Framing Of Hate Speech In Selected Broadcasts Of Indigenous People Of Biafra(Ipob)
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic
DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE PROJECT MATERIAL
Framing Of Hate Speech In Selected Broadcasts Of Indigenous People Of Biafra(Ipob)
Chapter two.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.
INTRODUCTION
Accurately labelling certain expressions as ‘hate speech’ can help advance the values of dignity and equality that underpin international human rights legislation. However, labelling an utterance as ‘hate speech’ should be avoided because it can have severe implications.
The concept is extremely emotive and can be used to justify unreasonable restrictions on the right to free expression, particularly in circumstances involving marginalised and vulnerable populations.
For these reasons, some propose for more narrowly defined notions, such as “dangerous speech” or “fear speech,” which focus on the proclivity of language to incite widespread violence. In some contexts, such as UN Human Rights Council resolutions, the term “hate speech” is avoided in favour of more elaborate formulations such as “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination
incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” or “the spread of discrimination and prejudice,” or “incitement of hatred.” Given the term’s contentious status, this may indicate a reluctance to normalise or legitimise its use.
2.2 Theoretical Framework.
The postcolonial state theory includes suffixes. At the time of decolonisation, the Nigerian state had taken on a predatory character, and the emerging elites saw the nationalist struggle solely as a means of removing foreign rule and occupying Europeans’ exalted positions in the civil service and other vocations (Ikejiani-Clark, 1996).
The nationalists who inherited political power from Britain had little control over the economy, and there was no governing class other than political elites who had risen to political positions by championing the movement for self-determination (Fadakinte, 2013). As a result, Nigeria becomes a neo-patrimonial state with party politics and weak democratic institutions (Adesote & Abimbola, 2014).
Importantly, this state character was responsible for the collapse of the First, Second, and now-defunct Third Republics. 11 Despite the fact that nationalists recognised the importance of combining political and economic power, the indigenous dominating class, which had ethnic and religious divisions, could not agree on the mode of operation for Nigeria’s socioeconomic and political processes.
In the face of scarce resources, ethnicity becomes the ideology of economic survival (Ake, 1981). Control of state power by one ethnic group also means more income, employment, government establishments, and government appointments for members of that ethnic group at the detriment of others. Politics implies a zero-sum nature, with fixed and absolute profits and losses.
The winner gets everything at the expense of the other actors’ entire loss, and vice versa (von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944). Jega (2012) supported the above position, arguing that Nigerian elections are zero-sum. Politicians use the zero-sum nature of elections to mobilise negative communal (ethnic) feelings.
Political parties and politicians use negative mobilisation tactics to convince the public that if elections are free and fair, their party will win. If “our party” does not win an election, it can be argued that the elections were not fair. This negative mobilisation, combined with the use of hostile words, is what causes electoral violence in Nigeria.
Collier (2010) correctly remarked that anything affecting Nigeria’s aspirations for power is fiercely contested, lawlessly, and violently. Thus, the Nigerian political history from 1999 to 2015 is a history of election crises; after all, control of political power is the simplest path to wealth growth.
As a result, strong individuals (ethnic nationalists and political leaders) and organisations (political parties) prevent weak institutions like the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from enforcing existing electoral laws, particularly those that prohibit the use of hate 12 speech.
Although the legislative frameworks controlling electoral campaigns and public statements have outlawed hate speech, people and groups that breached such rules are rarely tried and punished. This is due to Nigeria’s absence of state structures capable of monitoring reckless/harmful speech.
2.3 Concept of Hate Speech
The term “hate speech” is an emotive concept with no broadly agreed definition in international human rights law. Many people believe they can recognise ‘hate speech’ when they see it, yet the criteria for doing so are frequently ambiguous or conflicting. International and regional human rights instruments imply different standards for identifying and prohibiting ‘hate speech’, which is mirrored in domestic legislation.
In everyday settings, the term’s use and implications vary, as do requests for regulation. This could explain much of the ambiguity surrounding the phrase and what it signifies for human rights. Many suggested definitions of ‘hate speech’ have been developed in reaction to specific and harmful discriminating societal occurrences or incidents.
Definitions have also been altered over time to reflect new conditions, as well as alterations in language, altering understandings of equality, the damages of discrimination, or technological improvements.
– Hatred: the extreme and irrational emotion of opprobrium, hatred, and detestation directed at an individual or group because they possess certain – actual or perceived – protected traits (as recognised by international law).
“Hate” is more than just bigotry; it must be discriminating. Hatred is an expression of an emotional state or opinion, and thus distinct from any visible action.
– Speech: any utterance that conveys opinions or ideas – presenting an internal opinion or concept to an external audience. It can take numerous forms, including written, nonverbal, visual, and artistic, and can be distributed by any medium, such as the internet, paper, radio, or television. Simply said, ‘hate speech’ refers to any statement of prejudiced hatred towards others, regardless of the consequences.
The lowest common denominator definition encompasses a wide spectrum of expression, including legitimate expression. As a result, this concept is too ambiguous to be used in identifying expression that may be legally limited under international human rights law.
Beyond these two basic aspects, the definition of ‘hate speech’ becomes increasingly controversial; some claim that discriminatory hate alone is insufficient, and that more evidence is required. Opinions on what constitutes ‘hate speech’ and when it can be prohibited vary widely, but include disagreement on the following elements: –
What constitutes a protected characteristic for identifying an individual or group that is the targets of ‘hate speech’; – The degree of focus given to the content and tone of the expression; – The degree of focus given to harm caused; whether the expression is considered harmful in itself for being degrading or dehumanising.
The need to advocate harm, meaning that the speaker intends to cause harm, and the public distribution of the expression. Understandings of what ‘hate speech’ implies might thus range from the lowest common denominator definition to one that incorporates a variety of the aforementioned characteristics.
At the same time, definitions are sometimes unclear in one or more of these characteristics, allowing for flexibility in recognising ‘hate speech’ in its various expressions, resulting in doubt and dispute about what constitutes ‘hate speech.
Need help with a related project topic or New topic? Send Us Your Topic