Legal Framework: An International Human Rights Approach to Addressing Hate Speech and Protecting Free Expression in Myanmar Other approaches include intercultural dialogue and societal programs that combat inequality and structural discrimination as other potential solutions towards promoting a culture of peace and tolerance.618 The human rights framework also highlights the importance of condemning hate speech by government officials,619 and emphasizes the need to give targeted communities the ability to “counter-speech” that showcase marginalized voices and alternative narratives and promote better understanding within society.620 Fostering a healthy environments for the media has also been stressed as another way of ensuring people do not fall prey to hateful rhetoric.621 The Special Rapporteur emphasized that national dialogue and debate requires a balanced, “objective, ethical, and informative media”.622 Only with “multilayered approach” that includes laws, “a broad set of policy measures” and “political and social will” is there be a chance to achieve the “genuine changes in mindsets, perception, and discourse” necessary to fully address hate speech.623 The Case of Myanmar Myanmar has a dismal human rights record on hate speech regarding both prohibitions of incitement and its efforts to combat such speech generally. Despite the high threshold set under human rights law for restricting any freedom of expression, Myanmar should have pursued prosecutions against both state and non-state actors implicated in illegal incitement. Unfortunately, not a single domestic case has been brought against known disseminators of such hate speech.624 Myanmar’s track record on actively taking steps to curtail both online and offline hate speech has also been defined by inaction.625 Indeed, as Part III discusses, it has been the consistent experience of local CSOs and HRDs that state authorities have not only failed to prevent and punish harmful behavior, but instead have been supporting it, at least implicitly and in some cases, actively.626 As a starting point, Myanmar has not upheld its international commitments in the area of hate speech. Under the Genocide Convention, Myanmar has made commitments to prevent and punish genocide, including by prohibiting the incitement of this international crime.627 The ICJ case brought by the Gambia alleges that Myanmar has violated its obligations and has committed genocide against the Rohingya and sought provisional measures which were ordered by the Court in January 2020 against Myanmar. (See Box “Domestic Rejection of “Biased” International Accountability Efforts” for additional details). In addition to the Genocide Convention, Myanmar has also made commitments to the funda- mental human rights principles of non-discrimination and equality through its ratification of the Con618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 Ibid., para. 56. Ibid., para. 64. Ibid., para. 62. Ibid., para. 70. Ibid. A/67/357, para. 76. FGD (January 2019 and December 2019). Ibid. See e.g., FGD (January 2019, December 2019); Shawn Crispin, “Threats, Arrests, and Access Denied.” United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, A/ RES/260 (December 9, 1940) [hereinafter “Genocide Convention”]. 93