Toolkit on combating hate speech during electoral processes E-Book

Council of Europe

• Herausgeber: Council of Europe
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Seitenzahl: 227

Beschreibung

Tools to counter hate speech that undermines free electoral competition.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights)Freedom of expression is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and protects citizens from interference with their right to freely express their opinions. This freedom is essential when it comes to the electoral process which, like any competition, has a strict framework of rules. Freedom of expression must not give rise to hate speech that would undermine the electoral process by polluting the campaign and political debate necessary for voters to make an informed choice.

This toolkit is intended to explain the international standards applicable in this respect, provide tools and strategies that can be used by election management bodies to counter hate speech harmful to free electoral competition and describe the Georgian experience in this area.

Leseprobe

 

Toolkit

on combating hate speech

during electoral processes

 

2022

 

Contents

Click here to see the whole table of contents, or go on the « Table of contents » option of your eReader.

Division of Elections and Participatory Democracy (Directorate General Democracy)

The Division of Elections and Participatory Democracy (Directorate General of Democracy and Human Dignity) at the Council of Europe provides advice and technical assistance to the member states on various aspects of elections, such as capacity building of electoral stakeholders and raising voter awareness.

In the field of capacity building, the division works closely with election commissions to ensure that election commissioners are familiar with domestic and international standards and good practices and that they observe voters’rights when performing their duties. The division also works to enhance the capacities of other electoral stakeholders, such as the bodies in charge of oversight of campaign and party finances (for example, the State Audit Office of Georgia) or media coverage of election campaigns (such as the Audiovisual Council of the Republic of Moldova). In this field, special attention is paid to enhancing the capacities of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in charge of domestic observation of elections.

In order to guarantee access to information for domestic observers, an e-learning course with certification based on two handbooks on report writing techniques and international standards in elections has been put at their disposal. An e-learning course aimed at countering the misuse of administrative resources – targeting public servants – has been introduced in Georgia.

The division also contributes to raising awareness of the importance of participating in elections as voters and candidates. It assists national election administrations in developing voter education and information campaigns, with a special focus on women, first-time voters and persons belonging to national minorities (such as awareness-raising campaigns for first-time voters in Albania).

In addition, technical assistance work has been carried out aiming to update the Council of Europe Recommendation Rec (2004) 11 of the Committee of Ministers on legal, operational and technical standards for e-voting. On 14 June 2017 the Committee of Ministers adopted Recommendation CM/Rec (2017) 5,which was developed to ensure that electronic voting complies with the principles of democratic elections, and is the only international standard on e-voting in existence to date. The division is supporting further digital solutions in electoral processes to enhance integrity and public confidence in elections.

The Council of Europe Electoral Laboratory (ElecLab) concentrates on the division’s research and thematic work in order to innovate and produce useful and relevant guidelines in various areas of electoral matters, ranging from first-time voters to better representation of women to modern strategic planning. Since 2019 the division has based its assistance and support activities on URSO methodology for electoral co-operation – Useful, Relevant, Sustainable and Owned. The “URSO toolkit for strategic and co-operation planning” is available online. Its primary audience is national electoral stakeholders who are engaged in electoral reforms, in particular, central electoral commissions.

Foreword

GiorgiKalandarishvili,

Chairperson of the Central Election Commission of Georgia

On behalf of the Election Administration of Georgia, I would like to welcome another important initiative of the Council of Europe – to develop a toolkit aimed at combating hate speech in electoral processes. This is a very timely and necessary intervention, and I am convinced that the toolkit will be an effective instrument to overcome the challenges related to the use of hate speech in elections.

Hate speech is a serious problem for the election administration, for all parties involved in elections, and most of all for society as a whole. Therefore, the election administration, working within its competences, is sparing no effort and will continue to fight against hate speech and the harmful consequences of its use.

It is important to note that the election administration in Georgia already has solid experience in this field. The Central Election Commission and its Centre for Electoral Systems Development, Reforms and Training, in co-operation with the Council of Europe electoral support project, developed a training module, Combating Hate Speech in Electoral Processes. The training course is included in all educational programmes of the election administration and its Training Centre and is constantly available to all interested groups – political parties, NGOs and media representatives. As the training course proved to be effective and well received by the participants, it was decided to include it in a broader project implemented by the election administration. The informational training course Elections and Young Voters is being delivered to students in 300 public schools, with a thematic block entitled The Importance of an Electoral Environment Free of Hate Speech for Democratic Elections.

