88 Hate Speech Ignited: Understanding Hate Speech in Myanmar F or local CSOs and HRDs, who are at the heart of this report, they demand that the government of Myanmar combat hate speech as defined as: Violent or dehumanizing speech that calls for exclusion or segregation of, incitement to violence against, or discrimination against individuals or groups based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religious or political affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, or disability.578 As the previous discussions show, the forms of hate speech have ranged from individual state- ments to coordinated campaigns to incite distrust and violence build on deeply divisive and hateful narratives. The drivers of hate speech have also been deeply rooted in the country’s history and its most powerful institutions from the government to the military to ultranationalist groups. The legal apparatus in Myanmar, with a set of overly broad laws that have been selectively enforced to sup- press dissent, has only exacerbated the situation. Hate speech also has profound effects on society – from individuals and communities who have felt isolated, ostracized, silenced, and psychologically affected to the entire ethnic and religious minority populations, who at their most extreme have experienced mass displacement and genocidal acts of violence.579 Given the depth and pervasive of the hate speech problem, a multi-faceted approach will be needed to first reverse the current trends and eventually build a society rooted in tolerance and inclusion to prevent further hate speech, especially in its most virulent and violent forms. International human rights law and standards articulated during the last decade are instructive and offer a way forward for Myanmar to establish an appropriate legal and policy framework that would combat hate speech and better ensure more tolerance in society. First, human rights standards help identify a fundamental challenge in regulating hate speech. As the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression said in 2012, the challenge with any hate speech framework is, “in identifying ways to reconcile the need to protect and promote the right to freedom of opinion and expression, on the one hand, and to combat discrimination and incitement to hatred, on the other.”580 The 2013 Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial and religious hatred emphasized the same need to balance these rights.581 Second, human rights standards provide guidance on the legal and policy tools that are required to tackle a range of hate speech activity from offensive statements to acts of incitement to violence. The Rabat Plan of Action and UN Special Rapporteurs have all noted a combination of criminal, civil, and administrative legal sanctions, particularly narrowly crafted criminal ones, are needed alongside non-legal tools to take on the root causes of hate and intolerance.582 Human rights now also provides 578 579 580 581 582 FGD, January 2019. See Zachary Laub, “Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons,” Council on Foreign Relations, June 7, 2019, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons. A/67/357, para. 2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR], Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred, A/HRC/22/17/Add.4 (January 11, 2013) [hereinafter “Rabat Plan of Action”]. Ibid., para. 2 (“underscor[ing] the importance of non-legal measures to take the root causes of hatred and intolerance.”); see also A/67/357; A/74/846.