Winning Essays

 Hugo Richards
Walter Payton College
   Chicago, Illinois
   Shared 1st Prize

BEYOND EMISSIONS: THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERATIVE OF CLIMATE ACTION

By Hugo Richards

From the devastation of Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica and Super Typhoon Yagi in Southeast Asia, to catastrophic flooding in Pakistan and prolonged drought in the Horn of Africa, climate change has caused extreme weather events to double since 2000. While headlines focus on rising death tolls, far less attention is given to the wider human costs of these disasters: failed crops, destroyed homes, water contamination, power loss, and economic hardship. Vulnerable and marginalized communities, constrained by limited resources, infrastructure, and political voice, bear the heaviest burdens, threatening rights to life, health, food, shelter, and livelihood for billions. More than just an environmental issue, climate change represents an immediate and severe threat to human rights worldwide.

Specific proposals to address climate change, like wind farms, electric vehicles, biofuels, carbon taxes, and sustainable agriculture, are essential for large-scale, long-term human rights benefits. Yet proposals that don’t consider local contexts, livelihoods, or cultural and participatory rights can cause unintended harms at the community level, including displacement, food insecurity, and economic instability. Examining climate proposals through a human rights lens reveals that full climate justice requires a fair, inclusive, and effective global response that prioritizes the most vulnerable.

Climate Change and Human Rights

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change defines climate change as long-term shifts in climate patterns caused “directly or indirectly” by human activity such as industrialization, deforestation, and unsustainable farming. These activities release greenhouse gases (GHGs) that drive global warming, sea-level rise, and extreme weather, prompting 195 parties at the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement to commit to limiting warming. While U.S. President Trump dismisses global warming as a “hoax” and “con job” for political effect, most world leaders recognize climate change as a measurable and accelerating reality with widespread global consequences.

The effects are already evident. Droughts, heatwaves, and shifting weather patterns destroy crops and livestock, causing famine, water scarcity, and the loss of farming, fishing and forestry livelihoods. Floods, storms, and rising seas contaminate freshwater, spread disease, destroy infrastructure, erase land, and force mass displacement. Air pollution, wildfire smoke, and environmental degradation worsen air quality and undermine public health, particularly in vulnerable communities.

These harms show that climate change is not merely an environmental problem, it is fundamentally a human one. In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed that the right to a “clean, healthy and sustainable environment” is “essential” to the enjoyment of other rights, including life, health, food, water, and shelter, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights like education, work, self-determination, meaningful participation, and an adequate standard of living. Climate change is therefore a significant threat to these rights, a danger that the UN Human Rights Council warns is “immediate and far-reaching…to people and communities around the world.”

However, while climate change affects everyone, its impacts are not equal. Historical injustice means that low-income, Indigenous, and Global South communities are more likely to live in vulnerable, unhealthy environments, have fewer resources, and hold less power, increasing their exposure to environmental and rights harms. Having benefited least from industrialization and contributed least to global emissions, they now face a disproportionate share of social, economic, and health impacts. These harms are projected to grow, with the World Bank predicting that 216 million people will become climate refugees by 2050. Climate change’s consequences are therefore inherently discriminatory, deepening social and economic inequalities and disproportionately harming those already vulnerable.

Tackling global climate change is especially complex because it stems from multiple actions across numerous sectors and regions. International frameworks such as the Paris Agreement call on states to “respect, promote, and consider” human rights in their climate action. Yet national commitments remain largely voluntary, giving states wide discretion to set targets and define principles like “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities” for themselves. For example, the Trump administration recently withdrew the U.S., the world’s largest historical emitter, from the Paris Agreement for the second time and seeks to dismantle the environmental and climate policies of previous administrations. This uneven implementation between and within states leaves significant gaps in global protections that further undermine human rights.

As demonstrated, man-made climate change severely impacts the human rights of billions worldwide, with those least responsible for emissions most at risk. This paper therefore agrees with UN Secretary-General António Guterres that climate change represents “the biggest threat to our survival as a species.”

Climate Change Proposals

To address this threat, it is essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the sectors that contribute the most. Electricity generation accounts for about 26% of global emissions, followed by agriculture (18%) and transportation (15%). This paper examines specific, real-world proposals within each of these high-emitting sectors, along with proposals related to market-based mechanisms and climate adaptation. Proposals are assessed for their human rights impacts, using real-life examples to illustrate their benefits and harms in practice.

Proposals to decarbonize electricity involve transitioning to renewable and low-carbon energy sources, such as wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power. By reducing reliance on fossil fuels, these proposals benefit rights to life, health, and clean air by substantially reducing the GHGs and air pollution responsible for seven million premature deaths annually, while improving local health for vulnerable and fenceline communities. Proposals like off-grid solar can also help alleviate energy poverty by delivering accessible, affordable power to underserved areas, including the 730 million people worldwide still without electricity. However, these proposals often require extensive land conversion, which can cause land grabs, large-scale displacement, ecosystem destruction, loss of livelihoods, and violations of Indigenous rights, especially those of participation and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). 

For example, Brazil’s rapid expansion of renewable energy wind farms has appropriated extensive Indigenous land without consent, displacing hundreds of communities, 86% of whom were already vulnerable to poverty. China’s Three Gorges hydro dam, capable of generating one-sixth of the country’s power, has forcibly displaced 1.3 million people since 2003, restricting access to land and resources, and causing job loss and economic instability. In Southeast Asia, massive hydropower development along the Mekong River Basin, considered “a lifeline for 60 million people,” has displaced 300,000 residents and redirected river flow, affecting the lives and livelihoods of millions downstream. As thirty countries pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, increased uranium mining also raises human rights concerns. In the U.S., for example, uranium extraction on Havasupai and Navajo lands has contaminated water, increased cancer rates, and violated their land rights and sovereignty. These cases show that, while proposals to decarbonize electricity provide essential long-term benefits for life, health, and clean air, they must also take into account local community rights, such as participation, land, and livelihoods.

Transportation proposals aim to reduce GHGs across the sector. With road travel accounting for 73% of emissions, the largest reductions will come from shifting gas-powered vehicles to zero-emission alternatives, primarily electric vehicles (EVs). Transport electrification contributes to energy independence, job creation, and significant reductions in air and noise pollution, benefiting rights to health, livelihood, and a clean environment. Yet this transition raises human rights concerns around access, equity, and affordability, as well as Indigenous and labor rights violations.

For example, the European Union’s ‘Fit for 55’ plan requires “all new cars…be zero-emission by 2035,” a measure adopted by fourteen other countries and twelve U.S. states. However, with EVs up to 40% more expensive than gas-powered vehicles, these proposals disproportionately harm lower-income households that can’t afford them, exposing them to higher costs, fewer affordable used cars, and restricted access to low-emission zones, such as in London. A 2022 U.S. study also found that low-income neighborhoods had 73% fewer public charging stations than wealthier ones, reinforcing inequities and creating further barriers to EV ownership. 

As transportation electrifies, global demand for the minerals used in EV batteries is expected to double by 2030, intensifying “dirty mining” practices tied to labor and Indigenous rights abuses. For example, cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo employs an estimated 40,000 children under hazardous conditions, while lithium extraction in the Andean salt flats has depleted water supplies and violated the FPIC and land rights of over 200 Indigenous communities across Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. As nations pursue zero-emission transportation, a rights-based approach is essential to ensure the transition protects socio-economic rights, labor rights, and the interests of vulnerable communities.

Agriculture proposals aim to reduce emissions through climate-smart farming, sustainable livestock management, and biofuels expansion. These proposals benefit rights to food and health by increasing crop resilience, lowering methane emissions, and reducing fossil fuel reliance. However, they can also undermine economic and land rights when implemented without consultation or support, particularly for forest-dependent communities and the 3.83 billion agrifood workers worldwide. 

For example, Sri Lanka’s 2021 plan to reduce emissions by banning synthetic fertilizers caused crop losses for 85% of farmers, triggering food shortages, price spikes, and a severe economic crisis. Thailand’s 2014 program to restore forest cover disregarded the traditional land rights of 2,700 Indigenous and local communities, labeling them “encroachers” and putting 10 million people at risk of criminalization and eviction. By contrast, Tanzania’s Livestock Master Plan demonstrates how agricultural policies can integrate rights: in addition to lowering livestock emissions, it seeks to reduce poverty, enhance food security, and contribute to economic growth by creating 1.8 million new jobs. 

Biofuel proposals also raise human rights concerns. A 2008 Oxfam Report claims that global biofuel demand has put 60 million Indigenous people at risk of displacement and contributed to rising food prices, pushing “30 million people into poverty.” In Indonesia, palm oil plantations supplying European biofuels caused mass deforestation, displaced Indigenous communities, and reallocated 63% of food crops to fuel, sparking “competition between food, feed, and fuel,” according to a UN Special Rapporteur. These cases show that, while agriculture proposals are vital for long-term health and clean air, they must be designed with a human rights lens to protect livelihoods, uphold FPIC and land rights, and help promote economic development.