Meanwhile, together with the successful implementation of the training course, practice and discussions have revealed new needs – to enhance efforts and develop common approaches. To that end, we appreciate how the Council of Europe has responded to these emerging needs in a timely manner and by working on these methodological guidelines.

The toolkit, which you now have the opportunity to explore, will definitely have a strong impact on combating hate speech in practice and will support our country’s efforts to improve democratisation.

There is no place for hate speech in a democratic society and, in particular, in electoral processes!

Preface

FranckDaeschler,

Deputy Head of Elections and Participatory Democracy Division, Council of Europe

Freedom of expression is a fundamental component of any democratic society. In practice, anyone should be able to express views and opinions about any given topic. This freedom is even more crucial during electoral campaigns which, in the democratic cycle, are the periods when the ability to debate any political or other public issue is essential for the voters, who need to be able to critically assess the policies and programmes of the political parties and/or candidates competing, to make an informed decision in a democratic election.

However, any freedom of expression and debate must be respectful and civilised, therefore free of any hate or inflammatory speech, which are unacceptable violence, often accompanied by disinformation and incitement to others to commit further violence, aiming at preventing candidates from campaigning freely while distorting and disturbing the debate, confusing the electorate, creating instability and possibly unrest, and thereby threatening democratic society.

The Council of Europe protects and promotes the values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Among those priorities, combating hate speech is deemed to be crucial to foster democratisation processes in the Council of Europe member states. Through its unique monitoring bodies, the Council of Europe ensures implementation of its policy and legal instruments aimed at tackling hate speech and incitement to hatred. The most comprehensive document on combating hate speech is provided by the dedicated Council of Europe body, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which defines it thus:

hate speech entails the use of one or more particular forms of expression – namely, the advocacy, promotion or incitement of the denigration, hatred or vilification of a person or group of persons, as well any harassment, insult, negative stereotyping, stigmatisation or threat of such person or persons and any justification of all these forms of expression – that is based on a non-exhaustive list of personal characteristics or status that includes “race”, colour, language, religion or belief, nationality or national or ethnic origin, as well as descent, age, disability, sex, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation. (ECRI, Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech, 2015: 16)

Combating hate speech, and the incitement of hatred, is gaining particular importance during electoral processes today because of the challenges of the digital era and the impact of social platforms on the free expression of the will of the voters. Electoral campaigns are more often characterised by instances of hate speech, damaging the electoral environment and becoming an obstacle to the informed choice of citizens.

As recent electoral cycles have shown, democratisation and electoral processes in Georgia have also proved to be vulnerable to hate speech and its negative impact on the electoral environment and the confidence of citizens in elections.

The Council of Europe electoral support project – Supporting Transparency, Inclusiveness and Integrity of Electoral Practice and Process in Georgia – co-operates with domestic electoral stakeholders to prevent and tackle the use of hate speech in electoral processes.

To that end, the project – in co-operation with the Central Election Commission of Georgia (hereinafter CEC) and its Centre for Electoral Systems Development, Reform and Training (hereinafter Training Centre) – designed and introduced a study course on Combating Hate Speech in Electoral Processes for election management bodies. This course, among other topics, covers the following: applicable international standards and instruments for countering hate speech and incitement of hatred during electoral processes, strategies for election management bodies to prevent and respond to instances of hateful speech effectively, hate speech and disinformation, hate speech and sexism.

At the time of writing, this course is integrated and implemented in all educational programmes of the Election Administration of Georgia and is targeting not only election officials but also a broad range of electoral stakeholders.

The implementation of the course showed that there was a lack of methodological guidelines in this field, as well as a compilation in the Georgian language of Council of Europe policy, legal instruments and analysis of international good practice.

Thus this toolkit was developed in close co-operation with the CEC and with the support and engagement of the Council of Europe’s international and local experts. It will serve as a methodological guide for election management bodies and electoral stakeholders, as well as a road map on the way to effectively combat hate speech and incitement to hatred in electoral processes and it will contribute to the development of a healthy and competitive electoral environment. This toolkit offers a comprehensive analysis of the Council of Europe standards and good practices of member states in this field, as well as a deep analysis of the domestic legal framework and practice. It also includes a training module and suggests strategies and practical tools aimed at tackling hate speech in elections. It could also be considered as an additional comprehensive resource for participants of the above-mentioned study course.

Chapter 1Hate speech and electoral campaignsInternational standards and good practices

Yves-MarieDoublet,

Deputy director of the financial department of the National Assembly (France),

Council of Europe Expert

1.1. Introduction

Political debate requires civility in discussion and integrity in political processes. Speech during electoral campaigns by nature is tumultuous and provocative; it does not leave space for moderation and on the contrary prefers overstatement. Hate speech has always existed because it is part of political debate. But between overstatement and hate speech there is a difference of degree. And over the past few years, the impact of hate speech has become more widespread and with the internet it carries the insidious ability to distort, to mislead, to produce instability and to threaten democracy.

Definitions of hate speech are sometimes mixed up with disinformation and cyberattacks. It includes the pursuit of various offences against the person and other criminal or invasive behaviour as well as the dissemination of propaganda, conspiracy theories and spam, used to attract inadvertent users and for trolling and other disruptive practices (McGonagle 2013). Hate speech, like cyberattacks and disinformation, has an impact on the democratic electoral process. The purpose of hate speech, cyberattacks and disinformation is the same. It is the destabilisation of democracy through smear campaigns to weaken candidates, parties or ruling governments with the use of discrediting tactics. But these three practices have to be distinguished. Hate speech and disinformation are used both offline (alongside the traditional ways of campaigning) and online, while cyberattacks are used exclusively online. For these reasons, the notions of hate speech, cyberattacks and disinformation have to be clarified in relation to each other.

If we refer to the Oxford Dictionary, hate speech designates “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or similar grounds”. The appendix to Recommendation No. R (97) 20 of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on “hate speech” defines it as “speech likely to produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of discrimination or hatred based on intolerance. Such statements should be prohibited and publicly disavowed whenever they occur”.

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe (ECRI) provides a broader definition of hate speech. It is understood as the advocacy, promotion or incitement in any form of the denigration, hatred or vilification of a person or a group of persons, as well as any harassment, insult, negative stereotyping, stigmatisation or threat in respect of such a person or group of persons and the justification of all the preceding types of expression, on the ground of race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, language, religion or belief, sex gender, gender identity, sexual orientation and other personal characteristics or status. Hate speech produces negative emotional reactions against the group which is targeted and, as the ECRI noted, the use of hate speech may be intended to incite, or reasonably expected to have the effect of inciting others to commit, acts of violence, intimidation, hostility or discrimination against those who are targeted. Anyone who delivers extremist speech plays not only with words but generates a climate of violence.1 A disinhibited discourse feeds extremism. When hate speech campaigns are used against candidates or political parties, they will be obliged to defend themselves full-time and to sacrifice the presentation of their programme. So it weakens them in the electoral competition. Any form of intimidation, which can include abusive communication but also physical violence, is intended in certain cases to cause an individual to withdraw from a public space as a candidate or as an elected person (UK Committee on Standards: 26) and to exclude certain persons from the democratic debate.2 For instance, there were around 70 cases of criminal damage to the constituency offices of French MPs in 2019-2020.

The reports of the ECRI provide numerous examples of prejudicial hate speech around the member states.3 Examples from Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom illustrate the different forms of this negative discourse in politics, which aims at incitement to hatred and to vilification.

In the context of the arrival of very significant streams of asylum seekers in Germany, it has been pointed out that most of the hate speech was directed against the migrants and that hate speech was much more retweeted than any true story. According to the same study, the proportion of hate speech on the Facebook pages of the German political parties amounted to 4.33 %.4 Lists of political enemies to target with hate speech have been elaborated by extreme parties. Germany was not spared either attempted or actual murders of politicians, if we refer to the knife attack on the mayoress of Cologne in 2015 and to the murder of a Christian Democrat prefect in 2019.

The populations targeted in Italy in the 2018 electoral campaign were again the migrants (91 % of the targets).5 A Spanish study referring to hate speech on Instagram during the 2019 General Election distinguishes the different forms of hate speech that were recorded during this electoral campaign:6 criticism amounted to 36.59 % of the messages; insults 29.33 %; expressions of contempt 8.81 %; threats 0.7 %; teasing or taunting 19.48 %; and others 5.63 %.

In the United Kingdom, special attention has been paid to hate speech following the Brexit campaign and the murder of members of Parliament in 2016 and 2021. In 2017, the Committee on Standards in Public Life stated: “The scale and the intensity of intimidation is now shaping public life. This is a matter of serious concern”. At the 2019 General Election, the Electoral Commission received feedback from 750 candidates. Three quarters had experienced some abuse, threats or intimidation and a sixth said they experienced significant levels. Some candidates felt there was co-ordinated abuse and intimidation of other parties and causes.7

1.1.1. Cyberattacks

Cyberattacks against public institutions such as parliaments, political parties or websites of elected people or candidates have spread frequently too. Sometimes they target personal data theft. The initiatives of the states depend mostly on preventive and reactive actions, which for obvious reasons are not made public. Foreign phishing attacks on members of the German Parliament, designated” Ghostwriter” actions, justified investigations by the German public prosecutor.8

The response to cyberattacks is international too, but responses to cyberattacks are in practice in the hands of the individual states because international initiatives in that field are in limbo. The Council of the European Union (EU) adopted on 17 May 2019 a regulation on restrictive measures against cyberattacks threatening the European Union or its member states.9 Among the different threats mentioned are cyberattacks on the functioning of institutions, including those for public elections or the voting process.

A co-operation group, comprising the national competent authorities responsible for cybersecurity, the European Commission and the EUAgency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), has mapped national initiatives of network and information systems used for elections for the European election process.10 A regulation setting up the Cybersecurity Competence Centre and the Network of National Co-ordination Centres was adopted on 20 May 2021. It pools resources from the EU member states and industry to improve and strengthen technological and industrial cybersecurity capacities, enhancing the EU’s open strategic autonomy and offering the possibility of consolidating part of the cybersecurity-related activities funded under Horizon Europe, the Digital Europe Programme and the Recovery and Resilience Facility. As the EU’s foreign policy chief said on 24 September 2021, the protection of cyberspace needs advanced research, training and exercises along with increased efforts to prevent, deter and respond to cyberattacks against computerised systems and software applications linked with politics.

1.1.2. Disinformation

Disinformation is a deliberate attempt to make people believe things which are not accurate. It involves fabricated information blended with facts and specific practices that go well beyond any resemblance to news to include automated accounts used for networks of fake followers, manipulated videos or targeted advertising (Independent High Level Expert Group 2018).

If we focus our attention on hate speech and disinformation, both practices may come together when disinformation is based on discrimination and polarises the political debate. In this context, hate speech becomes a strategy to break the social consensus.11 The speed of the messages, which can go viral and reach a vast audience, and their low investment cost12 are common to hate speech and disinformation. Hate speech as disinformation applies directly or indirectly to individuals or groups of persons, and especially to gullible and vulnerable persons.

Both forms of electoral campaigning are misleading, manipulative, offensive and defamatory. Both look like public trials but without any adversarial procedure. Hate speech mostly relies on discrimination, while disinformation is based on lies, but these lies may be rooted in discrimination, which brings the evidence of the interconnections between disinformation and hate speech. In some cases, it will be difficult to make a distinction between hate speech and disinformation, when a candidate is slandered by attacks. The same message may contain both fake news and hate speech.

However, the strategies and the techniques used, the context, the scope and the targeted persons may be different when we distinguish between disinformation and hate speech.13 Classic ways of campaigning such as manifesto material, pamphlets, media, advertising, oral statements in the public debate, rallies and canvassing may be used for hate speech as well as online platforms, while disinformation mostly relies now on online platforms. International standards address hate speech much more than disinformation too because hate speech is related to discrimination, which has been combated by conventions, treaties and recommendations for decades, while the regulations on disinformation, like those against cyberattacks, are still an uncharted map at international level.

Regarding defamation, the difference between these two expressions of speech may be regarded as slight. Defamation will be understood as any allegation or charge which damages the honour or the reputation of a person. An insult will be regarded as any offensive expression of contempt which does not contain any reference to any fact.14 For that purpose, disqualifying metaphors analogies will be used as a way to avoid any in-depth debate on programmes and contradiction. However, in certain cases the judge may qualify a defamation as hate speech if it is not related to precise facts.

1.1.3. Questions we need to ask

What should be qualified as illegal hate speech? How should hate speech be considered as one of the ways of conducting electoral campaigns? What is the common approach to this issue by international standards? Are national initiatives to tackle offline and online hate speech sufficient? How do they comply with the right to freedom of expression? Is there any scope for restrictions on political speech during electoral campaigns? Would restrictions during electoral campaigns lead to censorship? Who are the different stakeholders responsible for using hate speech during electoral campaigns? How should political parties and third parties be included among these stakeholders? Is there any risk of government abuse in limiting freedom of expression? How is foreign interference in hate speech regulated? Can the foreign source of hate speech be detected? How is the removal of websites for online illegal hate speech outside national borders possible? What are the tools to foster an environment favourable to tolerance in politics? Beside self-regulation of the operators, what are the legal ways to respond to hate speech during an electoral campaign? What kind of sanctions may be imposed against physical and legal persons who make statements in electoral campaigns that incite others to violence and hatred? What are the different ways used by states against cyberattacks?

To answer these questions, hate speech has to be analysed with regard to existing international standards, to the jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights and to some experience and regulations from member states of the Council of Europe and beyond.

1.2. International standards

As regulations on electoral campaigns fall within the competence of national legislations, there are no real international standards on electoral campaigns. International standards focus on freedom of expression. One of the few international documents that deals with elections is the Concluding Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the OSCE (the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) of 29 June 1990 (point 5.1).

1.2.1. The treaties and conventions

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948 states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. Article 2 provides for an equal enjoyment

without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

The international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations of 21 December 1965 distinguishes four kinds of hate speech: hate speech related to dissemination of a discourse based on racial superiority, racial hatred, incitement to racial discrimination and the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 grants the right for everyone to “hold opinions without interference”. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of their choice. But Article 19 says that free speech may be subject to certain restrictions: “a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others and b) for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals”. Article 20 adds that states shall prohibit by law “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.

Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women of 18 December 1979 “condemns discrimination against women in all its forms”. The Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 13 December 2006) places a duty upon states to eliminate discrimination based on disability.

At European level, Article 7 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (adopted 1 May 1993 and ratified by 33 states) requires programme services to respect the dignity of the human being and in particular not to give undue prominence to violence or be likely to incite to racial hatred. The same article provides that the broadcaster shall ensure that news bulletins fairly present facts and events and encourage the free formation of opinions.

The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (23 November 2001, ratified by 45 member states) was the first international treaty on crimes committed via the internet and other networks. It calls on each signatory to adopt legislative and other measures to establish as criminal offences actions against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems. In the additional protocol to this convention (28 January 2003, ratified by 30 member states) each signatory shall adopt legislative and other measures to establish as criminal offences the use of computer systems to disseminate racist and xenophobic material or to make racist and xenophobically motivated threats and insults and to deny, grossly minimise, approve or justify genocide or crimes against humanity.

Two provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (11 May 2011, ratified by 35 member states) deserve attention. According to its Article 34, parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of repeatedly engaging in threatening conduct directed at another person, causing her or him to fear for her or his safety, is criminalised. Pursuant to Article 40, parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular, when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, is subject to criminal or other legal sanction.

1.2.2. The resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly and its Committee of Ministers have been meaningfully committed to the protection of free expression and to the guarantee of free elections.

In Resolution 2144 (2017) on ending cyber-discrimination and online hate (25 January 2017), the Assembly recalls that “it is crucial therefore that strategies to eliminate hate in the online environment acknowledge and tackle hatred and intolerance in people’s hearts and minds”. It encourages member states to work on a common definition of hate speech and on a national legal framework for effective prosecution of online speech in compliance with freedom of expression.

In Resolution 2254 (2019) on media freedom as a condition for democratic elections (23 January 2019), the Assembly considers that the member states should implement effective strategies to protect the electoral process and democracy from the threat of information manipulation and undue propaganda through social media. (For the British definition of undue influence, see p. 34.) For that reason member states should, inter alia:

refrain from disseminating or encouraging the dissemination on the internet of statements, communications or news which they know or can reasonably be expected to know to be disinformation or undue propaganda;

develop specific regulatory frameworks for internet content at election times and include in these framework provisions on transparency;

ensure that sanctions provided for in relation to unlawful content are not diverted to force self-censorship of opponent’s opinions and critical views.