On-the-controversial-hate-speech-bill-nothing-but-a-ploy-intended-to-silence-clampdown-opposition-and-nigerians-from-criticizing-government-failures
September 7, 2020 | News
ON THE CONTROVERSIAL HATE SPEECH BILL – NOTHING BUT A PLOY INTENDED TO SILENCE/CLAMPDOWN OPPOSITION AND NIGERIANS FROM CRITICIZING GOVERNMENT FAILURES
Regardless of all the public outcry, with rights activists, prominent figures and opponents of the President Muhammadu Buhari-led Federal Government speaking out against the controversial Hate Speech Bill, while some others are speaking for/in support of it; as far as we are concerned, the primary purpose of the said bill is simply to silence and clampdown on the opposition of the ruling, as well as those who are critics of the government of the day over their failures. Let us be reminded that the said anti-hate speech bill was first presented by Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi in March 2018. But the text faced heavy criticism and was abandoned in June 2019 after it failed to make it to the final reading. Then in November 2019, the same Abdullahi, now the Deputy Chief Whip in the Senate, reintroduced the bill as the “National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speeches Bill, 2019 (SB. 154)'. It passed its first reading on November 12, 2019 and is awaiting a second reading. Abdullahi said in a press release on November 24, 2019, that 'the bill will undergo some fine-tuning' during its examination by Nigeria's Senate in order to 'make amendments to the death penalty aspect that most Nigerians objected to'.
Now the question, is this really the pressing problem of the Nigerian people? Is this what Nigerians (whose daily life experiences are nothing but depravity, heartache, sufferings and hardship caused by the miss-governance of Government), are asking for? Will such archaic, draconian, undemocratic, unjustifiable, irrelevant, selfishly-driven bill make food and other basic amenities affordable to the average Nigerian common man? Or is the said hate speech bill, simply a bill orchestrated to protect the interest of those in Government, so that Nigerians who are dissatisfied and tired of their non-performance at the National and State levels, will not criticize them for their failures and misrule? This is exactly how many Nigerians like us, see the said proposed hate speech bill. The APC-led Federal Government through its supporters/party members in the National Assembly of The Senate, are simply telling Nigerians that if the Federal Government is grossly misruling and doing somethings wrong, Nigerians cannot ‘speak out freely’ to condemn them and their actions.
What else, could be more evident to describe the said bill, which is a draconian law that hallmarks dictatorship, and cannot be the solution to hate speech in a democratic society.
It is even more appalling to note that, while many Nigerians continued to criticize the bill, it was revealed that Abdullahi actually plagiarised the title and most of the content of the bill from the “Protection from Internet falsehood and manipulations bill 2019”, which was recently signed into law by the Government of Singapore. We can imagine the kind of lawmakers we have in the Senate – lawmakers who simply copy laws from other countries and bring same here, without any consideration of the differences between these countries and ours in terms of development and global status.
According to Wikipedia, the phrase Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation. The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term. Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to Preserve Public Order and those intended to Protect Human Dignity. Those designed to protect public order require a higher threshold to be violated, so they are not specifically enforced frequently. For example, in Northern Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty-one years. Those meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced.”
One of the major problems we have with the said Hate Speech Bill in the Nigerian Senate, is the fact that its definition cannot be streamlined or clearly spelt out, especially within the Nigerian context where, what one may find offensive and regarded as hate speech, another may find that same thing not offensive, or even taken as a joke or mockery. Should we now condemn such individuals because of their use of words? There are many sides to this subject of Hate speech. The bill defines hate speech as when a person 'uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provided, distributes and/or directs the performance of any material, written and or visual which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior commits an offence if such person intends to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up against any person or person from such an ethnic group in Nigeria'. It adds that anyone 'who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to life imprisonment and where the act causes any loss of life, the person shall be punished with death by hanging'.
Truth is, if we are to go with this definition to the letter, it means everyone of us, including the so-called lawmakers and the Executive arms of the government, would all be liable and guilty; at least for using abusive words in trying to drive home a point, at one time or the other. That means, everyone would be sent to jail. To even think that they introduced the death penalty into the said bill as a punitive measure, is unthinkable. Capital punishment exists in Nigeria for offences like murder, armed robbery and treason. Offenders were killed by hanging until 2015, when lethal injection was also introduced in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. Though, they have indicated that they would remove the death penalty clause in the said Hate speech bill, but to think that they put it there in the first place, suggests that these lawmakers are simply out of their senses. If there should be any form of capital punishment, apart from the one for existing hardcore crimes stated, then it should cover the high-profile corruption crimes often committed by those in political power.
No wonder the bill has come under fire from most Nigerians who see it as an attempt to gag the press and citizens. However, human rights lawyer Femi Falana, doubted that the National Assembly had the power to pass such a bill into law. In his words as reported recently: “The constitutional validity of the bill will certainly be challenged in the Federal High Court if it is passed by the National Assembly, and assented to by President Buhari.” Also, Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka, has also said the bill seeks to silence the voice of criticism. Still, some lawmakers in the ruling All Progressive Congress have said they will not go back on the bill. Even Nigeria’s Minister of Information and Culture, Mr. Lai Mohammed, has also been in support of regulating Social Media to curb “fake news and hate speech”.
