In the last few years, the UN has taken notice of the dangers posed by “hate speech”, especially expressed through social “media” platforms that, paradoxically, deliver these speeches unmediated. In this space, this newspaper pointed out some of these dangers in Guyana, especially against a background of divisive, ethnicised politics that has characterised our polity since the 1960s. In June 2019, UN Secretary-General António Guterres pointed out: “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech; it means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”
This is very salutary advice for Guyana at this juncture of our history: when, once again, the results of our elections are being challenged with wild allegations against the incumbent Government, but those allegations are bereft of substantiation even as challenges before the judiciary. Starting with the return of free and fair elections in 1992, after twenty-eight years of rigged elections and authoritarian rule by the PNC, such claims have led to violence being inflicted on purported supporters of the PPP simply because they are Indian Guyanese. This is the essential consequence of hate speech that targets individuals and groups based on their origins.
Following the 1997 elections, in which the PPP again won and the PNC lost, the latter’s protests resulted in hundreds of Indian Guyanese being mauled in Georgetown. Those protests segued into wider protests within a PNC “slow fyaah; mo’ fyaah” strategy, and saw armed bandits holed up in Buxton killing dozens of mainly Indian Guyanese civilians and the GPF. After the Aug 2, 2020 elections, riots once again broke out in Guyana, with the PNC amazingly alleging that the PPP rigged the elections from the outside. Even though the rest of the world – present through their representatives – asserted that it was the PNC that attempted the rigging.
Now matters have again taken an ominous turn, with a platoon of PNC-aligned groups disingenuously hosting a virtual “symposium” to “discuss” the “Emerging Apartheid State in Guyana”. Taking opportunistic cover under the banner of “free speech”, they are yelling “Fire!” in a theatre that is packed after two years of hate speech in meetings, protests, and over social media.
According to the UN, “Hate speech is a menace to democratic values, social stability, and peace. As a matter of principle, hate speech must be confronted at every turn, and be tackled to prevent armed conflict, atrocity crimes, and terrorism; end violence against women, and other serious violations of human rights; and promote peaceful, inclusive, and just societies.
“The proliferation of hateful content online, coupled with easily shareable disinformation that digital communication enables, has raised unprecedented challenges for our societies, as Governments struggle to enforce national legislation in the virtual world’s scale and speed. Unlike in traditional media, online hate speech can be produced and distributed easily, at low cost, and anonymously, while having the potential to reach a global and diverse audience in real-time. The relative permanence of online content is also problematic when hateful discourse can resurface and (re)gain popularity over time. In such a context, understanding and monitoring the dynamic of hate speech across the diverse online communities and platforms are key for shaping new responses; but efforts are often stalled, given the sheer scale and diversity of the phenomenon, current technological limitations of automated monitoring systems, and the opacity of online companies.
“Meanwhile, the growing weaponisation of social media to disseminate hateful and divisive narratives – often promoted by online corporations’ proprietary algorithmic bias – has exacerbated the stigmatisation of vulnerable communities and exposed the fragility of our democracies worldwide. This has prompted increased scrutiny of internet players and questions on their actual role and responsibility in real-world harm. As a result, some States started to hold internet corporations accountable for moderating and removing content that they consider breaking the law, raising concerns about limitation of freedom of speech and censorship in return.”
Our Government must take note, and take action.
