Opening remarks by SRSG Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert at the event on Dialogue on Hate Speech Role of Media/Social Media in Countering Hate Speech (As Delivered)

I am very happy to be here, Ana sa’eeda biliqa’ekum.

I will speak in English, if you will allow me, but we have translation.

So, hate speech, of course, is on top of our minds - not only today, but also yesterday and tomorrow. And, I would like to start this discussion by asking: what is hate speech, really? 

Because I think that soon enough we come to the conclusion that there is no universally agreed definition. But, we can understand that this term to refer to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender), in a way that may threaten social peace, including by sparking violence.

And, as I said, it was on our mind yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  So, I have to make it clear that hate speech has been around since time immemorial. Yet, the question of hate speech – and what we can do to protect against it – it seems to be more prominent now than ever before.

So, why is that? Well, let us face it: although this of course an era of more affordable and always-accessible digital content, and that it has many benefits, but it also contributes to the proliferation of hate speech, as well as mis- and dis-information.

And, this is the case everywhere - throughout the world – and Iraq is no exception.

Now, hate speech in this country tends to reinforce long-standing discrimination, particularly against ethnic and religious minorities, or any other marginalized groups. This is seen of course most clearly, and becomes most acute, when political competition or tensions are running high.

Sometimes hate speech can be overt and explicit, for example when it directly calls for targeted violence or discrimination against a named group. Other times, it is more subtle and can include the unchecked circulation of unsubstantiated rumours, or the repeated use of insulting or demeaning language to reinforce false stereotypes.

Of course, social media ends up being the main platform. But, inflammatory and hateful messages also appear – as we all know – on television, in print media, in graffiti or in private conversations.

And while, I have to say it as a woman, while anyone can be targeted, women find themselves particularly affected - especially women in public positions, whether journalists, activists, politicians or social media influencers. We do not have to search for long before we come across unnecessarily nasty comments, intended to degrade, demoralize or shame women.  It happened to me, so I am in a safe place to make a statement like this.

Things get even worse when there is an intersection of gender, and ethnicity or religion - for example, women who are also part of minority communities.

And, given today’s topic, I cannot ignore statements made against people based purely on who they are and whom they love. I think that I would like to emphasize that today as well. 

The point I want to make more in general is that: there are more than words at stake. No matter the group being subjected to inflammatory and hateful messaging. The harsh reality is that we have seen countless examples of high-level public statements encouraging people to conduct serious violence against individuals. And in such a case, one has a lot to answer for. What happened to serving by example? What happened to the adage, “let people be”? What happened to tolerance and respect for all? Hence, I cannot but overstate the responsibility of leadership, also within this context.

Now, as dangerous as hate speech is, efforts to combat it should, of course, not be used to justify unlawful limitations on freedom of expression. I mean, we all know that silencing, obstructing, dismissing or undermining public discourse will do little but erode public trust.

So yes, the balance between protection against hate speech, and ensuring freedom of expression, including access to information, is, unfortunately, a delicate one.

Now for good reasons, these two priorities, and how to simultaneously advance them, is a topic of countless legal publications and parliamentary debates across the world.

But, the search for this balance must be pursued, in good faith, of course, and informed by a cross-section of grassroots and civil society voices. And again, with the understanding of what responsible leadership entails.

I know that this event will unpack – or at least I hope that it will unpack – various solutions and ideas as it goes on today, but I would like to mention a few simple steps for consideration:

• First of all, the need for clear hate speech legislation. The negotiation of such a law must take into account all voices in parliament and not only in parliament but also beyond, including those representing minority communities, women and a wider civil society. Also, we must remember that - and I am pretty sure that I do not have to convince all of you – but we must remember that, when laws are used, not to protect, but to silence, freedom of speech comes under grave threat. As does, therefore, one of the most fundamental building blocks of a democratic society. Hence, preventing such a trend must underpin any future legislative process.
• Secondly, the role for the rule of law. I mean, legislation is one thing, but legislation alone, is not enough; there must be trust among citizens that any hate speech case will be judged on its legal merit, and not influenced by, for instance, political prerogatives.
  
  Better and more transparent regulation of political and commercial interests in media will also help make it clearer when there are subjective factors at play.
• Thirdly, I would like to flag the value that would come from codes of conduct or good faith agreements among leaders and politicians on public discourse. Political campaigns should of course preferably be based on past achievements and future policies, rather than on whipping up rage or fear about others.
• Fourthly, I wish to emphasize the need to protect the civic space. This is not just critical for freedom of expression. Civil society, as you know perfectly well, also plays a key role in fighting back against hate speech – whether through monitoring online abuse, countering disinformation, or protecting organizations, groups or individuals from offline and online threats.
  
  And, while on this topic, I would like to stress the need to engage specifically with young civil society actors. Yes, on the question of tackling hate speech, but also on the many other issues central to the future of this country. Whether my generation-fellows like it or not: young people will, very soon, be leading the way.  So, we need to listen to them.

Needless to say, in conclusion: that we - UNAMI - we will remaincommitted to supporting efforts to counter hate speech. Be they by the Government, the media or civil society.

And, I am pretty sure that today’s discussion, organized by our Human Rights Office, will identify even more opportunities for engagement – particularly when it comes to social media and the media more broadly.

Let me again emphasize how happy I am to have you all in this room and to listen to you.  It is a great pleasure to seeing you all here in our compound.

Thank you, again, for joining us.