As outlined above, proposals to cut fossil fuel emissions are critical for rights to life, health and a clean environment. However, a just transition is essential to protect the economic and labor rights of workers and communities that depend on fossil fuel industries. Coal phaseout in China, for example, is projected to eliminate twenty million jobs by 2060 and require a 2.3-trillion-yuan compensation fund. A just transition will therefore require retraining, income support, and job creation, as recommended in International Labour Organization guidelines, to prevent worsening inequality, poverty, and economic insecurity for millions. 

Across all sectors, market-based proposals, such as carbon taxes and carbon offsetting, benefit rights to clean air and health by discouraging fossil fuel use and incentivizing low-carbon development. Revenue raised from these proposals can be used to redress inequalities, keep energy affordable, or finance other climate solutions. In practice, however, these proposals risk worsening existing inequalities and disproportionately harming already-vulnerable communities.

Carbon taxes, for example, are often passed onto consumers, raising fuel and energy costs and undermining the economic and equity rights of low-income households. In April 2025, public backlash over rising fuel and living costs in Canada forced the government to cancel its federal fuel charge. Similar policies in France and Kazakhstan triggered mass protests over fuel affordability and access. They can also be ineffective: South Africa’s carbon tax failed to deliver emission cuts, exacerbating living costs and local health.

Another market-based proposal, carbon offsetting, enables companies to compensate for emissions by funding GHG-reducing projects. However, an Amnesty International Advisor in 2024 described offsetting as “a mechanism to continue harmful activities” that legitimizes environmental and human rights harms and enables polluters to maintain ‘business as usual’. Offset projects can also directly violate human rights. For example, Cambodia’s REDD+ Project caused large-scale deforestation and the forced eviction of Indigenous Chong people “without consultation,” violating their land, livelihood, and FPIC rights. While market-based proposals can therefore generate significant revenue, how that revenue is raised and distributed is crucial to avoid worsening inequity or further harming affected communities.

Finally, adaptation proposals aim to strengthen resilience to climate impacts by improving infrastructure, food systems, and disaster preparedness. These are crucial for protecting the rights to life, health, and housing of those living in vulnerable areas. However, these are often distributed unequally, creating human rights harms by reinforcing structural and health inequalities, displacing communities, and excluding participatory decision-making.

In Ethiopia, for example, large-scale irrigation and land conversion programs intended to support agricultural resilience proceeded without local consultation, resettling hundreds of pastoralist communities and violating their rights to participation, housing, and livelihoods. In the Marshall Islands, rising sea levels have prompted migration plans that will displace thousands as climate refugees, threatening cultural rights and self-determination. Adaptation proposals also typically favor wealthier areas over low-income ones, as in Louisiana where levees built to protect high-income neighborhoods increased Hurricane Katrina flooding in poorer areas. These cases demonstrate that, while adaptation is essential to protect the rights of all from climate impacts, specific proposals must be participatory, non-discriminatory, and prioritize those at greatest risk.

This paper shows that, while climate proposals offer essential long-term benefits for the rights to life, health, and a clean environment, they must also include meaningful participation, protections for vulnerable groups, and equitable distribution of costs and benefits to prevent unintended short-term harms to local communities. In seeking to secure future rights, we must ensure we continue to safeguard present ones.

Conclusion

Climate change represents an unprecedented, systemic threat to human rights worldwide. Large-scale GHG emissions, primarily from industrialized nations, drive higher temperatures and extreme weather events that endanger rights to life, health, food, water, and livelihoods for billions. These harms fall disproportionately on communities that contributed least to the crisis, including low-income, Indigenous, and other marginalized populations. By deepening existing inequalities, climate change exposes vulnerable populations to displacement, hunger, health crises, and economic and cultural losses. The ICJ’s recognition of the right to a healthy environment affirms the importance of climate action as an urgent human rights imperative.

Specific mitigation and adaptation proposals discussed in this paper reveal a consistent pattern. While they aim to advance long-term human rights goals by reducing air pollution, building resilience, and expanding energy access, they can, and in practice do, generate local socio-economic and participatory harms through job loss, community displacement, restricted land use, food and energy insecurity, inequitable costs, and violations of rights to informed consent. As fuels are substituted, livestock emissions reduced, and forests preserved, proposals must integrate human rights protections to ensure global goals do not come at the expense of the most vulnerable.

This paper demonstrates the need for a rights-based, participatory approach to the design and implementation of climate change proposals. More than technological advances or market solutions, genuine climate justice requires systemic change that prioritizes people above profit, guarantees a just transition, ensures meaningful participation, addresses the substantive inequalities between states, and strengthens accountability. By centering human rights in climate action, the global community can pursue sustainable proposals that mitigate climate change while protecting and promoting the dignity, security, and well-being of all people.

Bibliography

Alvarez, Alex. Unstable Ground: Climate Change, Conflict, and Genocide. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017.

Amnesty International. “Global: UN Special Rapporteur Is Right to Raise Human Rights Concerns about Carbon Markets.” April 26, 2024. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/04/global-un-special-rapporteur-is-right-to-raise-human-rights-concerns-about-carbon-markets/

Aylwin, José. “A Just Energy Transition?” International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, May 13, 2025. https://iwgia.org/en/news/5777.html

Baker, Lucy. “The Political Economy of South Africa’s Carbon Tax.” International Centre for Tax and Development, November 2022. https://www.ictd.ac/publication/political-economy-south-africa-carbon-tax/

Beech, Hannah. “Damming the Lower Mekong.” The New York Times, February 15, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/15/world/asia/mekong-river-dams-thailand.html

Business and Human Rights Resource Centre. “Human Rights in the Mineral Supply Chains of Electric Vehicles.” September 4, 2019. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/briefings/transition-minerals-sector-case-studies/human-rights-in-the-mineral-supply-chains-of-electric-vehicles/

Cairns, Rebecca. “Africa Has ‘Unlimited’ Solar Potential: Off-Grid Power Could Help Light Up the Continent.” CNN, October 16, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/world/africa/africa-solar-power-potential-off-grid-hnk-spc

Caramel, Lilian. “Brazil Wind Farms are Encroaching Community Land.” Dialogue Earth, November 16, 2022. https://dialogue.earth/en/uncategorized/60621-brazil-wind-energy-advances-traditional-community-land/

Carbon Market Watch. Human Rights Implications of Climate Change Mitigation Actions. December 10, 2015. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/report-human-rights-implications-of-climate-change-mitigation-actions/

Carney, Trent M. “China’s Three Gorges Dam: Development, Displacement, and Degradation.” Nebraska Anthropologist. University of Nebraska, 2021.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/192

Chanese A. Forté. “US Uranium Mining Legacy Still Harms the Navajo Nation.” Union of Concerned Scientists, May 6, 2025. https://blog.ucs.org/chanese-forte/us-uranium-mining-legacy-still-harms-the-navajo-nation/ Chomsky, Aviva. Is Science Enough? Forty Critical Questions About Climate Justice. Boston: Beacon Press, 2022.

Clement, Viviane, et al. Groundswell Part 2: Acting on Internal Climate Migration. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2021.

Climate Analytics. Country Briefing: Brazil. 2025.

https://climateanalytics.org/publications/setting-15c-compatible-wind-and-solar-targets/brazil

Coltura. “Gasoline Vehicle Phaseout Advances Around the World.” 2024.

https://coltura.org/world-gasoline-phaseouts/

Cozzi, Laura et al. “Access to Electricity Stagnates Leaving Globally 730 Million in the Dark.” International Energy Agency. October 9, 2025. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/access-to-electricity-stagnates-leaving-globally-730-million-in-the-dark

Cripps, Elizabeth. What Climate Justice Means & Why We Should Care. London: Bloomsbury, 2022.

