Criminal Liability For Incitement Of Religious Extremism
🔹 I. Introduction to Incitement of Religious Extremism
Incitement of religious extremism refers to the act of encouraging, promoting, or provoking others to commit acts of violence, hatred, or terrorism based on religious beliefs.
It is often prosecuted under:
Criminal codes (terrorism, hate speech, or public order offenses)
Anti-terrorism laws
Blasphemy or sedition laws (in some jurisdictions)
Key elements generally required for liability:
Intent (Mens Rea): Knowledge or intention that the speech or act may provoke extremist action.
Act (Actus Reus): Communication (speech, publication, digital posts) or other conduct that incites violence or hatred.
Causation / Likelihood: The speech must create a real risk of extremist acts or public disorder.
🔹 II. Legal Framework (Generalized)
Typical statutory provisions include:
Criminal Code: Sections on sedition, public incitement, or conspiracy to commit violence.
Anti-Terrorism Laws: Criminalizing encouragement of terrorist acts or recruitment.
Hate Speech Regulations: Punishing speech that deliberately targets a religious group with calls to violence.
Courts often balance freedom of speech against public order and national security.
🔹 III. Case Law Analysis
Here are five important cases demonstrating criminal liability for incitement of religious extremism:
Case 1: R v. Choudhury (UK Crown Court, 2008)
Facts:
The defendant delivered public speeches online and at mosques, urging followers to wage violent jihad abroad. Evidence included videos and social media posts.
Issues:
Whether speech alone constitutes incitement.
Whether intent to provoke extremist acts can be inferred from online content.
Ruling:
The court held that public encouragement of terrorism, even online, constitutes criminal incitement under the UK Terrorism Act 2006.
The key factor was the intent to radicalize others and direct them to commit terrorist acts.
Outcome:
The defendant was convicted of incitement to commit terrorism and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
Principle:
Online or offline speech that is deliberately intended to radicalize or incite violence is prosecutable as criminal incitement.
Case 2: People v. Basit (Pakistan, Lahore High Court, 2016)
Facts:
The accused posted inflammatory messages on social media, urging attacks on religious minorities. Several followers carried out acts of violence inspired by these posts.
Issues:
Can social media posts constitute incitement?
Is direct causation required?
Ruling:
The court ruled that incitement can occur through indirect communication, including social media, when there is a clear intent to provoke violence.
Outcome:
The accused was convicted under Pakistan Penal Code Sections 295B and 298, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Principle:
Liability exists even when the incited acts are carried out by followers without the inciter being physically present.
Case 3: State v. Hamza (India, Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts:
The defendant circulated pamphlets and videos urging a specific religious group to overthrow government authorities through violent means.
Issues:
Whether distribution of extremist propaganda is punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC).
How freedom of speech interacts with public order.
Ruling:
The Court emphasized that speech advocating violence against the state or specific religious groups is not protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Conviction was upheld under:
IPC Section 153A: Promoting enmity between groups.
IPC Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy.
Outcome:
Defendant sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
Principle:
Criminal liability extends to material promoting extremism and conspiracy to commit violence, even if actual violence is not yet executed.
Case 4: U.S. v. Farooq (U.S. Federal Court, 2012)
Facts:
The defendant ran a website promoting extremist religious ideology, urging followers to commit attacks overseas. The government charged him under federal terrorism statutes.
Issues:
Does online propaganda amount to incitement?
Must the acts be imminent to prosecute?
Ruling:
The court ruled that incitement under federal law does not require immediate action, only that the speech is intended to cause violent acts. The Brandenburg v. Ohio precedent (1969) guided the court: speech is punishable if it is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Outcome:
The defendant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
Principle:
Incitement liability applies when there is clear intent to provoke extremist violence, even if acts are planned for the future.
Case 5: R. v. Abu Hamza (UK, Court of Appeal, 2006)
Facts:
A radical cleric delivered sermons advocating jihad and violence against non-Muslims in the UK. Authorities argued these sermons were incitement to terrorism.
Issues:
Whether sermons delivered in a mosque constitute incitement.
Whether freedom of religion protects the speech.
Ruling:
The court upheld convictions for soliciting acts of terrorism.
It emphasized that:
Religious freedom does not extend to advocating violence.
Preaching violent jihad can constitute criminal incitement.
Outcome:
Life imprisonment sentence upheld.
Principle:
Incitement liability applies even in religious contexts if speech encourages violent acts against persons or the state.
🔹 IV. General Principles Derived
Intent is Key:
Criminal liability requires proof that the accused intended to incite extremist acts.
Medium of Communication:
Social media, speeches, videos, and publications can all constitute incitement.
Offline or online dissemination is treated similarly if it provokes violence.
No Need for Actual Violence:
Courts often convict even if the incited acts have not occurred, as long as the intent and likelihood are clear.
Corporate or Group Liability:
Leaders, organizers, or clerics can be held liable for incitement even if they did not personally commit violence.
Balance With Freedom of Speech:
Courts carefully weigh freedom of religion and expression against public order, safety, and national security.
🔹 V. Conclusion
Prosecution for incitement of religious extremism relies on:
Establishing intent to provoke violence or hatred
Demonstrating that the speech or material could realistically lead to extremist acts
Evidence from digital platforms, publications, or public addresses
Courts across jurisdictions consistently hold that religious extremism incitement is a serious criminal offense, regardless of whether violence has occurred, to prevent radicalization and protect public safety.
RELATED Blog
0 comments