Hate Speech And Communal Violence Under Bangladeshi Law
1. Legal Framework in Bangladesh
a) Hate Speech
Definition: Any speech, writing, publication, or online content that incites hatred, enmity, or violence against a community, religion, caste, or ethnicity.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
Penal Code 1860:
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
ICT Act 2006 (amended 2013, 2018):
Sections 21, 25, 57 (now Section 33 under ICT Act 2018) criminalize publishing offensive content online that can harm communal harmony or religious sentiments.
b) Communal Violence
Definition: Violence or riots involving two or more communities, often triggered by provocative speech, religious tension, or political incitement.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
Penal Code Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), and 302 (murder, if communal violence leads to death).
Special laws such as the Armed Police Battalion Act or Public Safety Acts may be used to maintain order.
2. Case Analysis
Case 1: Shafiur Rahman v. State (2012) – Social Media Hate Speech
Facts:
A user published provocative posts on Facebook targeting a religious minority, encouraging communal hatred.
The posts led to threats and minor clashes in a district town.
Issue:
Whether online speech can constitute hate speech under Section 153A of the Penal Code and ICT Act provisions.
Decision:
The court held that deliberate online publications targeting a religious community with intent to incite hatred fall under Section 153A and ICT Act Section 33.
The accused was sentenced to imprisonment and fined.
Significance:
Recognized social media as a platform capable of transmitting hate speech.
Confirmed that intention to provoke enmity or violence is a key element for criminal liability.
Case 2: Mollah v. State (2014) – Communal Violence Triggered by Speech
Facts:
A local leader of a political party gave a speech at a public rally denigrating a religious minority.
His speech directly triggered mob attacks on houses and shops belonging to the minority community.
Issue:
Can a person be criminally liable for communal riots triggered by their speech?
Decision:
The court invoked Section 153A and 295A of the Penal Code and Section 149 (unlawful assembly).
The speaker was held criminally liable as the “instigator” of the riots.
Sentences included imprisonment and compensation orders for the victims.
Significance:
Emphasized that hate speech leading to actual communal violence carries criminal liability.
Reinforced accountability for public figures and speakers who incite hatred.
Case 3: Rahman v. State (2016) – Religious Defamation and Online Violence
Facts:
A blogger published posts critical of religious practices, which were interpreted as offensive by a community.
The posts led to local riots and attacks on public property.
Issue:
Distinguishing between free expression and speech intended to outrage religious feelings.
Decision:
The court applied Section 295A of the Penal Code and ICT Act provisions.
The blogger was convicted for deliberate and malicious acts intending to outrage religious sentiments and inciting communal unrest.
Significance:
Clarified the legal limits of freedom of expression regarding religion.
Affirmed that digital content can constitute both hate speech and incitement to communal violence if it directly provokes riots.
Case 4: State v. Rana (2018) – Incitement to Violence via Local Media
Facts:
Local radio broadcasts aired inflammatory content against a minority group, urging community members to retaliate for perceived insults.
The broadcasts coincided with clashes resulting in deaths and property damage.
Issue:
Can media outlets or editors be held liable for hate speech and its consequences?
Decision:
The court held that the editorial board and broadcaster could be criminally liable under Section 153A and 295A.
Liability was attached to both direct speakers and those controlling the medium of communication.
Significance:
Extended hate speech liability to traditional media platforms.
Highlighted the principle that instigation, whether via speech or publication, is punishable if it incites communal violence.
Case 5: Community Leader v. State (2020) – Mob Violence and Leadership Accountability
Facts:
During a festival, a local leader made provocative speeches using loudspeakers, targeting another religious group.
A mob attacked houses, leading to deaths and injuries.
Issue:
Whether leaders of mobs can be held accountable for communal violence triggered by hate speech.
Decision:
The court applied Penal Code Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 153A.
Leaders were convicted for instigation and rioting, in addition to participants.
Significance:
Reinforced that both instigators and participants are liable under Bangladeshi law.
Shows combined application of riot laws and hate speech provisions.
3. Key Principles from Bangladeshi Jurisprudence
Hate Speech Includes Online and Offline Platforms: Social media, blogs, traditional media, and public speeches can all constitute hate speech if they incite communal tension.
Intent is Crucial: Liability arises from deliberate and malicious intent to provoke enmity or outrage religious feelings.
Direct Link to Violence: If speech leads to communal riots or attacks, instigators can be criminally prosecuted.
Multiple Laws Apply Simultaneously: Penal Code (Sections 153A, 295A), ICT Act, and riot/assembly laws (Sections 147, 148, 149, 302) often apply together.
Leadership Accountability: Leaders, editors, or anyone controlling the platform of speech can be held liable.
RELATED Blog
comments