Defending Peasants’ Rights. In the Name of Climate: The Criminalization of Peasants and Forest Guardians in Thailand. February 20, 2024. https://defendingpeasantsrights.org/en/in-the-name-of-climate-the-criminalization-of-peasants-and-forest-guardians-in-thailand/

Emsden, Christopher. “Almost Half the World’s Population Lives in Households Linked to Agrifood Systems.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, March 4, 2023. https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/almost-half-the-world-s-population-lives-in-households-linked-to-agrifood-systems/

Erikson, Siri, et al. “Adaptation Interventions and their Effect on Vulnerability in Developing Countries.” World Development 141 (May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

Gates, Bill. “Three Tough Truths About Climate.” GatesNotes. October 27, 2025. https://www.gatesnotes.com/three-tough-truths-about-climate

Gopal, Keerti. “‘Millions of Avoidable Deaths’: Climate Change Health Harms Reach Unprecedented Levels.” Inside Climate News, October 28, 2025. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28102025/millions-of-avoidable-deaths-climate-change-health-harms-reach-unprecedented-levels/

European Commission. “Zero Emission Vehicles.” October 27, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_6462

Human Rights Watch. “Carbon Offsetting’s Casualties: Violations of Chong Indigenous People’s Rights in Cambodia’s Southern Cardamom REDD+ Project.” February 29, 2024. https://www.hrw.org/report/2024/02/29/carbon-offsettings-casualties/violations-chong-indigenous-peoples-rights

Humanium. “The Current State of Child Labour in Cobalt Mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” May 27, 2025. https://www.humanium.org/en/the-current-state-of-child-labour-in-cobalt-mines-in-the-democratic-republic-of-the-congo/

Humphreys, Stephen. Human Rights and Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

International Court of Justice. Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change. Advisory Opinion, July 23, 2025. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-sum-01-00-en.pdf

International Energy Agency. Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2024. 2024. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-critical-minerals-outlook-2024/outlook-for-key-minerals.International Labour Organization. Guidelines for a Just Transition. February 2, 2016.

https://www.ilo.org/publications/guidelines-just-transition-towards-environmentally-sustainable-economies

Levy, Barry S., and Jonathan A. Patz. “Climate Change, Human Rights, and Social Justice.” Annals of Global Health 81, no. 3 (May–June 2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.008

Michael, Stephen, et al. “Tanzania Livestock Master Plan.” Tanzania Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, January 2018. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan185023.pdf

Naimoli, Stephen, and Brynne Wilcox. “5 Shifts to Transform Transportation Systems and Meet Climate Goals.” World Resources Institute, March 9, 2023. https://www.wri.org/insights/shifts-transform-transportation-systems-climate-goals

National Resources Defense Council. “Lithium Mining Is Leaving Chile’s Indigenous Communities High and Dry—Literally.” March 28, 2022. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/lithium-mining-leaving-chiles-indigenous-communities-high-and-dry-literally

Niu, Niu, et al. “Ripple Effects of Coal Phase out on Employment in China: From Mining to Coal Consumption Sectors.” Resources Policy 97 (October 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105290

Nnoko-Mewanu, Juliana. “When We Lost the Forest, We Lost Everything.” Human Rights Watch, September 22, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/09/23/when-we-lost-forest-we-lost-everything/oil-palm-plantations-and-rights-violations

O’Dell, John. “Big Gap Remains in Average Price of Electric Car vs. Gas Car.” Edmunds, May 8, 2024. https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/average-price-electric-car-vs-gas-car.html

Oxfam International. Climate Wrongs and Human Rights: Putting People at the Heart of Climate Change Policy. September 2008. https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/climate-wrongs-and-human-rights-putting-people-at-the-heart-of-climate-change-p-114106/

Pearce, Fred. “‘Green Grab’: Solar and Wind Boom Sparks Conflicts on Land Use.” Yale Environment 360, February 20, 2025. https://e360.yale.edu/features/solar-land-grabs-agrovoltaics

Resnik, David B. “Environmental Justice and Climate Change Policies.” Bioethics 36, no. 7 (September 2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13042

Robbins, Jim. “A Nuclear Power Revival Is Sparking a Surge in Uranium Mining.” Yale Environment 360, April 4, 2024. https://e360.yale.edu/features/us-uranium-mining-nuclear-power

Robinson, Mary. Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience, and the Fight for a Sustainable Future. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.

Roht-Arriaza, Naomi. “First Do No Harm: Human Rights and Efforts to Combat Climate Change.” Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 38 (2010).https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/gjicl/vol38/iss3/6

Rouhana, Francesco, et al. “Ensuring a Just Transition: The Electric Vehicle Revolution From A Human Rights Perspective.” Journal of Cleaner Production (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142667

Sadasivam, Naveena. “Going 100% Renewable Power Means A Lot of Dirty Mining.”

Grist.org, April 17, 2019. https://grist.org/article/report-going-100-renewable-power-means-a-lot-of-dirty-mining/

Sigwalt, Danny. This Book Will Save the Planet. Minneapolis: Frances Lincoln, 2022.

Stapleton, James. “Tanzania Livestock Master Plan Projects the Creation of Nearly Two Million Jobs.” International Livestock Research Institute, October 27, 2017. https://www.ilri.org/news/tanzania-livestock-master-plan-projects-creation-nearly-two-million-jobs

Stillings, Zackary. “Human Rights and the New Reality of Climate Change.” Michigan Journal of International Law 35 (2014). https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=mjil

Sohsai, Rin. “Thailand’s National Human Rights Commission Raises Serious Concerns about Mekong River Dams.” International Rivers, November 8, 2024. https://www.internationalrivers.org/news/thailands-national-human-rights-commission-raises-serious-concerns-about-impacts-of-mekong-river-dams/

Sunstein, Cass R. Climate Justice: What Rich Nations Owe the World- and the Future.

Cambridge: MIT Press, 2025.

Systems Change Lab. “Transition to ZeroCarbon Cars, Trucks, and Buses.” Systems Change Lab, 2024. https://systemschangelab.org/transport/transition-zero-carbon-cars-trucks-and-buses

Torrella, Kenny. “Sri Lanka’s Organic Farming Disaster, Explained.” Vox.com, July 15, 2022. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/15/23218969/sri-lanka-organic-fertilizer-pesticide-agriculture-farming

Transport for London. “Ultra Low Emission Zone.” 2025. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone

Trump, Donald. “Statement by the United States of America.” 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, General Debate, September 24, 2025. https://gadebate.un.org/en/80/united-states-america

UkrAgroConsult. “Indonesia to More Than Triple Palm Oil Use.” September 30, 2025. https://ukragroconsult.com/en/news/indonesia-to-more-than-triple-palm-oil-use/

United Nations Documents: Guterres, António. “Remarks to the UN Human Rights Council, ‘The Highest Aspiration: A Call to Action for Human Rights’.” United Nations, February 24, 2020. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3903859

United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Adopted December 16, 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights\

United Nations. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 2007. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), adopted December 10, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

United Nations Environment Programme. UN Emissions Gap Report 2024: No More Hot Air… Please! Nairobi: UNEP, 2024. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Paris Agreement. UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, December 12, 2015. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Article 1: Definitions. 2025. https://unfccc.int/resource/ccsites/zimbab/conven/text/art01.htm

United Nations Human Rights Council. Resolution 7/23, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/7/23, March 28, 2008. https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/e/hrc/resolutions/a_hrc_res_7_23.pdf

United Nations Human Rights Council. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner. UN Doc. A/HRC/10/61, March 16, 2009. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/10/61

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. The Human Cost of Disasters: An Overview of the Last 20 Years (2000–2019). Geneva: UNDRR, 2020. https://www.undrr.org/publication/human-cost-disasters-overview-last-20-years-2000-2019

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Relationship Between Climate Change and Human Rights. U.N. Doc. A/HRC/10/61, January 15, 2009. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/10/61

Wallace-Wells, David. The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. New York:

Delacorte Press, 2023.

World Health Organization. “Air Pollution.” October 24, 2024.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2

World Nuclear News. “More Support for Tripling Global Nuclear Capacity.” November

17, 2025. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/more-support-for-tripling-global-nuclear-capacity

Yu, Qiao, et al. “Equity and Reliability of Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in the

United States.” Nature Communications 16 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-60091-y

  Aditya Yadav
   Basis Peoria
 Peoria, Arizona
 Shared 1st Prize

THE REAL CLIMATE CHANGE

By Aditya Yadav

It is no secret that the boundaries of human rights are profoundly being affected by climate change. Rising sea levels, record-breaking heatwaves, and devastating droughts are no longer distant warnings, but present realities that truly undermine the right to life, health, and security for millions. Especially in the past decade, climate-related disasters have displaced communities, destroyed livelihoods, and widened global inequality.¹ For these reasons, climate change is not only an “environmental crisis” as it’s often perceived as. That misses its human dimension and characteristics. It is fundamentally a human rights crisis because it erodes the basic conditions under which dignity, freedom, and equality can exist.

The claim that climate change threatens human rights is therefore both valid and urgent. Still, the world’s attempts to fix it often reveal a deeper problem: strategies that focus on micro-scale behavioral change while leaving the macro systems that caused the crisis largely intact. Plastic straw bans, consumer “eco-guilt,” and scattered local measures, though well-intentioned, are frequently insufficient and sometimes counterproductive. All they do is frustrate citizens, polarize societies, and obscure the accountability of governments and corporations most responsible for emissions and environmental destruction, weakening motivation and care among the very people whose support is needed.²

True human‑rights‑based climate action must be systemic. It must target structural drivers in global production, energy systems, and governance rather than relying primarily on individual virtue. While climate change clearly violates numerous human rights, the effectiveness of proposals to address it depends on their scale, integration, and fairness. Macro‑level reforms through international policy coordination, sustainable economic restructuring, and equitable technology transitions offer the best chance to safeguard rights without deepening the current, pervasive despair.

