4 4.2 What is needed is a clear and unequivocal signal from the Government and all political parties condemning incitement to violence and other forms of hate speech and the violence itself. If powerful or influential figures use public addresses, the official press and other avenues to signal the unacceptability of speech that incites violence, hostility, or discrimination by anyone in the country this can already be an important step in limiting such speech with tools already available. It is feared that the elections could see a rise in hate speech. There are reports that the Government of Myanmar intends to work with Facebook to remove posts which can incite violence 292 . Achieving the correct balance between addressing hate speech and restricting free speech is always challenging. There have been combined efforts in other countries by governments, business and civil society to reduce the spread of inciteful speech during elections that might provide important lessons learned. 293 Rather than making sweeping restrictions on content or seeking to block whole ICT services that carry such messages, the Government should pro-actively use the power of ICTs to counter rumours with fact and promote messages of non-violence. These signalling actions have not yet been taken and should be a pre-cursor to be tested in the country before any further, more serious steps to restrict freedom of expression are considered. Hate Speech under International Human Rights Law Defining ‘Hate Speech’ ‘Hate speech’ [a-moun sagar] is now a well-used phrase in Myanmar (and globally), but it is not a term recognised in international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 294 sets certain restrictions on the right to freedom of expression but does not use the term ‘hate speech’ (see the discussion below on Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR). ‘Hate speech’ has become a vague term that often encompasses both expression that can be restricted under international law, and legitimate, even if offensive, expression that cannot. It is not always easy to distinguish where freedom of expression ends and legitimate restriction on expression begins. What is considered hate speech in one country may not be considered hate speech in another; it may be region or culture-specific, rooted in a country’s history. Hate speech often reflects deep-rooted societal tensions and attitudes, but the lack of an internationally agreed definition of ‘hate speech’ has made it difficult to clarify how such acts should be dealt with in the real world, including in the digital realm. The term ‘hate speech’ is, unsurprisingly, not defined in Myanmar’s legal framework. 292 ‘Provocative Facebook posts may be banned ahead of Myanmar elections’, Burma Times, 25 August 2015 disputed 2007 Presidential election in Kenya resulted in an outbreak of post-election violence that left over 1,000 people dead and over 600,000 people displaced. Inquiries into the violence acknowledged the role of SMS messages and blogs in exploiting tensions between ethnic communities and inciting violence. In the run up to the 2013 elections, concerns of another outbreak of violence and fears over the potential of SMS to simultaneously send messages that incite violence led the major telecommunications operator and others to agree on protocols on sending political bulk SMS during the elections. See Table 30 case study and IHRB, “Corporate Responses to Hate Speech in the 2013 Kenyan Presidential Elections: Case Study: Safaricom“ 293 The 294 ICCPR, Article 19. Myanmar has not signed the ICCPR but has been consistently urged to do so and will be asked to explain its position on the Covenant at its forthcoming review in the UN Human Rights Council under the Universal Periodic Review procedure tentatively scheduled for 20 July 2015. The ICCPR provisions are based on similar provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 142 PAGE CHAPTER 4.2: HATE SPEECH