Workshop Summary
Montréal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies
Concordia University

Silencing Violence: Incitement and the Prevention of Gross Human Rights Violations

By - Kjell Føllingstad Anderson

Summary of Presentation

This workshop addresses the problems of hate speech/incitement and gross human rights violations such as genocide.  It begins from the proposition that hate speech and incitement contribute to the commission of gross human rights violations.  In order to explore the issue, several closely related questions are examined: 1) What is the relationship between incitement and gross human rights violations?; 2) What is the nature of the legal prohibition of incitement?; and 3) How can the response to incitement be improved, and how might this further the prevention of gross human rights violations? 

The analysis encompasses both the socio-political and legal dimensions of incitement and utilises the Rwandan genocide as a case study.  The author argues that incitement has a symbiotic relationship with certain contextual factors (such as perceived inequalities, historical memory, obedience to authority, and extreme polarisation).  These factors create an enabling context that increases the possibility of successful incitement.  In turn, hate speech and incitement, even when they don’t result in violence, can also contribute to this enabling context. 

The legal prohibition on incitement to commit genocide has progressed in the past fifty years.  Now, it has truly been held up as an inchoate offence with no necessary causal nexus.  Moreover, a norm is emerging whereby other forms of hate speech and incitement may be considered to constitute the crime against humanity of persecution.  This presentation will discuss these developments in light of the Streicher case at Nuremberg, the Media case at the ICTR, and the Mugesera case in the Canadian courts.

The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens from gross human rights violations.  When the state fails in this responsibility, the international community must intervene.  The interdiction of incitement can, as a part of other necessary reforms, facilitate the prevention of gross human rights violations.

Outline of Presentation

• Introduction: The Importance of Incitement

• The Causal Context of Incitement

• Case Study: The Rwandan Genocide

• Incitement and Free Speech in International Human Rights Law

• Incitement in International Criminal Law

• Selected Case Law

• Incitement and the Prevention of Gross Human Rights Violations

• Conclusion: The Utility and Limits of the Law

Questions for Discussion

• Does incitement cause genocide?

• Was the death penalty administered in the Streicher case just?

• What is the appropriate line between free speech and incitement/hate speech (Danish cartoons)?  Did the actions of Rwandan media outlets such as the RTLM and Kangura cross this line?

• Did Léon Mugesera’s speech constitute incitement in light of the Rwandan context or was he just exercising his right to free expression as a politician?

• Should Mugesera be deported back to Rwanda even though he faces possible persecution there?

• Is incitement sufficiently grave to warrant international intervention (in light of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine)?

• What steps should be taken to stop incitement?