{"id":426,"date":"2024-06-26T02:37:31","date_gmt":"2024-06-26T01:37:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?post_type=publication&p=426"},"modified":"2024-06-26T02:37:34","modified_gmt":"2024-06-26T01:37:34","slug":"advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Advocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Some commentators argue that the issues of advocacy for genocide and denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement. According to the 1948 Genocide Convention<\/a>, \u201cdirect and public incitement to commit genocide\u201d is a punishable act,[footnote]United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Resolution 260 (III) (1948), Art. 3.(accessible at https:\/\/www.un.org\/en\/genocideprevention\/documents\/atrocity-crimes\/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf).[\/footnote] following the role of the media in perpetuating hatred against Jewish people in Germany and advocating for their extermination. In the landmark ICJ case of South Africa v Israel<\/em><\/a>, South Africa<\/strong> argued that the language used by Israeli soldiers and entertainers about Palestinians in Gaza sparked war and is proof of Israel\u2019s intent to commit genocide. One of the provisional orders made by the ICJ in its judgment is for Israel to take measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement of genocide. The ICJ referred to comments made by senior Israeli politicians that contained inciting and dehumanising rhetoric.[footnote]Article 19 \u2018Israel: The ICJ orders measures to prevent incitement to genocide and preserve evidence\u2019 2023 (accessible at https:\/\/www.article19.org\/resources\/israel-icj-measures-incitement-genocide-preserve-evidence\/).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, in Rwanda<\/strong>, the media played a crucial role during the genocide in drumming up hatred and distributing propaganda, which led to the first prosecutions at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR<\/a>) for “direct and public incitement to commit genocide.” In the same way as hate speech, incitement to genocide was defined as an inchoate crime, meaning it is not necessary for genocide to actually have occurred for the crime to have been committed, but it did require intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most notable cases brought against journalists at the ICTR was Nahimana et al<\/em><\/a>, known as the Media Trial.[footnote]International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Case No. ICTR-99-52-T, (2003) (accessible at https:\/\/unictr.irmct.org\/en\/cases\/ictr-99-52).[\/footnote] Two of the respondents were the founders of a radio station that broadcast anti-Tutsi propaganda before the Rwandan<\/strong> genocide and the names and licence plate numbers of intended victims during the genocide.[footnote]Media Defence above at n 2.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Rome Statute<\/a> establishing the International Criminal Court also establishes the crime of incitement to genocide.[footnote]International Criminal Court, \u2018Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court\u2019 at Articles 6, 25 and 33 (2002) (accessible at https:\/\/www.icc-cpi.int\/resource-library\/documents\/rs-eng.pdf)..[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The genocide of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe was such a formative event in the creation of the European human rights system that Holocaust denial \u2014 claiming that the genocide did not occur \u2014 is an offence in several countries and is treated in a particular fashion within the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, even when compared to similar cases of historical revisionism.[footnote]For example, see the cases of L\u00e9hideux and Isorni v. France,<\/em> Application No. 55\/1997\/839\/1045 (1998), and Garaudy v. France<\/em>, Application No. 65831\/01 (2003), both in the ECtHR.[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n

Rwanda and the ideology of genocide, sectarianism, and divisionism<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In 2017, the African Court on Human and Peoples\u2019 Rights dealt with a case concerning speech that allegedly spread \u201cthe ideology of genocide, sectarianism, and divisionism\u201d in Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda<\/em><\/a>.[footnote]Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Rwanda<\/em> (2018) (accessible at https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/ingabire-victoire-umuhoza-v-rwanda\/).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case related to the arrest of a leader of a Rwandan<\/strong> political party who had made statements relating to the Rwanda Genocide and, more specifically, highlighting that crimes against humanity were committed against the Hutu people and not only the Tutsi people. The Court found that Rwanda had violated the right to freedom of expression and that the restriction was not necessary and proportional, because the speech did not deny or minimise the crimes committed against the Tutsis and were statements \u201cof the kind that is expected in a democratic society and should thus be tolerated, especially when they originate from a public figure as the Applicant is.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2021 the Africa Commission received a case, Agnes Uwimana-Nkusi v Rwanda<\/em><\/a>, that concerned the conviction of journalists Agnes Uwimana-Nkusi and Saidati Mukakibibi on the grounds of defamation and threatening national security following the publication of three articles criticising the government.[footnote]Agnes Uwimana-Nkusi v. Rwanda<\/em> (2021) (accessible at https:\/\/achpr.au.int\/en\/decisions-communications\/agnes-uwimana-nkusi-saidati-mukakibibi-rwanda-42612). See also Global Freedom of Expression at Columbia University, \u2018Case update: Agnes Uwimana-Nkusi v. Rwanda (accessible at https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/agnes-uwimana-nkusi-v-rwanda\/).