Climate Change as a Human Rights Crisis

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms rights to life, health, housing, and security of person.³  Climate change threatens all of these at once. The World Health Organization estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths each year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress alone, with the greatest burdens in regions that contributed least to historical emissions.⁴ These numbers represent communities losing what the UDHR calls the conditions necessary for a life of dignity, including clean air, safe water, and adequate food.  However, beyond physical health, climate change undermines economic and cultural rights as well.

For example, small island nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati face the imminent loss of their entire territory to sea‑level rise, raising questions about the rights of people whose land itself disappears.⁵ For another, farmers in sub‑Saharan Africa see ancestral lands become less productive due to shifting rainfall and prolonged drought, jeopardizing their rights to food and work.⁶

These harms align with rights articulated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including those for an adequate standard of living, housing, and self‑determination.⁷ Not only that, but climate change also acts as a “multiplier of injustice” by amplifying existing inequalities of race, geography, and wealth. Studies suggest the richest 10 percent of the world’s population are responsible for a large share of cumulative emissions, while the poorest half contribute little yet face the most severe climate impacts.⁸ Industrialized nations, whose historical emissions drove today’s warming, often have more resources to adapt, while low‑income communities and the Global South bear disproportionate costs from floods, famine, heatwaves, and forced migration.⁹

This disparity explains why many scholars call climate change “the great moral test” of the century: it forces humanity to decide whether its pursuit of material progress can coexist with a commitment to human dignity and equality.  

The Good Intentions (and Pitfalls) of Micro‑Scale Solutions

Around the world, governments, schools, and corporations urge individuals to recycle, reduce energy use, and eat differently. While it is true that behavioral changes matter and can shift social norms, micro‑scale approaches alone cannot counteract the scale of industrial emissions, land‑use change, and fossil fuel dependence.¹⁰ When climate strategies lean too heavily on individual behavior, they risk what some economists and ethicists call moral offsetting: placing the moral and practical burden on individuals while leaving the systemic engines of harm—that is, fossil fuel extraction, industrial agriculture, and wasteful production—largely untouched.

The wave of plastic straw bans around 2018–2019 illustrates this problem. Viral campaigns and corporate announcements made straws a symbol of ocean protection, but research indicates that straws represent only 0.025% of ocean plastic compared to fishing gear, large packaging, and other industrial sources.¹¹ Meanwhile, petrochemical companies continued expanding plastic production, contributing to projections of billions of tons of plastic waste by mid‑century.¹²

This mismatch between the scale of the solution and the scale of the problem shifted attention from corporate accountability to consumer virtue, allowing major polluters to appear responsible without actually making substantive changes. Micro‑focused policies can also spark backlash and deepen inequality. France’s 2018 fuel tax, presented as a climate measure, was experienced by many working‑class and rural citizens as an unfair financial burden, igniting the “Yellow Vest” protests.¹³

Without targeted rebates or social protections, flat carbon taxes can hit those with the fewest alternatives the hardest, undermining perceived fairness. Similarly, the popularization of “carbon footprints,” heavily promoted in campaigns linked to fossil fuel companies, has (at times) shifted the narrative so that individuals feel primarily responsible for emissions patterns shaped by large‑scale infrastructure and corporate decisions.¹⁴ Their guilt, in this sense, becomes a substitute for governance.

Overreliance on micro‑level solutions can weaken trust in institutions and foster cynicism from the public. When citizens see officials urging them to change light bulbs while simultaneously approving new oil and gas projects, they often conclude that climate action is hypocritical or symbolic rather than serious. The lesson is that trying to solve a macro problem primarily with micro tools reduces both impact and public faith.

If leaders truly intend to defend human rights against ecological collapse, their strategies must pivot from blaming individuals to redesigning systems.

A Macro‑Scale Approach

Human rights frameworks have historically been most effective when policy targets structural injustice rather than relying on personal virtue alone. The abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, and major public health victories all depended on changes to laws, institutions, and economic incentives.¹⁵ In this way, climate change requires similar macro‑level reasoning to solve.

A rights‑centered climate policy should ideally involve three layers of macro intervention: economic restructuring, global cooperation, and technological transition. Together, these layers can either reinforce or erode human rights, depending on how they are designed.¹⁶

Economic Restructuring

Conventional economic models often treat environmental harm as an externality—a side cost of “progress.” Yet authentic progress should be measured in terms of both material prosperity and what might be called gross planetary justice, which is the degree to which economic activity respects ecological limits and human rights.  A macro‑scale economic solution starts by decoupling economic gain from carbon emissions. This includes investing in green infrastructure, reforming global trade rules to avoid outsourcing pollution, and phasing out the vast fossil fuel subsidies, which the International Monetary Fund estimates to be around seven trillion dollars when environmental and health costs are counted.¹⁷

At the same time, such reforms must avoid punishing those with the least responsibility and capacity. Many developing countries depend on resource exports and inexpensive energy for growth; therefore, without adequate finance, debt relief, and technology transfer, they risk being trapped between development needs and climate obligations.¹⁸ Recent international negotiations have taken small steps toward fairness. The Loss and Damage Fund established under UN climate talks is intended to help vulnerable countries cope with irreversible climate impacts, such as sea‑level rise and devastating storms.¹⁹ However, those current pledges fall far short of estimated needs, and delays in funding risk turning a promising mechanism into yet another symbol of unkept promises.

A genuinely rights‑based global economy would reward clean innovation and resilience, while ensuring that states with the largest historical emissions contribute proportionately to adaptation and low‑carbon development.²⁰

Global Cooperation

Climate change does not respect borders, and neither should justice. The 2015 Paris Agreement was a major step in recognizing shared responsibility, but its structure of nationally determined contributions and limited enforcement allows high emitters to fall short without meaningful consequences.²¹ A stronger framework would more fully integrate climate obligations into human rights law, treating large‑scale, avoidable emissions and deforestation as threats to collective security and intergenerational rights.

In 2023, the United Nations General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on states’ legal obligations regarding climate change, signaling growing interest in linking climate harm to legal responsibility.²² While such opinions are nonbinding, they can shape future law and discourse by affirming that failure to act on climate can violate existing human rights commitments.

Global cooperation must also ensure technological equity. Without support for clean technology access, the energy transition could widen gaps between states that can afford innovation and those that cannot.²³ Shared patent pools for key green technologies, coordinated disaster‑resilience funds, and international research collaborations could shift climate politics from guilt to generosity by shifting from moralizing to mobilizing concrete solutions.

Technological Transition

Technology sits at the door between climate ambition and real‑world change.  Renewable energy, advanced storage, digital tools for efficiency, and carbon removal all carry potential.²⁴ But innovation is not automatically justified without safeguards, because the same “green” sectors can reproduce old patterns of exploitation. Rare‑earth mineral extraction for batteries has been linked to pollution and displacement. Investigations have found forced labor in parts of solar panel supplychains. Large‑scale tree planting and bioenergy projects have sometimes led to “greenland grabs” that dispossess Indigenous peoples and small farmers.²⁵

Using these cases as examples, a macro‑scale climate strategy must respect both planetary boundaries and human rights by embedding strong labor, environmental, and transparency standards into the clean economy. This includes fair labor certifications, rigorous environmental and social impact assessments, and clear disclosure of sourcing.²⁶

The question is not simply whether the world decarbonizes, but whether it does so in a way that expands or constrains our true human dignity.

Proposals That Protect and Threaten Human Rights

Not all climate proposals align equally with human rights principles. Evaluating them requires asking who pays, who benefits, and who has a real voice. Beneficial Proposals Agreements such as the South Africa Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETP) seek to mobilize billions of dollars for renewable energy while supporting coal‑dependent regions and workers.²⁷ When structured with local participation, they can truly preserve livelihoods, support retraining, and avoid the human rights harms associated with abrupt economic disruption.

Cutting methane, a powerful but short‑lived greenhouse gas, can quickly reduce warming and improve air quality, reinforcing rights to health and a safe environment.²⁸ Well and strategically designed loss and damage arrangements embody responsibility and redistribution by providing resources to communities suffering unavoidable impacts. Investments in clean transit, shade, resilient housing, and flood defenses can also reduce emissions and improve daily life, particularly in communities historically overexposed to pollution and climate risk.²⁹ Climate and human‑rights education strengthens rights to information and participation by equipping people, especially youth, to engage in decisions that will shape their futures.³⁰

Harmful Proposals

Raising fuel or electricity prices through carbon taxes without targeted support can disproportionately harm low‑income and rural households, contradicting principles of equality and non‑discrimination.¹³ Geoengineering techniques such as large‑scale solar radiation management could shift rainfall and temperature patterns in ways that threaten food and water security for vulnerable regions if deployed unilaterally or without consent.³¹ Large‑scale bioenergy or offset schemes that displace Indigenous communities or small farmers violate rights to land, culture, and free, prior, and informed consent.³² Policies that heavily penalize household emissions while allowing major industrial polluters to continue largely unchanged fuel resentment and the perception that climate action is logically unfair.

