Need for a hard look, not fatwa lingo

In the debate surrounding hate speech, the necessity to preserve freedom of expression from States or private corporations' censorship is often opposed to attempts to regulate hateful expressions, in particular, online. We are witness to this tirade of hate speech of all kinds in the country of late, because we have both Hinduphobia and Islamophobia in abundance here. In fact, their talk of Muslim genocide sounds strange to the people of this country as nowhere does one see Muslims being subjected to it in the last few years.

It is obvious that the leaders who don't have any strategy to defeat the BJP in the elections keep speaking of such things only to tarnish its image, thereby damning the country too often. Freedom of opinion and expression is, indeed, a cornerstone of human rights and a pillar of free and democratic societies, as it supports other fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of religion, to peaceful assembly and to participate in public affairs. It is undeniable that digital media including social media have contributed to sustaining the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Therefore, legislative efforts to regulate free expression are, unsurprisingly, raising concerns that attempts to curb hate speech could also contribute to silencing dissent and opposition.

As the key means to counter hate speech, the United Nations supports more speech – not less – and holds the full respect of freedom of expression as the norm. Therefore, restrictions to expression must remain an exception, as defined in accordance with International Human Rights Law, in order to prevent harm and ensure equality, and public participation of all. In addition to the relevant International Human Rights Law provisions, the United Nations Rabat Plan of Action provides key guidance to States on the distinction between freedom of expression and incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence which is prohibited under criminal law.

While determining when the potential of harm is high enough to justify the prohibition of speech is still subject to much debate, States are also invited to implement alternative tools such as education and the promotion of counter-messages in order to address the whole spectrum of hate expressions, on and offline. "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" — United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres (in 2019).

There is in fact no need to hate one's religion at all. No one is forcing you to practise it. For Hindus, it is more an intensely personal option. For someone who has 33 crore Gods, one more should not matter, with or without form. As for the others, where is the need to talk 'fatwa language'? There are enough laws in the country to take care of such bigots. There are several helpful governments to file cases and send those 'orators' to jail. Respect is always mutual. Neither the fringe leaders of Hindutva nor the likes of Owaisis are the true representative of any religion. In fact, these are enemies of humanity.