While we agree with the fact that, in as much as one is entitled to freedom of expression, especially in a supposed democratic government like ours, however, such freedom is also being regulated b our laws to a large extent. There are laws already regulating all of that in Nigeria. Even though, our problem as a nation has always been the application/implementation and obedience to laws. So, what makes the Senate think that even with the Hate speech bill, if it is passed into law, that it would address anything or make any significant difference?
In the last few months, outraged Nigerians have taken to social networking platforms to express their anger over the proposed Hate Speech Bill through the hashtag: #SayNoToSocialMediaBill. In fact, Nigerians on the platform are calling for nationwide protests to force the National Assembly to discard the bill they say would muzzle free speech. Some of the Twits include: "I, Joe Abah, #SayNoToSocialMediaBill. It is a grievous infringement on the constitutional right to free speech. We must be able to speak our minds even when we are wrong or mistaken, without fear of intimidation, harassment or incarceration by the state." Dipo Awojide, another Twitter user, admonished Nigerians to with a sense of urgency call their representatives to ensure the bill does not scale through. He said, "Any Senator who does not come out openly to #SayNoToSocialMediaBill is part of the useless plot. "Citizens should be able to know where the legislator representing them stands on issues. "Ask your senator to come out boldly and state their stance on this issue." Bolanle Olukanni tweeting @bolanleolukanni, warned Nigerians about the implications of the bill. He said, "If the social media bill passes, law enforcement agencies have the right to shut down Internet at any time. "This means if we are shouting about something our government is doing, they can turn off our Internet! #SayNoToSocialMediaBill."
Even the almighty United States of America, does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are several categories of speeches that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories. Even in South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The point we are trying to make here is the fact that, there are more pressing developmental problems plaguing Nigeria, which these lawmakers should focus on addressing by enacting ‘people-oriented-bills/laws’, and not coming up with laws that will not add any value or improve the living standards of the people. If they are afraid of being criticized, then they are in the wrong place by being in Government. These people do not realize that they are elected/appointed to serve the public.
Zik Gbemre.
November 27, 2019
We Mobilize Others To Fight For Individual Causes As If Those Were Our Causes
Regardless of all the public outcry, with rights activists, prominent figures and opponents of the President Muhammadu Buhari-led Federal Government speaking out against the controversial Hate Speech Bill, while some others are speaking for/in support of it; as far as we are concerned, the primary purpose of the said bill is simply to silence and clampdown on the opposition of the ruling, as well as those who are critics of the government of the day over their failures. Let us be reminded that the said anti-hate speech bill was first presented by Senator Aliyu Sabi Abdullahi in March 2018. But the text faced heavy criticism and was abandoned in June 2019 after it failed to make it to the final reading. Then in November 2019, the same Abdullahi, now the Deputy Chief Whip in the Senate, reintroduced the bill as the “National Commission for the Prohibition of Hate Speeches Bill, 2019 (SB. 154)'. It passed its first reading on November 12, 2019 and is awaiting a second reading. Abdullahi said in a press release on November 24, 2019, that 'the bill will undergo some fine-tuning' during its examination by Nigeria's Senate in order to 'make amendments to the death penalty aspect that most Nigerians objected to'.
Now the question, is this really the pressing problem of the Nigerian people? Is this what Nigerians (whose daily life experiences are nothing but depravity, heartache, sufferings and hardship caused by the miss-governance of Government), are asking for? Will such archaic, draconian, undemocratic, unjustifiable, irrelevant, selfishly-driven bill make food and other basic amenities affordable to the average Nigerian common man? Or is the said hate speech bill, simply a bill orchestrated to protect the interest of those in Government, so that Nigerians who are dissatisfied and tired of their non-performance at the National and State levels, will not criticize them for their failures and misrule? This is exactly how many Nigerians like us, see the said proposed hate speech bill. The APC-led Federal Government through its supporters/party members in the National Assembly of The Senate, are simply telling Nigerians that if the Federal Government is grossly misruling and doing somethings wrong, Nigerians cannot ‘speak out freely’ to condemn them and their actions.
What else, could be more evident to describe the said bill, which is a draconian law that hallmarks dictatorship, and cannot be the solution to hate speech in a democratic society.
It is even more appalling to note that, while many Nigerians continued to criticize the bill, it was revealed that Abdullahi actually plagiarised the title and most of the content of the bill from the “Protection from Internet falsehood and manipulations bill 2019”, which was recently signed into law by the Government of Singapore. We can imagine the kind of lawmakers we have in the Senate – lawmakers who simply copy laws from other countries and bring same here, without any consideration of the differences between these countries and ours in terms of development and global status.