The examples above support the idea that climate solutions must be as fair as the world they aim to create. When policies elevate systems rather than sham eindividuals, human rights and environmental stability reinforce each other.³³

The Human Element and the Way Forward

At the root of climate justice are the stories: families displaced by floods, elders suffering during heatwaves, and children growing up under smoke‑filled skies or recurring drought.⁶ Viewing climate change as a human rights issue brings these narratives to the center of policy debates and reminds decision‑makers and politicians that behind every ton of carbon are meaningful lives and futures.

At the same time, liberty must endure alongside sustainability. Proposals that rely on heavy surveillance or coercive control to reduce environmental protection risk can also undermine civil and political rights essential for legitimate, lasting climate policy.²² A more promising path is to redesign systems so that sustainable choices are accessible and attractive, turning climate action into a project of empowerment that inspires people rather than punishment.

History shows that major advances in rights often emerge from crises that expose the limits of existing moral orders. The climate crisis similarly calls for an expansion of imagination, one that views human rights as a driver of true potential to flourish within a stable climate. Protecting a livable planet is not about limiting ambition but preserving the conditions that make ambition meaningful in the first place, both for present and future generations.

In this sense, the true measure of climate leadership is the courage to think on a systemic, planetary scale.

Conclusion

Climate change is indisputably a threat to human rights, as it endangers life, health, equality, culture, and the future itself. But the way the world decides to address it will determine whether rights are strengthened or, unfortunately, further eroded.

Micro‑scale measures alone, though created with noble intentions, can frustrate and divide, especially when they distract from the structural changes needed in energy, finance, and governance.  As mentioned before, humanity needs climate action on a macro scale. By reforming global economics, reimagining innovation, and reconstructing institutions, sustainability is recognized as both a right and a shared obligation.

Smart climate strategies should uplift communities, aligning environmental stability with social justice. In the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the struggle against climate change must affirm both freedom and dignity. It is when solutions finally match the magnitude of the problem that climate action becomes both an environmental necessity and a true reaffirmation of what it means to be human.

Bibliography

Amnesty International. Powering Change or Business as Usual? Human Rights and the Renewable Energy Sector. London: Amnesty International, 2022.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/education/2023/06/the-world-is-facing-an-unprecedented-crisis-climate-change/.

Erlanger, Steven. “‘Yellow Vest’ Protests Shake France. Here’s the Lesson for Climat Change.” New York Times, December 6, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/world/europe/france-fuel-carbon-tax.html.

Food and Agriculture Organization. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in theWorld 2023. Rome: FAO, 2023. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc3017en. Food and Agriculture Organization / UN‑REDD. Forest Governance and Carbon

Offsets: Safeguarding the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Rome: FAO, 2020.

https://www.fao.org/3/ca9947en/ca9947en.pdf.

Global Center on Adaptation. State and Trends in Adaptation 2023: Africa. Rotterdam:

GCA, 2023. https://gca.org/reports/sta23.

Global Methane Pledge. “The Imperative for Methane Action.” Factsheet, 2024.

https://www.globalmethanepledge.org.

Government of South Africa et al. Joint Statement: International Just Energy Transition

Partnership. February 22, 2022. https://za.usembassy.gov/joint-statement-international-

just-energy-transition-partnership/.

Human Rights Watch. “‘Our Land Is Not Empty’: Land Grabs, Renewable Energy, and Indigenous Rights.” New York: HRW, 2023. https://www.hrw.org/tag/land-rights.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Geneva: IPCC, 2023. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/.

International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2024. Paris: IEA, 2024. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2024.

International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2024. Paris: IEA, 2024. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024.

International Labour Organization. Guidelines for a Just Transition TowardsEnvironmentally Sustainable Economies and Societies for All. Geneva: ILO, 2015.

https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/publications/WCMS_432859/lang--en/index.htm.

International Monetary Fund. Measuring Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the Global Economy.Washington, DC: IMF, 2024. https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Reflecting Sunlight:Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance.Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2021.

https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25762/reflecting-sunlight-recommendations-for-solar-geoengineering-research-and-research-governance.

Nisbet, Matthew C. “The Politics of the Carbon Footprint.” Environmental Communication 12, no. 1 (2018). https://www.pomona.edu/administration/sustainability/news/posts/politics-carbon-

footprint#:~:text=A%202020%20Mashable%20article%2C%20%E2%80%9CThe,our%20normal%2C%20everyday%20lexicon.%E2%80%9D.

Ocean Conservancy. “The Truth About Plastic Straws.” Ocean Conservancy, 2019.https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2019/02/21/skip-straw-help-save-marine-animals/.

Oxfam. “World’s Richest 10% Produce Half of Carbon Emissions While Poorest 3.5 Billion Account for Just a Tenth.” Press Release, December 1, 2015. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-carbon- emissions-while-poorest-35-billion-account.

UNESCO. Getting Every School Climate‑Ready: Climate Change Education in the Classroom. Paris: UNESCO, 2023. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385703.

UNFCCC. Climate Change: Small Island Developing States. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat, latest ed. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/cc_sids.pdf.

UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement. Paris: UNFCCC, 2015. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.

UNHCR. “UNHCR Report Reveals Climate Change Is a Growing Threat to People Already Fleeing War.” November 11, 2024. https://www.unrefugees.org/news/unhcr-

report-reveals-climate-change-is-a-growing-threat-to-people-already-fleeing-war/.

United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights.

United Nations Development Programme. Climate Finance for a Just Transition. New York: UNDP, 2023. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-03/annual-report-2023.pdf.

United Nations General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. G.A. Res.217 A (III), December 10, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

United Nations General Assembly. “Request for an Advisory Opinion of the International

Court of Justice on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change.”

A/RES/77/276, March 29, 2023. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4008332?ln=en.

United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2024. Nairobi: UNEP,

2024. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024.

United Nations Environment Programme. From Pollution to Solution: A Global

Assessment of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution. Nairobi: UNEP, 2021.

https://www.unep.org/resources/pollution-solution-global-assessment-marine-litter-and-

plastic-pollution.

World Bank. Climate‑Resilient Infrastructure: A Policy and Planning Guide.

Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023. https://gca.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/06/Climate-Resilient-Infrastructure-Handbook_20250613.pdf.

World Bank. Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2022: Correcting Course. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2022. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/38000.

World Economic Forum. “COP28 Agrees to Establish Loss and Damage Fund for Vulnerable Countries.” June 2, 2025. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/12/cop28- loss-and-damage-fund-climate-change/.

World Health Organization. “Climate Change and Health.” Fact Sheet, October 11, 2023. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health.

Yale Environment 360. “What History Can Teach Us About the Climate Crisis.” Yale School of the Environment, 2022. https://e360.yale.edu/.

Emily Purvis

Fleming Island High

Fleming Island, Florida

3^rd Prize

THE CLIMATE IMPERATIVE: ANALYZING POLICY

THROUGH THE LENS OF INDIVISIBLE HUMAN RIGHTS

Climate change poses an undeniable and systemic threat to human rights, challenging the foundational international agreements that guarantee human dignity and security. This essay argues affirmatively that climate change is not merely an environmental crisis, but a human rights crisis, primarily by eroding the rights to life, health, livelihood, and non-discrimination. The second part of this paper analyzes specific policy proposals designed to mitigate climate change, assessing their human rights impact. While policies centered on Green Infrastructure and Climate Litigation are demonstrably beneficial for advancing both mitigation and justice, approaches like Carbon Pricing in Isolation and Large-Scale Geoengineering are deemed harmful or ethically risk-prone due to their disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations and the violation of the precautionary and self-determination principles. A successful response to the climate crisis requires a synthesis of analytical rigor and human rights policy, where the pursuit of decarbonization is inseparable from the achievement of equity.

Introduction

The doctrine of human rights, codified globally since the mid-20th century, rests on the universal, inalienable, and indivisible nature of inherent human dignity. Today, this doctrine faces an existential challenge: accelerated, anthropogenic climate change. Though often framed in terms of rising temperatures and extreme weather, the core impact of the climate crisis is the catastrophic infringement upon fundamental human rights. The damage is not hypothetical; it is manifest in drought-fueled forced displacement, heat-related mortality, and the destruction of ancestral lands. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in Resolution 38/4: Human Rights and Climate Change, formally recognized this undeniable link (1), acknowledging that environmental degradation undermines the effective enjoyment of human rights, thus shifting the issue from a scientific concern to a governing imperative.

