Culled from Daily Update99
In the face of hate speech, the press must pull itself together, and the state must take responsibility.
By facilitating the spread of hate speech, journalists betray their ethical codes. By being lax in the face of hate entrepreneurs, public authorities pave the way for a possible tearing of national cohesion.
Who benefits from the crime (for tribalism is one!)? The question is gravely posed, as tribalist, stigmatizing, and hateful speeches proliferate online and on television. Now, compatriots are organizing forums on social networks and television debates to reinforce and enrich their hatred, judge, and condemn certain ethnic groups for the supposed or real actions of some of their members.
Why is it a crime to tribalize political and social debate? It is obvious. Because by cultivating rejection of others and distrust of non-group members, presenting them as imminent dangers, and preaching hatred of others, whether openly or through insinuations, these speeches seriously threaten the social cohesion of our still fragile nation.
However, as indicated by the IFJ Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists, “The journalist shall ensure that the dissemination of information or opinion does not contribute to feeding hatred or prejudice and shall do their utmost to avoid facilitating the spread of discrimination based on geographical, racial, social, or ethnic origin, etc.” In other words, some Cameroonian journalists are blatantly trampling on the basic rules of their profession.
According to UNESCO, hate speech is defined as “any kind of communication, oral or written, or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language towards a person or group based on their identity.” So what do we see on Cameroonian television? What do we read on social networks? A proliferation of speeches and insinuations that cultivate hatred of others. An escalation of clichés, each more nauseating than the last.
What professional glory can a journalist or panelist claim who fuels resentment with stereotypes? What ambition does a politician aim to achieve by showing complacency towards the proliferation of hate speech and/or intolerance within their ranks?
Certainly, the pre-election context is conducive to the formation of ideological camps and partisan factions. But the current polarization is no longer based on programs and ideas; it is wrongly based on ethnic origins.
Among these keyboard and small screen gladiators, the more moderate call for tribal solidarity in favor of politicians from their regions (something clearly prohibited by law), while the more radical simply call for the extermination of other ethnic groups (a drift severely punished by law). It is curious to note that the tone rises without consequence, with inveterate tribalists adding more each time, assured of their impunity.
It seems increasingly certain that beyond education, the fertile ground for these divisive speeches and calls for murder is impunity. Yet, the law provides for prosecution and imprisonment against “anyone who, by any means, delivers hate speech or incites violence against people based on their tribal or ethnic affiliation.” Freedom of expression cannot be the freedom to spread hatred.
Article 241-1 of the Cameroonian Penal Code provides for penalties of up to two years in prison and fines ranging from 300,000 to 3,000,000 FCFA for such acts. Worse still, when the perpetrator is a civil servant, a political leader, or a journalist, these penalties are doubled, and mitigating circumstances are prohibited.
The most disgusting thing is to see that these hate speeches often come from intellectuals and opinion leaders who were believed to be above such low considerations. A few years ago, a Cameroonian writer living abroad called for the murder of a community, and we all looked away, out of modesty and perhaps even shame. Just yesterday, Cameroonians were chased from certain regions of the country, their property looted.
