The case of footballer Raheem Stirling provides an avenue into the oft-overlooked issue of hate speech prevention and deterrence. The Stirling case provides an opportunity to consider the adequacy of English law in tackling hate speech, a nuanced and increasingly difficult to isolate issue. Read the rest of this entry »
In its recent judgment in Stomakhin v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) launched the message to all domestic authorities to adopt a “cautious approach” in determining the scope of “hate speech” crimes and to avoid “excessive interference” with the right to freedom of expression, especially when action is taken against ‘hate speech’ or extremist opinions that are mere criticism of the government, state institutions and their policies and practices. Read the rest of this entry »
In the wake of an explosion in London on September 15, President Trump called for cutting off extremists’ access to the internet. Racists and terrorists, and many other extremists, have used the internet for decades and adapted as technology evolved, shifting from text-only discussion forums to elaborate and interactive websites, custom-built secure messaging systems and even entire social media platforms. Read the rest of this entry »
Public comments on the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill [pdf] were due at the end of January. A coalition of some of SA’s best comedians and satirists has taken a stand against the bill and filed submissions arguing that its hate speech provisions are unconstitutional. Among them are Pieter-Dirk Uys, John Vlismas, Jonathan Shapiro (Zapiro), Kagiso Lediga, Conrad Koch (and Chester Missing), Nik Rabinowitz, Tumi Morake, Joey Rasdien, Nina Hastie, David Kau, Casper de Vries, Celeste Ntuli, Mark Banks, Jason Goliath, John Barker, Christopher Steenkamp and the creators of the satirical programme ZA News. Read the rest of this entry »
In a bid to fight escalating anti-migrant propaganda, the European Commission this month released a blueprint for regulating online hate, which requires social media companies to take down racist material within 24 hours. Read the rest of this entry »
Over the Spring Bank Holiday, a man was arrested by West Mercia Police under Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 for wearing a highly offensive T-shirt to a local pub. Sounds draconian? Perhaps not when you consider the words that this individual had printed on the t-shirt in question. Read the rest of this entry »
In Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott 2013 SCC 11 Canada’s Supreme Court considered the balance between equality rights and rights to freedom of expression and religion. It upheld the central “hate speech” provisions in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, although struck down some of the code’s wording in a case prompted by flyers handed out by a religious anti-gay activist, Bill Whatcott. Read the rest of this entry »
The case of Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Warman, brought by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), was a judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal not to impose any penalty on Marc Lemire for breaching section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act 1985 (CHRA). Read the rest of this entry »
