, “Incitement to Hatred vs. Freedom of Expression: Challenges of combating hatecrimes motivated by hate on the Internet”, report of Expert Meeting held in arsaw, 22 March 2010.
Available from www.osce.org/odihr/68750?download=true.

15

A/HRC/28/64

of structural inequalities in society, which make some more vulnerable, including to attack,whether verbal or physical. Many examples from different regions demonstrate theconnection between hate speech and violence and that there are legitimate grounds to limit
freedom of speech when it is motivated by or seeks to incite racial, religious or other formsof hatred.
72.
It is difficult to talk about upholding the values of democracy and equality if certain
groups are completely excluded from participating in or shaping that democracy in practice.
If marginalized communities lack access to public platforms and communication channels,
they have no possibilities to influence public opinion or to seek and obtain justice. Romacommunities struggle to respond to hate speech in mass media from far-right groups andpolitical parties, since Roma are almost completely excluded from mainstream media
platforms. Where communities are regarded as inferior in any society, their voices will also
be treated as inferior, regardless of how loudly they shout and how valid their concerns.
73.
Action to address hate speech and hate crime must engage majority communities,
including politicians, intellectuals, celebrities and ordinary people concerned about hatredin their societies, to join marginalized and disadvantaged minorities in demanding humanrights, equality and human dignity for all. Such coordinated struggle must include
legislative steps, but also requires swift and efficient social responses. If hate incidents are
not tackled early, targeted groups may experience permanent damage to their self-esteem
and sense of belonging within their societies, thereby increasing their marginalization.
Majority communities may also gradually become desensitized to hate speech, to the point
where they begin to accept the hostility and stigmatization against certain groups in theirsocieties.

D.

Changing media landscape74.
Media, in all its diverse forms, is an essential component of today’s societies,
providing huge benefits and possibilities, including in the field of minority issues and interfaith or intercommunity cohesion. Media offers immediacy in communication andexchange of information, often in different languages and representing different ethnic,
religious and cultural viewpoints, which can reach all audiences.
75.
The format of the media environment has undergone a dramatic transformation tohost Internet and online media platforms, allowing live interaction and more rapid outreachworldwide. In the digital age, media has also widened its scope to include social media,
where people share and/or exchange information, ideas and initiatives across vast national
and international networks and virtual communities. New forms of online media whichallow those who advocate hate speech or cyberhate to easily access large audiences are
subject to less regulation than traditional media and provide anonymity to those who wish
to exploit it.
76.
While digital media has provided new spaces for minority groups to participate in
the public debate, the accessibility, rapidness and relative anonymity provided by theInternet also provide fertile ground for spreading hateful content. Hate speech on theInternet adopts many forms and is disseminated through different digital platforms 29 —from highly organized hate groups which recruit, radicalize and instruct followers to attack
targeted groups; the issuing of “hit lists” containing calls for violence against individuals;“cyberbullying”, which targets primarily youth and often originates from racial, ethnic or
religious bias; dissemination of propaganda, misinformation and hate spam; exchange of

29

16

Ibid.

A/HRC/28/64

information and ideas via social media networks, discussion groups, listservs andcommunities of interest.30
77.
The anonymity of the Internet poses particular challenges when it comes to tracking
and prosecuting the authors of content that might incite hatred and violence. Material canbe shared worldwide and hosted by Internet service providers (ISPs) subject to various
legislations with diverse degrees of protection against hate speech. Racist hate websites arecommonly hosted in jurisdictions considered favourable to or tolerant of hate speech andcan easily relocate to another permissive jurisdiction if blocked or banned.
78.
Given that social media platforms are mostly self-regulating and therefore dependent
on reporting by users of material perceived as hateful or harmful, their content can beaccessible until it is ultimately flagged by community members as material contravening
the site’s guidelines. In addition to legislative and jurisdictional challenges, there aretechnical difficulties involved in removing hate-inciting material from the Internet.
79.
Online media and communication platforms make it easier for extremist groups toorganize themselves, even transnationally. In Europe, anti-immigrant populist radical-right
political parties increased their representation in the European Parliament from only 8 percent in 2009 to close to 15 per cent in the 2014 election. This rise of ethno-nationalist rightwing parties is also a consequence of the trend towards less extreme “hate” language andmore sophisticated and “moderate” manifestations of far-right messages which appeal to awider group of voters, resulting in their having a bigger impact on mainstream society.31

V. Good practices for addressing and responding to hate speech
and incitement to hatred in the media
80.
Despite the countless examples of hate speech and incitement to hatred against
minorities in the media today, there are also many measures and initiatives involving andimplemented by the media to contest hateful speech and incitement to hatred, and counterits pernicious effects.