The thesis of this essay is two-fold: First, climate change represents a profound, multi-dimensional violation of existing human rights (3), necessitating its urgent recognition as a human rights emergency. Second, the efficacy of any proposed climate policy must be judged not only by its ability to reduce emissions but, more crucially, by its impact on equity and human rights principles (4). A policy that effectively mitigates atmospheric warming while exacerbating social inequality is ultimately a failure of global governance. As Henry Shue asserts, true climate justice demands the protection of the vulnerable, requiring a political will that prioritizes human well-being over economic efficiency alone.

Section I: Climate Change as a Systemic Human Rights Violation

Climate change violates human rights by diminishing the material conditions necessary for a secure, healthy, and dignified existence. The threat is not abstract; it attacks the core entitlements guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other international covenants (5).

The Right to Life and Health

The most direct infringement concerns the Right to Life (UDHR Article 3) and the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (ICESCR Article 12). Extreme weather events, such as intensifying heatwaves, floods, and wildfires, directly threaten physical survival (6). Heat-related mortality, particularly among the elderly, outdoor workers, and those without access to cooling technologies, is a rapidly rising cause of death globally, an outcome directly linked to climate instability by the World Health Organization (WHO) (7). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meticulously documents the causal chain: rising temperatures increase the geographic range and seasonality of vector-borne diseases like malaria and dengue fever, directly undermining public health infrastructure and straining global medical resources. A stable, livable environment is an essential precondition for the enjoyment of health (9), making its destabilization an automatic rights violation that governments have a legal and moral obligation to prevent. Furthermore, this violation is an inter-generational injustice, as current inaction curtails the fundamental right to life for future populations, a profound ethical failure.

The Right to Livelihood and Self-Determination

Climate change profoundly compromises the Right to a Livelihood (UDHR Article 23) and the Right to Self-Determination (ICCPR Article 1). Coastal erosion, desertification, and glacial melt destroy traditional livelihoods in agriculture, fishing, and herding, leading to catastrophic economic insecurity and forced migration (10). When those patterns fail, entire ways of life are destroyed. The World Bank estimates that internal climate migrants could number over 200 million by 2050 (11).

When people are forced to abandon their homes and communities due to ecological collapse, their right to self-determination, culture, and community life is fundamentally compromised (12). In the absence of a legal framework for "climate refugees," these displaced populations are often stripped of legal protections and basic dignity, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe that former UN Commissioner Mary Robinson terms a failure of climate justice (13). This is exacerbated by the concept of "loss and damage," where wealthy nations, responsible for the vast majority of historical emissions, have failed to compensate vulnerable nations for the resultant destruction of their sovereign lands and cultural heritage, representing a fundamental violation of the principles underpinning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Principle of Equality and Non-Discrimination

The principle of Equality and Non-Discrimination (UDHR Article 2) is violated by the pervasive issue of climate injustice (14). Those who have contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions—namely low-income communities, Indigenous populations, and developing nations—are the first and worst affected by climate change impacts. This dynamic is a risk multiplier, deepening existing structural inequalities (15). Indigenous populations, whose culture and identity are inextricably linked to specific ancestral lands, face unique threats to their sovereignty when those lands are rendered uninhabitable by rising seas or resource depletion. Their self-determination is doubly infringed upon. From the destruction of small island nations to the disproportionate concentration of industrial pollution near marginalized communities globally, climate change compounds historical human rights abuses. Policy responses must explicitly prioritize justice, or they risk maintaining a global system where economic privilege dictates who is protected from environmental disaster.

Section II: Analysis of Beneficial Policy Proposals

Policies that demonstrate a clear benefit to both climate mitigation and human rights share a common feature: they prioritize equity, public investment, and the empowerment of affected communities.

Proposal A: Green Infrastructure Investment and Just Transition

Assessment: Highly Beneficial.

A policy focused on massive public investment in Green Infrastructure and a Just Transition framework is fundamentally beneficial to human rights. The benefit is derived from its dual impact: First, it achieves necessary decarbonization by replacing fossil fuels. Second, and crucially for human rights, it creates millions of new, well-paying jobs in manufacturing, construction, and maintenance.

The "Just Transition" framework requires that training and hiring for these green jobs be prioritized for workers and communities historically reliant on the fossil fuel sector, as well as for marginalized groups who have suffered high rates of unemployment (16). This policy directly supports the Right to a Livelihood by providing stable economic opportunity in the face of climate disruption. Furthermore, investing in public infrastructure, like resilient housing and transportation, directly enhances the safety and Right to Security for vulnerable populations during extreme weather events. This integrated approach—solving the climate problem while simultaneously reducing social and economic inequality—is the ethical benchmark for climate action.

Proposal B: Climate Litigation and Corporate Accountability

Assessment: Beneficial.

The increasing use of Climate Litigation—where citizens sue governments or corporations for inadequate climate action—is a beneficial policy development because it enforces accountability and upholds judicial protection of rights (17). Legal scholars emphasize that litigation translates abstract rights into concrete legal duties. Cases like Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands (2019), which legally compelled the Dutch government to accelerate emission cuts (18), affirm that governments have a legal duty of care to protect the lives and welfare of their citizens.

The benefit of this approach is its powerful ability to operationalize human rights. By forcing the courts to recognize the causal link between inadequate climate policy and future human harm, litigation establishes legally measurable obligations. This provides a crucial check on legislative and executive inaction, upholding the Right to Due Process and ensuring inter-generational equity by legally binding current decision-makers to future outcomes.

Section III: Analysis of Harmful or Risk-Prone Policy Proposals

Policies focused purely on analytical efficiency or technological fixes, without explicit regard for equity and political consequence, pose significant risks to human rights.

Proposal C: Carbon Pricing Mechanisms (Cap-and-Trade) in Isolation

Assessment: Harmful without Safeguards.

Carbon Pricing Mechanisms such as a carbon tax or Cap-and-Trade are often touted as the most economically efficient ways to reduce emissions (19). However, when implemented without strong governmental safeguards, they are harmful to the principle of equality and livelihood.

The harm stems from the regressive nature of such taxes. Since essential goods and energy constitute a larger portion of the disposable income of low- and middle-income households, increasing energy costs places a disproportionate economic burden on the poor (20). This is a direct violation of the Right to an Adequate Standard of Living (ICESCR Article 11). Carbon pricing, in isolation, acts as a penalty on the poor for consuming essential energy, transferring the financial burden of the climate crisis from the corporate polluter to the everyday consumer. To be beneficial, carbon pricing must be coupled with robust policies that recycle the revenue back to citizens through dividends or targeted social spending, mitigating the regressive effects. In isolation, the policy prioritizes market efficiency over human welfare, thus failing the ethical test.

Proposal D: Large-Scale Geoengineering

Assessment: Ethically Harmful and Risk-Prone.

Large-Scale Geoengineering proposals, such as Solar Radiation Management (SRM)—the intentional injection of aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight—are fundamentally harmful and ethically risk-prone from a human rights perspective (21). The Royal Society reports that the potential side effects are massive, including disruption to monsoons critical for the livelihoods of billions across South Asia and Africa (22).

The harm is rooted in the violation of the Right to Self-Determination and the Precautionary Principle. SRM is a technological fix with unknown and potentially devastating side effects on regional weather patterns, which would likely be felt most acutely in the developing world. Furthermore, the deployment of such technology would likely be controlled by a handful of technologically advanced, wealthy nations, imposing climate outcomes on vulnerable nations without their full, free, and informed consent. This creates a global governance structure where powerful states can unilaterally manage the atmosphere, infringing upon the sovereignty and the Right to Self-Determination of less powerful states. It is the ultimate example of a risk-prone solution that sacrifices the rights of the many for the technological convenience of the few.

Conclusion

Climate change is an existential crisis for human rights (23). It is not a secondary issue to be addressed after environmental goals are met; it is a direct violation of the rights to life, health, livelihood, and non-discrimination. The path forward requires a unified approach that rejects the false dichotomy between effective climate mitigation and social justice.

The analysis of policy proposals reveals that technological and market-based solutions, when implemented without explicit ethical guardrails, are inherently prone to human rights failure because they ignore the principle of equity. Conversely, policies rooted in public investment, job creation, and judicial accountability—namely Green Infrastructure and Climate Litigation—offer the only viable path forward. A policy is only beneficial if it is resilient against creating a new class of climate victims. The ultimate ethical challenge of our era is to create a climate solution that is just, equitable, and capable of restoring the stability necessary for all people to enjoy their fundamental human rights. By requiring all policies to pass the human rights test, institutions like the Kemper Human Rights Education Foundation ensure that the crisis is addressed not just with scientific efficacy, but with moral courage and human dignity at its core.

