A/HRC/39/CRP.2 Mission considered these instruments in its assessment of the Myanmar Government’s response to the issue of hate speech. 2. Findings 1309. The Mission received a substantial amount of information regarding instances of hate speech, as well as analytical reports examining patterns of hate speech in Myanmar.2883 It also undertook its own research and verification. It actively monitored and consulted a wide range of publications and broadcasts, as well as a large number of online accounts, groups and pages that appeared to be regular disseminators of hate speech. (a) Prevalance of hate speech targeting Muslims, Rohingya in particular 1310. There is no doubt that hate speech against Muslims in general, and Rohingya in particular, is extremely widespread in Myanmar. This includes prohibited advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The Mission has seen a vast amount of hate speech across all types of platforms, including the print media, broadcasts, pamphlets, CD/DVDs, songs, webpages and social media accounts. For example, the Mission encountered over 150 online public social media accounts, pages and groups that have regularly spread messages amounting to hate speech against Muslims in general or Rohingya in particular. Given Facebook’s dominance in Myanmar, the Mission paid specific attention to a number of Facebook accounts that appear to be particularly influential considering the number of followers (all over 10,000, but some over 1 million), the high levels of engagement of the followers with the posts (commenting and sharing), and the frequency of new posts (often daily, if not hourly). In addition to those accounts, this chapter also draws from randomly encountered instances of hate speech. 1311. The examples presented here are but a small sample of the kinds of messages that have circulated in Myanmar in recent years. As posts can be shared by followers and then by their followers without limit, it has not been possible for the Mission to trace the full extent of the exposure they received. Subtleties in the Myanmar language and the use of fables and allegories make some potentially dangerous posts difficult to detect. Many messages are reportedly also shared through private communications means, such as Viber and Messenger, which are not accessible to the Mission. 1312. There is a great variety of derogatory terms used to refer to the Rohingya, or to Muslims in general. Typical descriptors for Rohingya are the terms “Bengali” (implying foreign origins) or “Kalar”. The latter word is commonly attributed to people of South Asian descent. While some argue that it can be used in a benign manner, it is often used as a racist slur to insult and highlight someone’s dark skin or foreign ancestry, signifying inferiority compared to “ethnic” Myanmar people. There is a range of other terms being used as well, some more subtle than others:2884 • Mout Kalar (“Muslim Kalar”): a term combining mout, short for Muslim, with kalar. The term was regularly used by the monk Wirathu, generally for all Muslims, sometimes specifically for Rohingya. For example, the late U Ko Ni, a well-known Muslim and legal advisor of the NLD, was frequently targeted on Facebook with insults such as “Mout Kalar MP” and “Mout Kalar Nga Ni”, “Nga Ni” being a rude name usually attributed to dogs.2885 In one post from March 2016, a photo of U Ko Ni next to President Htin Kyaw was captioned “this Mout Kalar getting his foot in the door in Myanmar politics is not something we should sit by and watch. We need to do something right away.” 2886 The post received over 800 reactions, 450 shares and 60 comments. Several comments called for U Ko Ni to be “removed”: 2883 2884 2885 2886 322 B-001, B-002, B-003, B-004, K-070, K-093, K-098, K-101. The examples in the following paragraphs have all been seen by the Mission. Some have subsequently been deleted; screenshots of the examples are on file with the Mission. V-023, V-030. V-023.