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The journalist published articles detailing allegations of corruption among high-profile public officers, the human rights situation in Rwanda, and other government shortcomings. The government argued that the articles intended to incite violence and strife against the government by using defamatory statements devoid of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having exhausted all available domestic remedies, Media Dence (Media Legal Defence Initiative as it was then), filed a complaint to the Commission on behalf of the journalists arguing Rwanda violated their rights to freedom of expression and to a fair trial. The Commission considered whether discussing the 1994 Rwanda Genocide amounted to genocide denial. Considering Rwanda’s history, it assessed if implementing penal code articles was necessary and proportionate. The Commission emphasised democratic governance contexts in evaluating public order protection and incitement definitions. While acknowledging the sensitivity around the genocide, it found the journalists\u2019 articles did not incite violence or threaten security. The Commission criticised criminal defamation laws, deeming them disproportionate restrictions on journalism. It stressed the vital role of freedom of expression in democracy, particularly in fostering political discourse and holding officials accountable. Consequently, the Commission ruled Rwanda’s actions violated Article 9 of the Charter by unjustly restricting the journalists\u2019 freedom of expression.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Some commentators argue that the issues of advocacy for genocide and denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement. According to the 1948 Genocide Convention, \u201cdirect and public incitement to commit genocide\u201d is a punishable act,[footnote]United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":415,"menu_order":282,"template":"page-templates\/chapter.php","publication-category":[],"class_list":["post-426","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAdvocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case? | eReader<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Some commentators argue that advocacy for genocide and denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.\u00a0\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Advocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case? | eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Some commentators argue that advocacy for genocide and denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.\u00a0\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-06-26T01:37:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\\\/\",\"name\":\"Advocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case? | eReader\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-26T01:37:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-06-26T01:37:34+00:00\",\"description\":\"Some commentators argue that advocacy for genocide and denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.\u00a0\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Publications\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Summary Modules on Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online in sub-Saharan Africa\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Module 6: Hate Speech\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\\\/module-6-hate-speech\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":5,\"name\":\"Advocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\",\"name\":\"eReader\",\"description\":\"Media Defence\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Advocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case? | eReader","description":"Some commentators argue that advocacy for genocide and denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.\u00a0","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Advocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case? | eReader","og_description":"Some commentators argue that advocacy for genocide and denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.\u00a0","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/","og_site_name":"eReader","article_modified_time":"2024-06-26T01:37:34+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/","name":"Advocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case? | eReader","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-06-26T01:37:31+00:00","dateModified":"2024-06-26T01:37:34+00:00","description":"Some commentators argue that advocacy for genocide and denial of the Holocaust constitute special cases within the debate on hate speech and incitement.\u00a0","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/advocacy-of-genocide-and-holocaust-denial-a-special-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Publications","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Summary Modules on Digital Rights and Freedom of Expression Online in sub-Saharan Africa","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Module 6: Hate Speech","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/introductory-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online\/module-6-hate-speech\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Advocacy of Genocide and Holocaust Denial: A Special Case?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/","name":"eReader","description":"Media Defence","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/426","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/415"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-category?post=426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}