A.

Education and media literacy
81.
Human rights education as well as education for respect of diversity is of paramountimportance to fostering a tolerant society, but is not sufficient: it must be complemented byeducation on the responsible use of the Internet and social media by citizens, particularly
children and young people, so as to counter hate speech exposure and minimize other risks,such as cyberbullying. Several relevant initiatives to promote media literacy are led by
States, international organizations and civil society, such as those presented below.
82.
In 2012, the Council of Europe launched the “No hate speech movement”,32 a
campaign directed towards youth with the objective of combating online hate speech in allits forms. The campaign is part of the project “Young People Combating Hate Speech
30

Tarlach McGonagle, “The Council of Europe against online hate speech: Conundrums andchallenges”, Expert paper, MCM(2013)005, Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible
for Media and Information Society, Belgrade, 7 and 8 November 2013. Available fromwww.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1088.
31
Catherine Fieschi, Marley Morris, Lila Caballero, eds.,Populist fantasies: European revolts in context(U.K., Counterpoint, 2013). Available from http://counterpoint.uk.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Populist-Fantasies-European-revolts-in-context.pdf.
32
See www.nohatespeechmovement.org/.

17

A/HRC/28/64

Online, 2012-2014”, which aims to equip young people with competences to recognize andact against hate speech, racism and discrimination in their online expression.
83.
The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, established in 2005, is a United
Nations entity tasked to assist in diminishing hostility and promoting harmony among
nations in order to prevent conflict and promote social cohesion. The Alliance has engaged
in media and information literacy initiatives to teach media consumers how to criticallyinterpret information received. Those initiatives include a media and information literacy
clearing house (milunesco.unaoc.org), the creation of a global network of universities, andthe coordination of workshops for educators and publications.
84.
In April 2014, Rwanda Media High Council, in partnership with the African Media
Initiative and the Ethical Journalism Network, launched the campaign “Turning the Page ofHate Media in Africa”, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the genocide. The campaign
aims to promote ethical, tolerant and inclusive journalism, good media governance andresponsible communications through the open information landscape, and includes a
guideline document to test for hate speech in journalism practices.

B.

Establishment of specialized institutions
85.
Dedicated institutional attention to minority issues, including monitoring andresponding to hatred targeted against minorities, is essential to prevent atrocities andreinforce unity and stability. This is even more important following violence or conflict, aspart of transitional justice and reconciliation processes.
86.
During the disputed presidential elections in Kenya in 2007, violence, triggered byhate speech and incitement to hatred by political and religious leaders in the media, left
more than 1,000 people dead and half a million displaced. As a result, Kenya establishedthe National Cohesion and Integration Commission, tasked to promote ethnic harmony andinvestigate complaints of ethnic or racial discrimination or any issue affecting ethnic andracial relations. The Commission has been tackling hate speech through action, including
the development of guidelines for media outlets, training manuals for law enforcement
officers, workshops and conferences.

C.

Promotion of ethical standards, regulatory bodies and participationof minorities in media outlets
87.
Media outlets can actively engage in fighting incitement to hatred and violence inthe media by adopting principles and guidelines of ethical and responsible journalism to
improve the quality of information and reporting to avoid bias, prejudice and manipulation,
as well as by promoting diversity among media workers and investing in adequate training
for media professionals.
88.
In April 2014, the International Federation of Journalists adopted the “Brussels
Declaration”33 to combat incitement to hate and violence through media. The Declaration
made recommendations to journalists and their unions aimed at upholding the principles
and ethics of responsible journalism, including denouncing incitement to hatred wheneveridentified, ensuring knowledge of codes and guidelines by media workers, promoting
education and training of journalists as well as encouraging diversity in media outlets.

33

18

See www.ifj.org/nc/news-single-view/backpid/191/article/ifj-conference-agrees-declaration-to-standup-against-hate-speech/.

