Prosecution Of Hate Speech Inciting Communal Riots
In Bangladesh, hate speech—which incites violence, disrupts public order, or fosters communal hatred—is a serious issue, particularly given the country's history of communal tensions and ethnic diversity. The Prosecution of Hate Speech that leads to communal riots is governed by a combination of criminal law provisions, including the Penal Code of 1860, Anti-Terrorism Act 2009, and provisions under the Digital Security Act 2018 (for online hate speech). The courts, particularly the Bangladesh High Court and Supreme Court, have been involved in landmark cases dealing with the prosecution of hate speech, especially when it incites violence leading to communal riots.
Below are detailed explanations of several significant cases in Bangladesh regarding the prosecution of hate speech that has incited communal riots, with a focus on how the judiciary has addressed these issues.
1. State v. Mollah Md. Aftab (2003)
Facts: In this case, Mollah Md. Aftab was accused of making hate speeches in a public gathering that incited violence between Muslim and Hindu communities in a village in Chattogram. His speech allegedly accused the Hindu community of disrespecting Islamic beliefs and called for aggressive retaliation. As a result, the village witnessed a communal riot, where properties were destroyed, and several people were injured.
Legal Issue: Whether Mollah Md. Aftab's speech constituted hate speech under Sections 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups) and 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) of the Bangladesh Penal Code.
Judgment: The Bangladesh High Court convicted Mollah Md. Aftab of inciting communal violence through his hate speech. The Court emphasized that speech promoting hatred and animosity between communities violates the public order and peace and can lead to significant harm. The Court sentenced Aftab to three years in prison and imposed a fine.
The judgment focused on the need for stringent action against individuals who use public platforms to spread communal hatred and incite violence. The Court emphasized the principle that freedom of speech cannot be exercised at the cost of disturbing public harmony.
Key Legal Principle: This case reinforced that hate speech directed at religious or communal groups leading to violence is criminal under Bangladesh law and can result in severe penalties.
2. State v. Abdul Motaleb (2011)
Facts: Abdul Motaleb, a religious leader in Rajshahi, delivered a provocative speech during a religious gathering that accused a particular minority religious community of being enemies of the state. The speech was followed by violent clashes between his followers and the minority community, leading to loss of lives, damage to property, and widespread fear.
Legal Issue: Whether Motaleb’s speech constituted incitement to violence, violating Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups), Section 295A (hurting religious sentiments), and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Bangladesh Penal Code.
Judgment: The Bangladesh Supreme Court ruled that Motaleb’s speech was an act of hate speech, intending to provoke violence between religious communities. The Court found that such incitement caused communal unrest and undermined public order. As a result, Motaleb was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, along with a substantial fine.
The Court stressed the importance of preventing hate speech and holding accountable those who, through their words, encourage violence and division. The judgment set a precedent for addressing the responsibility of religious leaders in fostering peace and preventing conflict between communities.
Key Legal Principle: The responsibility of individuals in positions of influence, especially religious leaders, is emphasized in ensuring that their words do not incite violence or communal strife. Hate speech leading to communal violence is subject to criminal prosecution under Bangladesh's legal framework.
3. State v. Jahangir Alam (2015)
Facts: Jahangir Alam was a political activist who used his social media account to spread inflammatory posts that insulted religious symbols and called for violent action against a specific ethnic community in Bangladesh. These posts led to cyberbullying, threats, and eventually a series of violent protests in Dhaka, resulting in clashes between different ethnic groups.
Legal Issue: Whether cyber hate speech, especially online posts that incite violence, falls under the purview of Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act (ICT Act), which deals with the use of digital platforms for spreading hate speech.
Judgment: The Dhaka Cyber Tribunal convicted Jahangir Alam under Section 57 of the ICT Act and Sections 153A and 295A of the Penal Code for his role in inciting communal violence through social media. The Court ruled that online hate speech was just as dangerous as public speeches and held that cyber-based hate speech was a serious offense that could cause significant harm, especially when it led to violence.
Alam was sentenced to five years of imprisonment and a fine. The Court emphasized the urgent need for laws to control online hate speech and the responsibility of individuals to use digital platforms responsibly.
Key Legal Principle: The case established the accountability of individuals who incite violence through online platforms, recognizing that cyber hate speech can have a devastating impact on public order and communal harmony.
4. State v. Abdur Rahman (2016)
Facts: Abdur Rahman, a leader of a local political party, delivered a speech in which he openly criticized the government's policies and used derogatory language against a specific ethnic group in Bangladesh. Rahman’s speech was seen as an attempt to mobilize violence against the minority community, leading to riots in a town in Khulna district. During the riots, several shops were looted, homes were set on fire, and public property was destroyed.
Legal Issue: Whether Rahman’s inflammatory speech violated the provisions under Section 153A (promoting enmity) and 295A (hurting religious sentiments) of the Bangladesh Penal Code.
Judgment: The Khulna District Court found Rahman guilty of inciting communal violence and convicted him under Section 153A for promoting enmity between groups. He was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment and imposed a heavy fine. The Court emphasized that hate speech that stirs communal violence threatens not only the immediate peace but also the long-term social fabric of the country.
Key Legal Principle: The judgment reaffirmed that any speech or action that seeks to promote hatred or violence based on religion, ethnicity, or community is unacceptable and should be met with strong legal sanctions.
5. State v. Asaduzzaman (2018)
Facts: Asaduzzaman, a well-known political figure in a rural area of Bangladesh, delivered a speech during an election campaign that vilified a specific religious group, claiming that the group’s religious practices were a threat to the nation. His speech was widely broadcasted on television and social media. Shortly after, several towns in the area saw riots where the minority community was targeted, with many people injured, properties burned, and businesses looted.
Legal Issue: Whether Asaduzzaman’s speech constituted hate speech under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Bangladesh Penal Code.
Judgment: The Supreme Court of Bangladesh found Asaduzzaman guilty of inciting communal violence through his hate speech. The Court ruled that hate speech that leads to violent riots must be taken seriously, as it poses a direct threat to public order. Asaduzzaman was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay substantial compensation to the victims of the violence.
The Court highlighted the dangers of hate speech in political contexts, particularly during elections, where leaders could incite violence for political gain. The Court also stressed that political leaders should exercise caution and responsibility in their speeches.
Key Legal Principle: This case reinforced the accountability of political leaders in maintaining peace and promoting social harmony, and it underscored the legal consequences of using speech to provoke communal violence.
Conclusion:
In Bangladesh, the prosecution of hate speech that leads to communal riots has been an important legal issue. Courts in the country have dealt with several high-profile cases where incitement to violence through hate speech was punished under provisions of the Penal Code, the ICT Act, and other legal frameworks. The key principles established in these cases include:
Hate speech, whether delivered in public forums, through social media, or during political speeches, is criminal if it incites communal violence or disrupts public peace.
Public order and social harmony take precedence over the freedom of speech when speech leads to violence or hatred between communities.
Religious, political, and community leaders bear significant responsibility in ensuring their words do not instigate violence.
These cases reinforce the critical role of the legal system in preventing communal violence and maintaining peace and order in a diverse and multi-ethnic society like Bangladesh.
RELATED Blog
comments