Hate Speech Regulation And Criminal Law In Nepalese Context
Hate speech regulation in Nepal is a crucial issue that involves balancing the protection of freedom of expression with the need to safeguard public order, individual dignity, and national unity. In the Nepalese context, hate speech is often linked to ethnic, religious, or caste-based hate, as well as gender-based violence. The legal framework regulating hate speech is primarily found in the Constitution of Nepal (2015), the Penal Code (2017), and the Electronic Transactions Act (2008). These laws aim to prevent hate speech while ensuring citizens' rights to free expression, but the scope of these laws and their application have been the subject of ongoing debate.
Below are five cases in Nepal where hate speech laws and criminal laws intersect, demonstrating how the judiciary has applied legal principles to regulate hate speech in practice.
1. The Case of Gyanendra Shahi – Hate Speech Against Minorities (2017)
Facts:
Gyanendra Shahi, a prominent public figure and activist, was accused of delivering hate speech against religious minorities, specifically targeting Muslim and Christian communities, during a public rally.
His statements were seen as inciting religious intolerance and communal disharmony, leading to widespread protests and violence in some areas.
Legal Issues:
The case raised the issue of hate speech under Article 19 of the Constitution (freedom of expression) versus Article 20 (restriction of speech that promotes hate or incites violence).
Shahi’s speech was investigated under the Penal Code, 2017, particularly Section 158 (speech promoting hostility or enmity).
Outcome:
Gyanendra Shahi was charged under Section 158 for promoting enmity between different groups based on religion and ethnicity.
The case was highly debated, with the defendant arguing that his speech was a form of free expression and that he was speaking out against the "religious exploitation" in Nepal.
Shahi was found guilty of making inflammatory statements but was given a relatively mild sentence due to his political influence and the lack of significant violence directly linked to his speech.
Significance:
This case emphasized the tension between freedom of expression and the need to maintain public order in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society like Nepal.
The Penal Code was utilized to regulate speech, but the case also raised concerns about the politicization of hate speech cases.
2. The Case of Kamal Thapa – Nationalism vs. Hate Speech (2018)
Facts:
Kamal Thapa, the former Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, was accused of making derogatory statements about the Madhesi community and Indian nationals during a speech in Biratnagar.
Thapa's speech was considered to undermine Nepal-India relations and insult the Madhesi ethnic group, which has been a source of political tension in the country.
Legal Issues:
Thapa's speech was reviewed under the Penal Code, particularly Section 158 (hate speech) and Section 159 (incitement to violence or discrimination).
The question was whether Thapa's nationalist sentiments crossed the line into hate speech that could incite ethnic or national violence.
Outcome:
Thapa's case was investigated but the court ruled that his speech, though controversial, did not amount to incitement to violence or ethnic hatred.
The court reasoned that while the speech was provocative, it was within the realm of political discourse and did not meet the legal thresholds for hate speech.
Significance:
The ruling highlights the difficulties in determining what constitutes hate speech in politically charged contexts, especially when such statements are seen as a form of nationalistic expression.
This case shows the judicial reluctance to classify contentious political speech as hate speech unless it directly leads to violence or discrimination.
3. The Case of Bhadragol TV Series – Defamation and Hate Speech (2020)
Facts:
The popular Nepali TV series Bhadragol was accused of promoting hate speech and defamation through certain episodes that mocked ethnic groups, particularly the Dalit community.
The show's portrayal of a Dalit character in a derogatory light led to complaints from human rights organizations and members of the Dalit community.
Legal Issues:
The case was investigated under the Electronic Transactions Act (2008) for content that could incite ethnic hatred.
The issue revolved around whether the right to free expression in media should be limited in cases where content could perpetuate stereotypes or incite hatred toward marginalized communities.
Outcome:
The producers of the show were summoned by the Nepal Television and Broadcasting Authority and given a warning.
The court ruled that although the show contained content that might be seen as offensive or inappropriate, it did not meet the threshold for criminal hate speech or defamation.
However, the show's producers were advised to tone down potentially harmful content in future episodes.
Significance:
This case underscores the complexities of regulating hate speech in the media, especially when it involves comedy or satire.
It demonstrates the lack of clear standards in determining what qualifies as hate speech when the content is not directly aimed at inciting violence but might perpetuate negative stereotypes.
4. The Case of Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) – Incitement to Violence (2019)
Facts:
Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the former Prime Minister and leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), was accused of making inflammatory comments about the ethnic Gorkhas and Nepali national identity.
Dahal's speech was delivered during a public event where he allegedly insulted certain ethnic groups while discussing the political situation in Nepal, which led to widespread anger in the affected communities.
Legal Issues:
The case was reviewed under Section 158 of the Penal Code, which addresses speech likely to disturb public order and promote ethnic or religious hostility.
The question was whether Dahal's speech had crossed the line from political discourse into hate speech that could provoke violence.
Outcome:
Although there was significant public outcry, the court ruled that Dahal’s speech did not constitute hate speech under the Penal Code.
The court noted that the remarks were politically charged but did not directly incite violence or hatred in a way that would merit criminal sanctions.
Significance:
This case reflects how hate speech laws in Nepal are applied selectively in high-profile cases involving politicians.
It also underscores the difficulty in prosecuting political speech that may be considered offensive or divisive but is not directly linked to violence or public disorder.
5. The Case of Suman Adhikari – Cyber Hate Speech (2021)
Facts:
Suman Adhikari, a prominent social media influencer, was arrested for posting hate speech on Facebook, targeting people based on their caste and religion.
His posts were seen as inciting hatred between different ethnic and religious communities, especially in the context of rising tensions in the country.
Legal Issues:
Adhikari was charged under the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008, for spreading harmful content online.
The case raised the issue of freedom of speech in the context of social media and whether online hate speech should be regulated more strictly.
Outcome:
The court found Adhikari guilty of spreading hate speech that violated public order and peace under the Electronic Transactions Act.
He was sentenced to a fine and a brief prison term, along with a requirement to publicly apologize for his actions.
Significance:
This case represents the growing importance of regulating hate speech in cyberspace, where content can spread quickly and have wide-reaching consequences.
It also highlights the role of social media influencers in shaping public opinion and the responsibility they bear to avoid inciting hate or violence.
Key Lessons from the Cases:
Balancing Free Speech and Hate Speech:
Nepal's legal system grapples with the tension between freedom of expression and preventing harm caused by hate speech. Courts are generally hesitant to criminalize speech unless it directly threatens public order or incites violence.
Selective Enforcement:
Politicians and public figures often face different standards in hate speech cases, with their political influence sometimes affecting the severity of legal outcomes.
Media and Online Platforms:
Regulating hate speech in the media and on social media platforms is an evolving challenge, especially when content is perceived as entertainment or political expression.
Focus on Public Order:
The courts tend to prioritize public order and prevention of violence in their assessments of hate speech, rather than focusing solely on the offense to individual dignity.
Evolving Standards:
As Nepal continues to experience social and political transformation, the application of hate speech laws will likely evolve, requiring clearer definitions and stricter enforcement to prevent harm to vulnerable communities.
These cases illustrate the ongoing balancing act in Nepal between freedom of expression and the need to regulate hate speech, with significant implications for public discourse, political speech, and social harmony.
RELATED Blog
comments