I. Footnotes

1. United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 38/4: Human rights and climate change (Geneva: UNHRC, 2018), 3.
2. Mary Robinson, Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience, and the Fight for a Sustainable Future (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018), 45-47.
3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability(Geneva: IPCC, 2022), 15.
4. Henry Shue, Climate Justice: Vulnerability and Protection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 102.
5. United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Article 3.
6. IPCC, Climate Change 2022, 189.
7. World Health Organization (WHO), "Health and Climate Change: Key Findings," 2023, 5.
8. The Lancet Planetary Health, "Climate change and health: the growing role of climate migration," The Lancet 7, No. 10 (2023): e810.
9. Shue, Climate Justice, 155.
10. World Bank, Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2021), 10.
11. World Bank, Groundswell, 10.
12. United Nations, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1.
13. Robinson, Climate Justice, 178.
14. Environmental Justice Foundation, The Human Cost of Climate Change: A 2023 Update (London: EJF, 2023), 8.
15. Shue, Climate Justice, 61.
16. University of California, Berkeley Labor Center, Job Creation in a Green Economy (Berkeley: UC Berkeley, 2020), 12.
17. Peel, Jacqueline, "Climate Change Litigation and Human Rights," The Cambridge Law Journal 79, No. 3 (2020): 421.
18. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 2019), Para 5.2.
19. Resources for the Future (RFF), The Equity Implications of Carbon Pricing (Washington, D.C.: RFF, 2022), 5.
20. Pistor, Katharina, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), 215.
21. Royal Society, Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (London: Royal Society, 2009), 35.
22. Royal Society, Geoengineering the Climate, 37.
23. Robinson, Climate Justice, 178.

II. Bibliography (Works Cited)

Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF). The Human Cost of Climate Change: A 2023 Update. London: EJF, 2023.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Geneva: IPCC, 2022.

Peel, Jacqueline. "Climate Change Litigation and Human Rights." The Cambridge Law Journal 79, No. 3 (2020): 421–448.

Pistor, Katharina. The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019.

Resources for the Future (RFF). The Equity Implications of Carbon Pricing. Washington, D.C.: RFF, 2022.

Robinson, Mary. Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience, and the Fight for a Sustainable Future. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.

Royal Society. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London: Royal Society, 2009.

Shue, Henry. Climate Justice: Vulnerability and Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

United Nations. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). 1948.

United Nations Human Rights Council. Resolution 38/4: Human rights and climate change. Geneva: UNHRC, 2018.

University of California, Berkeley Labor Center. Job Creation in a Green Economy. Berkeley: UC Berkeley, 2020.

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands. Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 2019.

World Bank. Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2021.

World Health Organization (WHO). "Health and Climate Change: Key Findings." 2023.

The Lancet Planetary Health. "Climate change and health: the growing role of climate migration." The Lancet 7, No. 10 (2023): e810.

Duha Shabir

Presentation Shabir School

Srinagar, India

1^st Prize

THE GRAMMAR OF REPRESSION:
THE MORAL COLLAPSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
UNDER CONTEMPORARY GOVERNANCE

By Duha Shabir

Any political system designed to limit authority functions only when those who exercise power (actors) are institutionally separated from those who judge its abuse (arbiters). If the actor becomes the arbiter, the system collapses into self-regulation, which is indistinguishable from no regulation at all. In such conditions, the ruler’s interpretation of the rule, often becomes more decisive than the rule itself. Once political leaders become the ones who define the meaning of their own constraints, the mechanism meant to restrain them becomes contingent and ultimately subordinate to their own interests. No mechanism intended to constrain political power can long survive if that power maintains control over the mechanism itself. Accountability is a concept that requires reciprocal submission to a single, unambiguous standard; the contemporary global order, however, is premised on asymmetry.

This asymmetry is not an external anomaly but a structural tendency within political systems themselves. Modern authoritarian leaders have learnt to exploit these structural imbalances: when power is vertically concentrated and horizontally unaccountable, the distinction between enforcing the law and defining it disappears. This is why leaders such as Viktor Orban[1] and Recep Tayyip Erdogan[2], all follow the same script, which is to dismantle judicial independence, delegitimize oversight institutions and then claim that whatever remains is the true representation of ‘national will’; often presenting their preferences under the guise of ‘public order’, ‘tradition’ or ‘national unity’. The result of which is the erosion of accountability guised as the fulfilment of some higher collective good. The collapse of the actor-arbiter divide, thus, becomes the political precondition for authoritarian rule, which enables leaders to reshape the meaning of human rights themselves to legitimize what would, otherwise, be considered abusive. Scholars Gráinne de Búrca and Katharine G Young describe this as the “(mis)appropriation of human rights”[3]: the strategic redeployment of human rights language by populist, nationalist and authoritarian governments to justify exclusion, entrench majoritarian control and deflect scrutiny.

The rhetoric of ‘national renewal’ under Adolf Hitler worked not because it offered a program but it reframed dissent as sabotage, pluralism as weakness and rights as obstacles to collective survival[4]. In Mussolini’s Italy, emergency powers were recast as instruments of national regeneration[5]. This blueprint is evident even in the modern day, when contemporary strongmen adopt narratives almost indistinguishable in structure from the aforementioned examples. When campaigns like Make America Great Again, in the US[6], define internal opposition as a threat to national identity, or when majoritarian Hindutva in India present critique as hostility to nation itself, the aim shifts from being electoral to being institutional. For instance, China presents its "Human Rights Action Plan (2021-2025)"[7] as a commitment to judicial reform and accountability, but these measures often impede genuine transparency and are used to consolidate state power[8]. China consistently asserts that human rights must be realized "in context" or according to its developmental status, resorts to using state sovereignty as a shield against universal application and external criticism[9]. This contextual interpretation allows the state to define what constitutes a violation, aligning with its political interests rather than universal human rights principles.

In Brazil, since 2019 the Bolsonaro administration had reframed Indigenous advocates, journalists, and NGOs as obstacles to national progress. The government’s own rhetoric—calling human-rights groups a “cancer,” promising not “one more centimeter” of Indigenous land, and celebrating the “development” of the Amazon—signaled to armed miners, loggers, and criminal networks that violence against defenders carried political cover. This narrative worked in tandem with policies that dismantled environmental enforcement, legitimized illegal land-grabbing, and stripped indigenous communities of legal protections[10]. Parallel to this discursive assault, the use of dictatorship-era national-security laws against journalists, activists, and elected officials ran counter to Brazil’s obligations under the ICCPR, particularly Article 19 on freedom of expression[11].

In India, human rights are being effectively eroded by using constitutional language as the weapon itself. Article 18 of the ICCPR prohibits advocacy of national hatred yet political actors reframe minority communities as civilizational threats, normalizing majoritarian exceptionalism[12]. Anti-Muslim vigilante attacks — from assaults over alleged beef possession to “bulldozer justice” demolitions of Muslim homes without due process[13] — are tacitly enabled by political rhetoric portraying minorities as cultural threats. Dalits and tribal communities continue to face systemic abuse, including custodial violence and sexual assault, often met with official inaction[14]. In Manipur, where ethnic violence killed over 260 and displaced tens of thousands, state response was marked by paralysis and partisan alignment rather than protection. This erosion of rights is extended through security legislation used as a pretext for political suppression[15].

The counterterrorism law UAPA enables prolonged detention without trial and is routinely deployed against journalists, activists, and human rights defenders[16]. What makes this particularly rich is the national amnesia that accompanies it. Every Indian schoolchild can recite paragraphs about the Rowlatt Act as the epitome of colonial repression, yet the same public falls eerily silent when the democratic government repackages those methods for domestic use. In September 2025, after the Ladakh statehood protests, the detention of Sonam Wangchuk – a globally recognized innovator – booked under the National Security Act (NSA) – a preventive detention law meant for situations in immediate endangerment to the nation – highlights this dissonance[17]. Because nothing apparently threatens ‘national security’ quite like a man who spent his life teaching sustainable engineering, advocating for non-violence and asking the government to honor constitutional safeguards. Kashmiri activist Khurram Parvez was imprisoned under UAPA; journalist Aasif Sultan was rearrested through a new UAPA case immediately after being granted bail[18].

Meanwhile, Kashmir’s political environment, despite elections, remains governed by movement restrictions, targeted arrests, and new media policies designed to curb “misinformation”. Offices and homes of rights activists such as Harsh Mander are raided[19]; FCRA licenses of NGOs like the Centre for Policy Research and World Vision India are cancelled[20]; and even the FATF has warned India against abusing counterterrorism frameworks to target NGOs[21]. These actions redraw violations so that legal compliance becomes synonymous with political conformity.

