In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten deliberately insulted Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist in a series of offensive cartoons. The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo maintained the same offensive manner against Muslims by publishing so-called cartoons of the Prophet. The radical right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders attempted to organize a caricature contest regarding Prophet Muhammad in June, 2018. These were neither the first nor the last attempts to offend Muslims around the world by deliberately attacking their prominent figures and fundamental values.
Although the emphasis is on the so-called intolerance of Muslims in discussions made after such cases, attention should be directed to the deliberate hatred and insults targeting Muslims. It is obvious that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on Oct. 25 which said, "Insulting the Prophet Muhammad is not within the boundaries of freedom of expression," will further the discussions regarding the definition of "hate speech" and the boundaries of "freedom of expression."
The problem of the definition of hate speech
Although there is no single definition of "hate speech," the 1997-dated definition of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers is the most referenced one around the concept:
"All forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility towards minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin."
The definition is highly contested because it ignores the hatred, insult or mocking that targets values and prominent religious figures. What makes hatred against a race or nationality more offensive than hatred against a religion? As underlined in the 13th verse of Surah Al-Hujurat in the Quran, devotion to Allah is presented as the main criterion for superiority among people. Therefore, an ideal Muslim is expected to prioritize his or her religious identity to racial identity. Since such a prioritization places religious identity to an ontological position, any hatred against religious identity is perceived as more offending for an ideal Muslim. At this point, the most recent decision of the ECtHR is significant to extend the definition of hate speech to include hatred, insult and mocking against religious groups.
Applying double standards for freedom of expression regarding different types of hate speech is another problematic area which stems from the aforementioned definition of the concept. Special emphasis on anti-Semitism and the tendency to regard Jewish identity as a national identity grant Jews a privileged position vis-a-vis other religious groups. In practice, legal action can easily be initiated against hate speeches targeting Jews in many Western countries. However, similar offensive statements targeting other religious groups is accepted as a part of freedom of expression and cannot be an issue of legal action.
Some arguments make a distinction between minority groups and a majority group and regard hate speech targeting a majority group as acceptable. However, being a member of a majority group in a specific place does not mollify the sorrow felt by an individual who is targeted by hate speech. Moreover, today's world – in which time and space have become meaningless in terms of expressing ideas – compels us to approach each issue on a world scale rather than a national or local scale. In the most general sense, an individual from a majority group in a particular country inevitably becomes a minority on the world scale. By means of developments in communication instruments, people have become independent from the physical space where they live. An article written in Arabic within the borders of a European country can easily be read in those countries where Muslims constitute the majority of the population. Therefore, the impact of a statement cannot be restricted within the borders of a single country.
Should all types of non-physical hatred be tolerated?
The difficulty of drawing the boundaries on hate speech is an oft used argument for justification of unlimited freedom of expression. People who frequently assert ambiguity on those boundaries tend to merely problematize physical assault on others and to tolerate all types of verbal hatred. It is obvious that accepting non-physical hatred within the boundaries of freedom of expression is problematic, since such an attitude completely ignores the psychological outcomes of non-physical hatred. There is no empirical data revealing that physical assault causes more severe harm on a person than non-physical hatred against him. It is possible to find many instances in which a person commits suicide as a consequence of a non-physical insult, hate speech or slander that targets a person. The same applies to hate speech targeting the Prophet Muhammad or the Quran. For many Muslims, any hate speech or insult that targets the Prophet or the Quran is more agonizing than physical assault.
Abstaining from deliberate hate speech against the 'other'
It is often argued that a person does not have to abstain from insulting prominent figures and values of a religion that they are not a member of. Such an argument is exemplified with the case that a cow possesses a special sacred position in Hinduism and non-Hindus do not regard the cow as a sacred religious figure. Since non-Hindus can easily consume cow meat or express pejorative statements regarding cows without taking into account their sacred position in Hinduism, it is argued that people should also possess an unlimited freedom of expression regarding the prominent figures of other religions.
Such an analogy is problematic, since the Prophet, for instance, is merely identified with a specific religion and his identity cannot be separated from that religion. A cow, however, cannot be solely identified with Hinduism and possesses an independent position in other societies. Therefore, when a person expresses their hatred against a cow, they do not refer to the cow's specific position in Hinduism. However, when a person expresses their hatred against the Prophet, they consciously refers to the Prophet's specific position in Islam. Thus, the "intention" of expression emerges as a significant criterion when adjudicating whether an expression is hate speech or not.
There is a significant gap between positive and negative outcomes of unlimited freedom of expression. The owner of the hate speech enjoys the pleasure of expressing statements about religious issues regardless of its offensiveness. However, there is relatively more sorrow felt by those who are targeted by such hate speech. Considering the outcomes of past experiences, hate speech also causes serious tension and fear within a society, and even undesired violence, as in the case of the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015.
In today's multicultural world, a peaceful and tolerant society can be constructed by people who develop empathy toward the "other." For such a society, hatred and rudeness should not be embraced on the pretext of defending freedom of expression. Hate speech should be redefined so as to include hate speech targeting religious groups and the boundaries of freedom of expression should be redrawn in accordance with this redefinition.
*Ph.D. in political science from the University of Sheffield