According to Wikipedia, the phrase Hate speech is a statement intended to demean and brutalize another, or the use of cruel and derogatory language on the basis of real or alleged membership in a social group. Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of protected attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation. The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term. Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to Preserve Public Order and those intended to Protect Human Dignity. Those designed to protect public order require a higher threshold to be violated, so they are not specifically enforced frequently. For example, in Northern Ireland, as of 1992 only one person was prosecuted for violating the regulation in twenty-one years. Those meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced.”
One of the major problems we have with the said Hate Speech Bill in the Nigerian Senate, is the fact that its definition cannot be streamlined or clearly spelt out, especially within the Nigerian context where, what one may find offensive and regarded as hate speech, another may find that same thing not offensive, or even taken as a joke or mockery. Should we now condemn such individuals because of their use of words? There are many sides to this subject of Hate speech. The bill defines hate speech as when a person 'uses, publishes, presents, produces, plays, provided, distributes and/or directs the performance of any material, written and or visual which is threatening, abusive or insulting or involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior commits an offence if such person intends to stir up ethnic hatred, or having regard to all the circumstances, ethnic hatred is likely to be stirred up against any person or person from such an ethnic group in Nigeria'. It adds that anyone 'who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to life imprisonment and where the act causes any loss of life, the person shall be punished with death by hanging'.
Truth is, if we are to go with this definition to the letter, it means everyone of us, including the so-called lawmakers and the Executive arms of the government, would all be liable and guilty; at least for using abusive words in trying to drive home a point, at one time or the other. That means, everyone would be sent to jail. To even think that they introduced the death penalty into the said bill as a punitive measure, is unthinkable. Capital punishment exists in Nigeria for offences like murder, armed robbery and treason. Offenders were killed by hanging until 2015, when lethal injection was also introduced in the Administration of Criminal Justice Act. Though, they have indicated that they would remove the death penalty clause in the said Hate speech bill, but to think that they put it there in the first place, suggests that these lawmakers are simply out of their senses. If there should be any form of capital punishment, apart from the one for existing hardcore crimes stated, then it should cover the high-profile corruption crimes often committed by those in political power.
No wonder the bill has come under fire from most Nigerians who see it as an attempt to gag the press and citizens. However, human rights lawyer Femi Falana, doubted that the National Assembly had the power to pass such a bill into law. In his words as reported recently: “The constitutional validity of the bill will certainly be challenged in the Federal High Court if it is passed by the National Assembly, and assented to by President Buhari.” Also, Nobel laureate, Wole Soyinka, has also said the bill seeks to silence the voice of criticism. Still, some lawmakers in the ruling All Progressive Congress have said they will not go back on the bill. Even Nigeria’s Minister of Information and Culture, Mr. Lai Mohammed, has also been in support of regulating Social Media to curb “fake news and hate speech”.
While we agree with the fact that, in as much as one is entitled to freedom of expression, especially in a supposed democratic government like ours, however, such freedom is also being regulated b our laws to a large extent. There are laws already regulating all of that in Nigeria. Even though, our problem as a nation has always been the application/implementation and obedience to laws. So, what makes the Senate think that even with the Hate speech bill, if it is passed into law, that it would address anything or make any significant difference?
In the last few months, outraged Nigerians have taken to social networking platforms to express their anger over the proposed Hate Speech Bill through the hashtag: #SayNoToSocialMediaBill. In fact, Nigerians on the platform are calling for nationwide protests to force the National Assembly to discard the bill they say would muzzle free speech. Some of the Twits include: "I, Joe Abah, #SayNoToSocialMediaBill. It is a grievous infringement on the constitutional right to free speech. We must be able to speak our minds even when we are wrong or mistaken, without fear of intimidation, harassment or incarceration by the state." Dipo Awojide, another Twitter user, admonished Nigerians to with a sense of urgency call their representatives to ensure the bill does not scale through. He said, "Any Senator who does not come out openly to #SayNoToSocialMediaBill is part of the useless plot. "Citizens should be able to know where the legislator representing them stands on issues. "Ask your senator to come out boldly and state their stance on this issue." Bolanle Olukanni tweeting @bolanleolukanni, warned Nigerians about the implications of the bill. He said, "If the social media bill passes, law enforcement agencies have the right to shut down Internet at any time. "This means if we are shouting about something our government is doing, they can turn off our Internet! #SayNoToSocialMediaBill."
Even the almighty United States of America, does not have hate speech laws, since American courts have repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There are several categories of speeches that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is not one of these categories. Even in South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The point we are trying to make here is the fact that, there are more pressing developmental problems plaguing Nigeria, which these lawmakers should focus on addressing by enacting ‘people-oriented-bills/laws’, and not coming up with laws that will not add any value or improve the living standards of the people. If they are afraid of being criticized, then they are in the wrong place by being in Government. These people do not realize that they are elected/appointed to serve the public.
Zik Gbemre.
November 27, 2019
We Mobilize Others To Fight For Individual Causes As If Those Were Our Causes