…Defining hate or dangerous speech

These two examples do not constitute hate speech because they do not incite to violence and the offence would be limited the individuals to which they were directed. It also important to note that one offensive speech could attract an offensive response. It is therefore dangerous.Hate speech is however identified with inciting people to violence […]

These two examples do not constitute hate speech because they do not incite to violence and the offence would be limited the individuals to which they were directed. It also important to note that one offensive speech could attract an offensive response. It is therefore dangerous.
Hate speech is however identified with inciting people to violence and offensive speech could be a factor that could add another  dimension to hate speech.
A resource person shared an example from Kenya. Kagonya Awori said the definition of hate speech in Kenya is contained in Section 13 and 52 of the National Cohesion and Integration Act 2008. It focuses on hate speech generated around ethnicity, nationality or race. However the stakeholders are have identified some gap in the application of the law because it  does not address other  discriminatory factors around which dangerous speech could be generated such as gender discrimination, stigma and stereotyping against some groups in the society. The stakeholders in Kenya therefore adopted usage of dangerous speech which is more comprehensive. They also developed a categorization formula for monitoring dangerous speech.
At the end of the two-day meeting the participants  made recommendations on how to combat dangerous speech and pledged to become ambassadors in the struggle against dangerous speech. The recommendations from the workshop will be shared in the next edition of Ombudswoman.