THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN CONTROLLING HATE SPEECH

Media use to have a huge clout in the Rwandan genocide, Ghana may learn from that.

The Rwandan genocide began in 1994. According to the Human Right Watch, around 800,000 people from the Rwandan minority named "Tutsis" were killed by the "Hutus" during the 100 days the genocide lasted. Besides, the Hutus forced 200,00 Tutsis out of Rwanda, still according to the Human Right Watch. The massacres ended when the Tutsi-led Rwanda Patriotic Front, backed by Uganda, overthrew the Hutu regime. This genocide was the result of a hate speech.

Today, the situation in Ghana seems pretty similar to what it was in Rwanda in 1994. In these elections circumstances, the country appears to be quite divided. Indeed, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is launching a campaign which looks like a hate speech.

Kenndy Agyapong broadcasted a genocidal speech, stressing the opposition between Gas and Volatrians. It is said that the NPP would lynch any fake policeman and soldier the NDC would deploy during the elections. NPP's bigotry dates back several decades and transcends all political regimes in Ghana but in these elections circumstances, the situation has degenerated. To quote Elizabeth F. Defeis, professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law, in her article "Freedom of Speech and International Norms : a response to Hate Speech" : "the nation of Ghana witnesses a dramatic increase in incidents directed towards ethnic, religious and racial minorities, that has accompanied recent global upheavals."

The Hate Speech in Ghana consists in the development of intemperate speeches expressed by some politicians whose will is to plunge the nation into the chaos ahead of the 2012 December elections. Consequently, several demonstrations took place in March against the hate speech in order to raise the awareness of the people and to show that Ghanaians' goals, dreams and aspirations cannot be achieved if Ghana isn't a peaceful and coherent nation.

Unfortunately, in spite of these peaceful demonstrations, the hate speech is dividing Ghana. The Muslim Coalition for Reformation condemns those "inflammatory speeches" that are likely to create inter-religious conflicts in Ghana.

Many international human right conventions are reacting on this hate speech topic. They claim that a freedom of speech is essential and recognized throughout the world but some limits lie. Indeed, these conventions remind people that, on another side, equality and non-discrimination must be respected.

What is the place of the press in this kind of situation ?

In Rwanda, in December 2003, the judges of the International Criminal Tribunal condemned three journalists for "direct and public incitement to genocide". According to them : "those who control the media are accountable for its consequences." Hassan Ngeze, one of the three journalists condemned, had published in his newspaper the "Hutu Ten Commandments" that fostered an anti-Tutsi feeling : he was accused to support the genocide.

Indeed, to live up to the people's expectations, media must not be bias in their coverage, particularly towards small political parties.

In the democracy of Ghana, the free press broadcasts the NPP's hate speech because it has to inform people, but, by broadcasting a genocidal speech, media can be the cause of a national division.

The Rwanda "Media Trial" which opened on 23 October 2000 raises the issue of free speech rights : what kind of speech is protected and where are the limits ?

In Ghana, the consequences are that the hate speech involves insults and the abuse of the freedom of expression have become very important. Indeed, there is no specific law against Hate Speech in the country to address the growing abuse of freedom of expression, contrary to UK for instance. However, according to Dr Emmanuel Akwetey, the Executive Director of the Institute of Democratic Governance : "We don't need a specific hate speech law (…) we don't want hate speech."

But what about the international law ? The Genocide Convention declares that "a direct and public incitement to commit genocide" is a crime. Incitement means any act employed to encourage or persuade someone to commit an offence by way of communication : broadcasts, publications, speeches, drawings etc. The offence is public under international law if communicated to a number of individuals in a public place, meaning the mass media.

And so, how far can the freedom of the press go ?

The role of the media is indispensable to the building of democracy in Ghana, however the freedom of media means that everything can be said in newspapers, on radio or TV. Indeed, there is no democracy without freedom of expression, but when that freedom promotes the hate between people, must the newspapers broadcast it ? Because if they do, as some did in Rwanda, they become accountable for the genocide.

That's the paradox of democracy : everyone can claim his hate towards another, from a different ethnic for instance, and no one can prevent that, because it would be obstructing democracy itself.

The consequences of this freedom of expression on any kind of topic may be terrible for a nation. Therefore, media must be aware of the importance of the role they play in the democracy. They have to be careful : you can destroy the democracy by promoting it.

To conclude, Ghana must keep in mind what happened in Rwanda. The broadcasting of a hate speech can bring about a civil war and the destruction of a country for years.