‘hate speech’, Minding the language

Advanced democracies outlaw ‘hate speech’
Hate speech” was among the descriptions given by complainants to the opinion column written by former Justice Isagani Cruz for the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Aug. 12.

Defined as speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against certain social groupings, hate speech is illegal in some countries.

In the Philippines, there are no legal provisions against such kind of speech as jurisprudence on freedom of expression cases mainly focus on libel. But in other countries where democracy is highly developed, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offense prohibited under laws on incitement to hatred.
• Under Canada’s Criminal Code, the advocacy of genocide and incitement of hatred against any identifiable group is an offense punishable with imprisonment of two to 14 years. Groups distinguishable by color, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation fall under such identifiable groups. Exceptions are made for cases of statements of truth and for subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.
• Holocaust denial is identified as hate speech and is prohibited in seven European countries, including Switzerland, Belgium, and Germany. The Council of Europe has also passed laws against any type of revisionism, defined as denial or minimization of genocides or crimes against humanity.
• In Australia, the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001 disallows conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.

Under the Philippines’ Human Rights Act of 1993, it is unlawful to publish or distribute “threatening, abusive, or insulting…matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons…on the ground of the color, race, or ethnic or national origin of that group of persons.”

Supporters of legislation against hate speech say its repetition is no longer just an expression of dissent but a promotion of intimidation and harassment. Others even suggest that it could result in the murder or even genocide of its targets.

On the other hand, critics of laws banning hate speech argue it is a form of censorship which interferes with freedom of expression. It was also pointed out that the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes hate speech may result in arbitrary and unpredictable decisions.

—Venus L. Elumbre and Don Gil K. Carreon
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org)

Minding the language

With the civil rights movement by lesbian, gay, bisexual,and transgender groups gaining ground, several media organizations in the United States have come up with guidelines for the appropriate language and terminologies to be used when reporting on issues involving their community.

The style guide was crafted to avoid usage of terms that portray gay behavior as a sign of a psychological or emotional disorder. Among the media organizations that have guides on gay reporting are the Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

Thus the following words and their meanings or context are provided:
• Gay – used to describe men and women attracted to the same sex, although lesbian is the more common term for women. Preferred over homosexual except in clinical context or references to sexual activity.
• Admitted homosexual – avoid this term, which suggests criminality or shame. Make it acknowledged or declared homosexual, openly gay or openly lesbian if modifier is necessary.
• Sexual preference – used to suggest that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is a choice and therefore can and should be “cured.”  Sexual orientation is the accurate description of an individual’s enduring physical, romantic, or attraction to members of the same sex. Also inclusive of bisexual and straight men and women relationships.
• Gay or homosexual agenda – use lesbian and gay civil rights movement instead or lesbian and gay movement. Notions of homosexual agenda are rhetorical inventions of anti-gay extremists.
• Special rights – use equal rights or equal protection instead.  Anti-gay extremists frequently characterize civil rights being demanded by lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals as special rights in an attempt to energize opposition against it.

—Venus L. Elumbre and Don Gil K. Carreon
(Source: Poynter Institute)

Comments are closed.