Hate speech is a thorny problem in lots of countries of the world. Nations equivalent to Pakistan and Sri Lanka, for instance, usually show how it might probably be used to incite violence against Christian minorities. But even Western nations that highly value freedom of expression have experienced demonstrations on college campuses which have became physical attacks.
Furthermore, evangelicals have expressed grave concern in regards to the misuse of hate speech laws to censor and punish reasonable expression of traditional Christian beliefs. Trials in Finland and proposed laws in Canada, for instance, threaten to criminalize the view that homosexuality is contrary to the need of God, even when limited to quoting Scripture.
Attacks against Christians vary in several parts of the world, and to guard against all of them requires a rigorously nuanced, principled argument. Fortunately, United Nations documents provide good guidance. Unfortunately, many politicians find it easier to attain points with heavy-handed national laws.
What is hate speech?
Article 20 within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), first proposed in 1966 and ratified by 173 nations, prohibits “any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred” that involves “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” But in a careful try and balance Article 20 with freedom of speech, the 2012 Rabat Plan of Action permits restrictions on an exceptional basis and only when “narrowly defined” by law.
Taken together, it is obvious that hate speech pertains to intense emotions of detestation or vilification, which create an imminent risk for individuals belonging to those targeted groups. It doesn’t, nevertheless, imply a requirement for “protected spaces,” where individuals are shielded from any expression that makes them uncomfortable.
Hate speech restrictions we should always support
Many countries have laws prohibiting hate speech that meet the ICCPR requirement. First developed as an antidote to anti-Jewish rhetoric that preceded the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, properly crafted laws would assist suffering Christian minority communities world wide.
Last August in Pakistan, what began as a family conflict became a violent rampage when Muslims were incited to destroy churches and houses based on flimsy evidence that two men had defaced pages of the Quran. The same attack happened again on May 25 of this 12 months, and two Christians were reported killed. In the local context, it will not be difficult to whip up such mobs, because there’s an environment of standard hate speech directed against Christians.
In Sri Lanka, social media often fuels such promotion of hatred. The National Christian Evangelical Alliance tracks hate speech, and, in the primary three months of 2024, it identified 15 incidents, two of which included advocacy to violence.
In many parts of the world, Christian minorities live inside a climate of hostility that goes beyond religious differences. When social rejection crosses the road into incitement, we will all agree that it must be prohibited.
Restrictive actions we must oppose
Western nations, nevertheless, have witnessed an increasing use of hate speech laws to focus on Christian expression, particularly on controversial matters of sexuality.
In 2021, Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen was prosecuted after tweeting an image of Romans 1:24–27 and expanding on those views in a brochure and radio interview. Her pastor, Juhana Pohjola, was also prosecuted for distributing the brochure. Both have been charged with disseminating a message that “threatened, defamed, or insulted” a gaggle of individuals based on their sexual orientation. Acquitted twice, these figures now face a 3rd trial on the supreme court. The particularly troubling a part of this case is that the “speech” is the text of the Bible.
Even more alarmingly, here in Canada, there’s now an effort to silence people before they even say anything. The Online Harms Act, a bill currently debated in parliament, primarily deals with protecting children from online exploitation. But one key provision would allow a one that fears that somebody might engage in offensive speech to get a “keep the peace” order to limit that individual. Secular voices have joined believers to criticize this bill that the British magazine The Spectator describes as “Orwellian.”
Canadian Christians are frightened that they may face prosecutions just like what Räsänen and Pohjola have endured. The national Criminal Code already prohibits willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. But this proposed laws also seeks to revive a bit of the Canadian Human Rights Act, repealed in 2013, which allows people to file anonymous complaints alleging hate speech, a move harshly criticized by the previous chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
A principled path on freedom of expression
Free expression is important for a functioning society. We must give you the option to precise deeply held beliefs on issues even when it’s uncomfortable. But its suppression, as stated by Freedom House, “can allow unseen problems to fester and erupt in way more dangerous forms.” Furthermore, the leading human rights advocacy organization described the protection of free speech because the “lifeblood of democracy,” which facilitates the needed debate over diverse interests and policy decisions. Consensus will not be possible without it.
Hate speech is a worldwide problem that requires global solutions. As in lots of such cases, a thoughtful balancing of rights is required—on this case, to guard legitimate free expression while also protecting vulnerable communities from the specter of violence.
It is important to have a transparent definition of hate speech and criteria when it may very well be restricted. The Rabat Plan suggests a six-part threshold test, all of which must be fulfilled to ensure that a press release to be considered a criminal offence: (1) the context of the speech; (2) the status of the speaker; (3) the intent of the speaker; (4) the content and type of the speech; (5) the extent of the speech act; and (6) the likelihood of the speech inciting imminent motion.
The blasphemy provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, nevertheless, are an example of a law that is way too broad and vague. It outlaws “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings … by insulting … religion or religious beliefs” (italics mine). What is defined as criminal hate speech must transcend insults to incorporate incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, limited to a context where such reactions are judged to be likely.
The Rabat Plan further notes two troubling tendencies: “non-prosecution of ‘real’ incitement cases” and “persecution of minorities under the guise of domestic incitement laws.” Laws are only effective in the event that they are implemented in a good and just manner with an independent and unbiased judiciary.
Finally, we’d like to acknowledge that there are limits to the effectiveness of passing laws against hatred. Hate starts in the guts and mind. We should foster interfaith dialogue and a culture of peacemaking, each amid domestic groups and on the international level. We must also seek educational reform to be certain that schoolchildren aren’t taught to hate people who find themselves different from them.
Sadly, many political leaders seem inclined to exacerbate divisions as a way to extend their popularity or to impose dominant cultural views on minority groups. As Christian peacemakers called to like all our neighbors, we should always support rigorously crafted limits on hate speech intended to foment violence or to stifle the rights of minorities. But we must also oppose any laws restricting speech, no matter their intention, that may very well be used to marginalize and silence public discussion and debate, even when the problems are unpopular.
Hate speech that incites violence results in violence. It is so simple as that. When now we have the chance to stop such violence through a mix of laws and dialogue, we should always accomplish that. But we should always not solid a net so broadly that legitimate discussion becomes a criminal act.
Janet Buckingham is the director of world advocacy for the World Evangelical Alliance and the manager editor of the International Journal for Religious Freedom.