A/HRC/28/64

89.
Ethics codes play an important role in guiding press workers on how to report
objectively and responsibly. The Press Ethics Code of Benin emphasizes that “Journalists
must refuse to publish any incitement to tribal, racial and religious hatred. They must makea stand against all forms of discrimination” (art. 10). Singapore’s Internet Code of Practiceconsiders as prohibited material that “glorifies, incites or endorses ethnic, racial or religious
hatred, strife or intolerance” (art. 4 (2)(g)).
90.
Independent regulatory bodies, such as media watchdogs, councils and ombudsmen,monitor media reporting, identify and report on hateful content and reinforce ethicalstandards. However, regulatory media bodies must not unduly censor media sources andmust comply with international standards. The Press Council in Bosnia-Herzegovina
monitors the application of the Press Code and the investigation of complaints. In 2014, inthe context of the general elections campaign, it launched the campaign “STOP! Hate
Speech!”.
91.
Several self-regulatory media bodies have started to operate in Africa, some of themin countries with a history of hate speech and incitement to violence against minority
groups. The Rwanda Media Commission was established in 2013 with the mandate topromote ethical journalism, defend media freedom and adjudicate complaints against themedia; some commentators have alleged censorship and serious restrictions on media
freedoms.
92.
Media self-regulatory bodies in the Americas include the Ethics Committee of the
Journalism National Council in Panama.34 The Committee brings together journalists,
media owners, civil society, academics and the Office of the Ombudsman and receives andresponds to complaints about journalism practices.
93.
Participation of minorities in the media landscape encompasses the possibility forminority professionals to work in media outlets. Some media outlets have developed
specific programmes and internships to recruit and train minority media workers in order topromote ethnic diversity in the newsrooms and press offices.

D.

Civil society initiatives to address hate speech
94.
Civil society organizations have developed innovative approaches and actions tocombat hate in the media, including the Internet. Those actions include identifying hate
trends, tracking and monitoring hate speech websites, notifying potentially affected ortargeted communities about hate activities, working closely with Internet providers andgovernmental agencies to report hateful content and providing online educational materials
and training programmes.
95.
Studio Ijambo was launched in 1995 by the organization Search for Common
Ground to address inter-ethnic violence in Burundi. The programme aimed to establish aplatform to promote dialogue and tolerance through radio, in contrast to hate speech andincitement in radio programmes in neighbouring Rwanda. The station uses different
formats, including debates and discussion programmes, soap operas, sketches andinteractions between political leaders and youth, for example. Twenty years on, the model
is considered a success and has been replicated in other African countries, including the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, where radio has been used to promote constructive
messages about conflict resolution.

34

Report of the Expert Workshop for the Americas, Santiago, 12 and 13 October 2011, available fromwww.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Santiago/MeetingReportSantagio.pdf.

19

A/HRC/28/64

96.
The Umati project in Kenya emerged out of concern that mobile and digitaltechnologies had played a catalyzing role in the 2007–2008 post-election violence in the
country. The project seeks to better understand the use of dangerous speech in Kenyan
online space, by monitoring blogs, forums, online newspapers, Facebook and Twitter. From
October 2012 to November 2013, over 7,000 incidents of hate speech in English and local
languages were identified. They were shared with other Kenyan organizations responsible
for countering hate speech.
97.
The Panzagar Movement (“flower speech campaign”) in Myanmar was initiated in
April 2014 by a Burmese blogger and human rights activist concerned by hate speechagainst Muslim citizens in social media. The Movement was launched under the slogan“Let’s moderate our speech to prevent hatred among human beings” and is actively
engaged in social networks.
98.
Norikoe Net is a Japan-based group working to overcome hate speech and racism,
often targeted against Koreans, in Japan. The group joined forces with others to collectively
counter racism and hate speech by organizing anti-hate speech events and protests andpushing for the enactment of anti-discrimination legislation in Japan.
99.
Some initiatives seek to involve ISPs in combating online hate speech, by
advocating the implementation of reporting mechanisms for illegal material posted on theirservices, identifying hateful content that violates the terms of service or code of conduct of
the ISPs and requesting the ISPs concerned to remove it. The Anti-Defamation League(ADL) has been actively involved in combating online hate speech through close
collaboration with ISPs as well as law enforcement agencies, and providing training
resources and educational materials on hate crimes.
100. Civil society organizations have formed networks to combat cyberhate, lobby forinternational legislation against discrimination on the Internet and exchange information
and best practices. The International Network Against CyberHate (INACH) comprises 15
organizations from different countries with the purpose of uniting and empoweringorganizations to promote respect, responsibility and citizenship on the Internet throughcountering cyberhate and raising awareness about online discrimination.

VI. Conclusions and recommendations
101. Hatred is often constructed, fuelled, maintained and directed by certain
individuals or groups against other individuals and communities who are different inethnicity, language or religion from the dominant majority, often for political reasonsor owing to long-standing and entrenched discrimination. Hateful messages may fallon particularly fertile ground where there are wider social, economic or politicalproblems or divisions in society. The root causes of hatred often lie beyond purely
ethnic or religious difference and must be better understood.
102. It is essential to recognize how, in the longer term, hate speech and incitement
can endanger social cohesion and create or deepen intercommunal divides andtensions. Action to address hate speech and hate crime must engage majority
communities, including politicians, intellectuals, celebrities and ordinary people
concerned about discrimination and hatred in their societies, to join marginalized anddisadvantaged minorities in demanding human rights, equality and human dignity forall. Such coordinated action must include legislative steps and swift and efficient social
responses. If hate incidents are not tackled quickly and effectively, targeted groups
may experience permanent damage to their self-esteem and sense of belonging within
their societies, increasing their marginalization. Majority communities may gradually
become desensitized to the hostility in their societies targeted against minority groups.
20

