It is indeed a travesty that our society is propagating hate
speech in the garb of free speech. It may sound harsh, but we cannot deny that
the inability to distinguish between intellectual diversity and hate speech has
brought us to this point.
These days, an opposing point of view is not accepted. Religion
– which is pure in nature – is being used to achieve ulterior motives, such as
labelling people traitors and terming their thoughts and ideas sinful. We seek
guidance from the teachings of Islam on all occasions. But it is an unfortunate
fact that we do not put them into practice in our daily lives, especially when
they are needed the most.
Islam teaches about patience and forbearance. Dr Fazle Qadir
Tarin writes in his book ‘Islam is misunderstood’ that “subject to merit, all
human beings are equal in their rights as well as in social obligations [4:58,
49:13]. Therefore, the freedom of an individual ends where the freedom of
others begins. Transgression of each other’s limit[s] of the freedom, such as
forcibly imposing own opinion or ideology (faith, politics, culture) on others
is ‘extremism’ (excess, zulm). Making the freedom of expression an excuse for
‘crossing own limit’ of the freedom is violation of human rights (zulm, crime)
for it hurts the feelings of others”.
Today, this principle is not just restricted to the hateful
sermons delivered by a group of radical minds but has also been extended to the
mainstream media, which is now providing space for such content. This has been
allowed to happen even though we have a penal code, which deals with offences
related to the incitement to violence, and the National Action Plan – which
seeks to curb the dissemination of hate material in any manner.
According to data compiled in August last year, more than 14,000
cases were registered on charges of disseminating hate speech and hate
material. Though these details are extensive, questions have surfaced about the
‘media-coated’ hate speech which is being practised by a particular group of
unscrupulous individuals.
The Ethical Journalism Network (EJN) has set up a five-point
test for journalists to assess the impact of hate speech. The first point
involves examining the position or status of the speaker to determine how
effectively he or she could influence people to achieve his or her motives. The
second point considers the impact of hate speech by assessing how many people
may be affected by a particular form of behaviour.
The third point explores why the hate speech is being made and
what goals it achieves. The fourth point examines what the contents of the hate
speech are and ascertains whether it is targeting people for sectarian,
political or intellectual preferences. The fifth point explores the social,
political and economic climate of the place where the hate speech is made.
If Pemra – which is currently equipped with weak legislation –
incorporates these questions and guidelines, it will become easy to determine
whether specific content qualifies as hate speech in a court of law or not.
Unfortunately, the media hates to regulate itself and whenever
someone else steps in to fulfil this task, the resulting rebuke becomes almost
inevitable.
The top echelons of the media have to realise that no corporate
interest can justify content that propagates hatred. It is time mainstream
media banned hate speech and compulsive liars. The protagonists and supporters
of free media and fearless journalism need to stand up for the right cause this
time because the deliberate confusion between free speech and hate speech can
cost lives.
The writer works for Geo News.
Email: muneebfarooqraja@ gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment