94 Hate Speech Ignited: Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar vention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”),628 CEDAW,629 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”).630 Assessing the six Rabat factors on incitement is telling. For the context parameter, groups in Myanmar have seen ultranationalists exploit historical ethnic and religious divisions and continue to fuel longstanding tensions and conflicts.631 As discussed in Part III, the constructed hate narratives have perpetuated systemic discrimination and promoted Buddhist-Burman hegemony and a majority identity to the exclusion of minority communities.632 The social and political climate includes historical and cultural narratives that are susceptible to exploitation for inciting violence and discrimina- tion against Myanmar’s ethnic and religious minorities, including in places like Rakhine State where historical divisions can be mobilized by those whose aim is incitement.633 The existence of active armed conflicts, and other factors such as persistent poverty have also helped create a context for hate speech to thrive.634 The Myanmar government should be taking steps to intervene and curb such forms of hate speech. It has not. Instead of addressing hate speech, it is the experience of local CSOs and HRDs that powerful state and non-state actors have been instead implicated in such speech -- from the Commander-in- Chief Senior-General Min Aung Hlaing, government officials, government administrators, to prominent politicians; nationalist parties; and non-state actors such as Buddhist monks like U Wirathu, U Sittagu and celebrities.635 These actors have contributed to narratives that normalize a climate of intolerance, maintain systemic discrimination, and justify violence targeting ethnic and religious minority communities, including the Rohingya.636 Much of the hate speech has not been negligent or isolated incidents but rather has appeared to be coordinated to promote notions of a superior ethnic and religious group over others.637 Further- more evidence of the intentionality can be inferred from a number of chronicled facts -- the amount of resources used to maintain military-operated troll farms; the widespread and rampant nature of the coordinated, misinformation campaigns and inauthentic behaviors; the targeting against specific individuals, including death threats and derogatory statements aimed at journalists; nationalist rallies; and impunity for both state and non-state actors that have been either complicit or actively participated.638 In addition, there is the actual content and form of the speech. One only needs to examine the examples that has been provided in this report, to see that hate speech in Myanmar is designed to 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (20 November 1989), art. 13(1) [hereafter “CRC”]: “The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.” United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (September 3, 1981) [hereafter “CEDAW]. United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, CRPD/C/ESP/1 (October 5, 2014), art. 21 [hereafter “CRPD”]: “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice[.]” FGD (January 2019 and December 2019). Ibid. Ibid. FGD (January 2019 and December 2019). Ibid. Ibid. See Mozur. FGD (January 2019 and December 2019).