A/HRC/28/64

103. Traditional and contemporary media have enormous potential to foster
knowledge, understanding and acceptance of diversity. Media can also be misused as aforum for stigmatization, discrimination, exclusion and, in the worst cases, incitementof violence. Contemporary media, particularly new digital media, due to its
immediacy, universal scope, accessibility, interactive nature and the difficulty of
regulating it, have become accessible platforms for spreading hate speech.
104. Several factors influence the extent and prevalence of hate speech in the media,
including the absence of or unclear legislation on incitement to hatred, negative andstereotyped portrayal of minorities, limited access and representation of minorities in
the media, structural inequalities, the changing media landscape and the emerging
and more organized forms of extremist and populists movements.
105. The Special Rapporteur urges States to adopt domestic legislation, in
conformity with article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
prohibiting any “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
106. Legislation must fully respect the right to freedom of speech and expression
and avoid any arbitrary or abusive interpretation of anti-hate speech laws. Statesshould establish proportionate thresholds for the assessment of forms of expression
which may amount to incitement to hatred, including careful consideration, on a caseby-case basis, of the context, speaker, intent, content, extent or magnitude andlikelihood or probability of harm occurring. Legislation prohibiting incitement tohatred should provide effective and adequate remedies to victims, including civil
remedies for damages, and guarantee the right of correction and reply.
107. The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to adopt the Rabat Plan of Action
on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence when implementing or revising theirdomestic legal framework on hate speech.
108. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that there are several non-legal ways andmeans to tackle hate speech. Public condemnation of hate speech by political leaders,parliamentarians, party members, other public figures and community leaders canshape public perceptions and contribute to unity and social cohesion. Democratic
political parties need to find effective tools and outreach strategies to counterbalancehate messages spread by extremist forces and parties.
109. The establishment of institutions dedicated to minority issues, with mandates totrain, monitor and act on issues relevant to intercommunal relations and harmony,objective portrayal of and peace between diverse population groups, especiallyregarding relevant threats, such as incitement to religious or racial hatred, isdesirable.
110. Media outlets should maintain the highest standards of ethical journalism,
avoid stereotyping of individuals and groups and report in a factual and impartial
manner. Media outlets should adopt codes of ethics and conduct for the exercise andpromotion of ethical standards. The participation of minority professionals in media
outlets in all roles and levels is essential to ensuring objective and non-stereotypical
portrayal of minorities. Media outlets should implement programmes to train, recruitand support media workers belonging to minority groups.
111. Specific training in minority issues should be provided to media professionals
by media outlets to help journalists improve coverage and produce accurate, in-depth
and informed reporting on minority-related issues.

21

A/HRC/28/64

112. The Special Rapporteur encourages the establishment of national, independent
regulatory bodies, including representatives of minorities, with powers to monitor
hate speech in the media, receive reports from the public in relation to hate speech,
receive and support complaints, and make recommendations.
113. While recognizing the technical and operational difficulties in combating online
hate speech, the Special Rapporteur encourages States to take specific measures,
including specialized training of law enforcement bodies and prosecutors, to address
hate crimes and incitement to hatred on the Internet, and to exchange information
and best practices at the international level.
114. Internet service providers (ISPs) should establish detailed terms of service,guidelines and notice-and-takedown procedures regarding hate speech andincitement, in line with national legislation and international standards, and ensuretransparent implementation of those polices. The Special Rapporteur encourages ISPs
to collaborate with government and civil society organizations to combat hate speech,
including providing adequate channels for the reporting of illegal hateful content
posted on their services.
115. Education to promote intercultural understanding, mutual respect andtolerance among population groups is essential to eliminating stereotypes andprejudices against minority communities. Human rights education should be an
important part of school curricula, which should also include the history, culture andtraditions of minority groups as well as their important contribution to enriching oursocieties.
116. Media literacy is essential to providing youth and adults with adequate tools
and resources to develop critical thinking in order to question the accuracy, bias andimpact of the information provided by the media. The Special Rapporteur
recommends that States include key functions of media literacy in school curricula atall stages with special focus on the online environment.
117. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the commendable work of civil society inconducting public-awareness campaigns to combat hate speech, including on theInternet. She encourages States to work collaboratively with and support thoseorganizations and projects, including providing financial support.

22