Liberal Leaders Propose Solutions to Curb Hate Speech

“We cannot become the dragon we seek to slay. And therefore, we have to be mindful that there are ways to confront [hate speech]… without succumbing to it.”

This was the response of Philippine Senator and Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) Chairperson, Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, when asked on how he remains civil despite the constant barrage of hateful comments and verbal jabs he received online and offline. Pangilinan, and the political party which he leads, the Liberal Party of the Philippines, have been perennial targets of hate speech under the Duterte administration.

The senator said that part of the political opposition’s realization about hate speech was “…that while our response was able to officially clarify the matter… the stain is already there, and that has been the target of democracy’s enemy — to stain the image of critics, of opposition forces, of dissent, so badly so as to render… critics or opposition figures irrelevant.”

The experience of the political opposition in the Philippines shows how hate speech can damage institutions of democracy. More fundamentally, this phenomenon, which has been significantly amplified by digital technology in terms of scope, speed and scale, has repercussions on the exercise of human rights and on building a diverse, tolerant and civilized society.

It was for this reason that CALD organized a panel in Asia Centre’s International Conference on “Hate Speech in Asia: Challenges and Solutions.” Held virtually via the Zoom platform on 9 October 2020, the CALD panel tried to address the impact of hate speech on democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

“I think, it has to be recognized that hate speech is only a symptom of deeper problems, which is one of racial, religious, sexual or political bias, and intolerance”, said former Thai Prime Minister and former CALD Chairperson Abhisit Vejjajiva. Recognizing that these issues maybe ingrained in society, he said that “there is no better way than to deal with these problems at the root, which means you need policies, you need measures that will address these problems in the first place.”

Moreover, the former prime minister recognized that while the political arena can be a fertile ground for hate speech, it may be difficult to delineate the scope of the phenomenon in politics, especially in highly polarized societies. He explained: “On issues like race, religion, or sex, it’s probably easier to draw the line because… there are clear norms and standards now being established at international levels, and even at national levels, about what would constitute a racial, sexual, religious discrimination. The political difference is going to be a lot more difficult to try to define.”

In Malaysia, however, race, ethnicity and religion remain to be unsettled and highly divisive issues. To make matters worse, unscrupulous politicians have routinely weaponized, or turned a blind eye on, these issues to achieve their partisan ends. “In the Malaysian context, many politicians or leaders try always to look the other way”, CALD Women’s Caucus Chairperson Jayanthi Devi Balaguru said. “No one wants to actually be there to take it on or run to any one’s defense or make any statements in defense [of marginalized groups].”

Citing Malaysia’s racial riots in the 1960s, which subsequently led to the passage of the dreaded Internal Security Act (ISA), Balaguru lamented the fact that government authorities themselves were the ones silencing the people through forceful means. “Instead of being a champion for the public and listening to their pleas in order to serve them better, the leaders opted to shut out all forms of criticism in order to make sure that no forms of movement are sparked.”

Despite the differences in context, the above-mentioned Liberal leaders agreed on the importance of curbing hate speech, and forwarded the following proposals:

• Enact policies that address the root causes of hate speech in society – poverty, inequality and marginalization;
• Formulate clear guidelines, both at the international and national levels, of what constitute hate speech and how to prevent it;
• Adopt a multi-stakeholder approach in the formulation and implementation of such guidelines;
• Ask for cooperation of social media platforms and technology companies to be a key stakeholder in the process, considering the important role that they would play in the enforcement of the guidelines;
• Constitute a team that can monitor the kind of information that is floating around in social media, and can get the truth out with comparable scope, speed and scale;
• Encourage victims and witnesses to report hate speech related crimes, as hate speech remains a largely invisible entity because many victims do not report the cases or do not even understand that they are victims of hate speech;
• Continue to create safe spaces online and offline – free, honest and critical conversations that engage social media users politely by pointing out facts from opinion, sharing not only proof but also a mindset of openness and tolerance; and
• Instill the values of tolerance and civility in society through education, as discrimination and hate come largely from the lack of understanding and acceptance.

In his concluding remarks, Senator Pangilinan said: “In the end, it’s a concerted effort of the community to put hate speech in its place — the media, nongovernment organizations, public leaders, private sector leaders, the owners of these social media platforms – all should come together and hopefully move towards a common direction to address and put a check on hate speech.”