Externally, India rejects criticism by invoking sovereignty or national security, even as foreign governments — notably Canada in 2024 — have accused Indian intelligence of extraterritorial operations, including assassinations and coercion[22]. Domestically, the government oversees the world’s highest number of internet shutdowns, disproportionately affecting the poorest communities who rely on digital access for food rations and wages[23]. Once coercive power is normalized, the next step is narrative consolidation. The government’s alignment with large media networks — widely referred to as Godi media — ensures that dissenters are portrayed as destabilizers and state actions are cast as protective rather than punitive[24]. Independent outlets face defamation suits, tax raids, or arbitrary content takedown orders, such as the blocking of Hindutva Watch and India Hate Lab in 2024 for documenting hate speech[25]. This narrative regime conditions public opinion to see human rights claims as subversion and minorities as security threats. As a result, rights violations not only occur but also appear legitimate to large segments of the population. Manufactured consent stabilizes repression by blurring the line between state power and public will. Journalists, especially in Kashmir, experience a layered system of intimidation via raids, interrogations, movement restrictions and confiscation of devices. New criminal laws implemented in 2024 expand police discretion further, eroding protection against unlawful arrest and weakening safeguards for expression and association[26]. Foreign journalists critical of the government have their visas denied or not renewed, and dozens of Indian journalists covering sensitive topics — from[27]. farmer protests to communal violence — face digital censorship or account suspension. In 2024, the Delhi lieutenant governor sanctioned Arundhati Roy’s prosecution under the UAPA for remarks she made in 2010 describing Kashmir as “occupied territory.” Internationally recognized for her writing and activism, Roy has become a strategic target. The framing of her comments as “anti-national” leverages public sentiment shaped by years of majoritarian rhetoric and media narratives that equate criticism of state policy with loyalty breaches[28]. The delay in prosecution is legally anomalous but politically effective as it turns a retrospective statement into a present threat, illustrating how law is used not in response to wrongdoing but in response to inconvenient speech.

Turkey’s post-2016 trajectory shows how an emergency can become a durable mode of governance. After the failed coup attempt, the government declared a state of emergency that formally ended in 2018, but the extraordinary powers it introduced persisted through ordinary law. More than 170,599 civil servants, judges, teachers, and academics were dismissed by decree, with their legal recourse removed or sharply restricted[29]. The purge was framed as a project of “national cleansing,” giving the state a moral vocabulary to bypass prohibitions on arbitrary detention and discrimination. By reframing dissent as infiltration, the government insulated its actions from scrutiny while claiming fidelity to constitutionalism. As a result, human rights became theoretically claimable but structurally unenforceable. Feminist protections under the Istanbul Convention were similarly reframed; rather than being portrayed as safeguards against gender-based violence, they were cast as corrosive to “family integrity.”[30]

The problem, however, is not limited to domestic actors. International interventions often reinforce authoritarian tendencies even while purporting to promote stability. Research on ‘illiberal peacebuilding’ demonstrates that UN stabilization missions, when prioritizing state security over institutional accountability, inadvertently empower autocratic governments[31]. In Mali, UN support bolstered security forces that were later implicated in human rights abuses; after reports of violations surfaced, the Malian government simply withdrew consent for UN human rights monitoring. The state used international legitimacy to consolidate authority, then used sovereignty to evade oversight. This pattern shows how authoritarian governments exploit global governance; they accept international assistance when it strengthens coercive capacity, and reject it when it demands accountability. In effect, the international human rights regime becomes modular, adopted only when useful, discarded when constraining. Internationally, U.S. foreign policy reinforces this duality. A study of UN General Assembly voting shows the U.S. disproportionately labels resolutions as “important” when they concern human rights violations in adversarial states such as China or Russia[32]. This reveals that the U.S. amplifies violations abroad to mobilize alliances and delegitimize competitors while remaining comparatively silent about abuses by geopolitical partners — from Saudi Arabia’s repression to Egypt’s mass detentions[33].

Drone warfare similarly exposes the gap between principle and practice. Civilian casualties in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia were routinely classified as “enemy combatants” unless proven otherwise — effectively shifting the burden of proof onto the dead[34]. Independent investigations by organizations such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism show that official reporting systematically undercounts civilian deaths[35]. Here too, legality is shaped around state action, the U.S. claims self-defense authority in conflicts without clear boundaries, creating a domain where meaningful accountability is structurally impossible. This produces what scholars call “illiberal human rights,” a conceptual contradiction that strips rights of their egalitarian grounding. When governments use human rights to justify repression, securitization, or geopolitical manoeuvring, they collapse the distinction between justice and state power. Philosophically and morally, this appropriation of human rights constitutes a corruption of their core values. The concept of "illiberal human rights" has become an oxymoron, fundamentally undermining the principles of equal human dignity, inclusion, and accountability that human rights are meant to uphold [3]. Historically, this instrumentalization has been visible from NATO’s intervention in Yugoslavia[36] to the U.S. invasion of Iraq[37] and NATO's Libya operation[38]. The justification of war through “humanitarian necessity” deviates the essence of human rights from a shield protecting individuals from state violence into a pretext enabling state violence against others. Dominant states deploy human rights discourse to censure adversaries while overlooking their own infringements, creating an asymmetric moral economy. Authoritarian governments adopt the vocabulary of rights to mask coercion, while democracies use it to expand power outward. In both cases, the outcome is the same: human rights cease to function as constraints and become instruments of governance.

The present juncture makes one point unavoidable: human rights cannot survive if their enforcement depends solely on the goodwill of states. The trajectory of India, Turkey, the US, and others shows that institutions can be captured faster than they can be reformed. Any credible future for rights, therefore, requires shifting the center of gravity away from state-controlled mechanisms towards transnational judicial networks, decentralized watchdog organizations, investigative journalism, and digital transparency structures. A post disillusionment human rights framework must be built on legally binding and enforceable constraints: automatic treaty-violation sanctions, independent international monitoring insulated from state vetoes; algorithmic transparency laws that prevent digital repression; and stronger asylum and whistleblower protections for those targeted by their own governments. These measures are necessary in a world where states repurpose rights language to justify coercion. If contemporary rights violations succeed by capturing narrative, then any meaningful solution must dismantle that narrative monopoly. Reclaiming human rights, thus, requires rebuilding interpretive landscape in which abuses occur, making it impossible for states to define violence as ‘security’, discrimination as ‘culture’ or dissent as ‘terrorism’.

All hope is not lost. Despite the walls, prisons, shutdowns, drones and laws written to narrow down the human horizon, people keep choosing each other, in ways no statistic can quite capture. In Myanmar, Rohingya refugees built informal schools in camps so their children would not forget how to read. In Gaza, doctors stitched wounds in the dark because the generators had died but the people hadn’t. In Turkey, academics dismissed as “traitors” still continue to teach in basements so her students do not lose a future. And in Iran, Sudan, Belarus, Hong Kong, and countless unnamed towns and villages, people risk their lives to record one another’s suffering, to keep the truth alive long enough for justice to recognize it. If the future of human rights still matters, it is because of the millions of people who will never meet but nevertheless act on the belief that another life, lived elsewhere, is still their concern. This might not be a victory, in a formal sense. But this reminds us that the future of human rights does not depend on states suddenly becoming moral, but on this very human instinct to protect strangers as if they were kin. That instinct has outlived empires, dictatorships, and centuries of cruelty. And it remains the one force no government has ever successfully legislated out of existence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]	P. Hockenos, "Hungary’s descent into dictatorship: How Viktor Orban pulled off the unthinkable.," 6 December 2024. [Online]. Available: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/12/06/hungary-viktor-orban-democracy-dictatorship-illiberalism-eu/.
[2]	A. O'Donohue, "Why Türkiye Is at a Tipping Point Between Democracy and Authoritarianism," 26 March 2025. [Online]. Available: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/03/turkey-protests-erdogan-democracy-authoritarianism?lang=en.
[3]	K. G. Y. Gráinne de Búrca, "The (mis)appropriation of human rights by the new global right: An introduction to the Symposium," International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2023.
[4]	D. I. Hall, "Wagner, Hitler, and Germany's Rebirth after the First World War," King's College, London, 2017.
[5]	M. Sharpe, "Make Italy great again: Mussolini’s rise and fall shows how democracy dies by a thousand cuts," 05 May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://scroll.in/article/1081753/make-italy-great-again-mussolinis-rise-and-fall-shows-how-democracy-dies-by-a-thousand-cuts.
[6]	T. M. Biko Koenig, "The Symbolic Politics of Status in the MAGA Movement," Cambridge University Press, 2025.
[7]	Human Rights Action Plan of China (2021-2025), The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2021.
[8]	"How China Defines Human Rights," 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.freiheit.org/southeast-and-east-asia/how-china-defines-human-rights.
[9]	D. Braaten, "Human Rights: What Does the Future Hold?," International Studies Review, 2020.
[10]	J. Loughran, "Brazil: Human rights defenders are in the line of fire," 8 September 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.latamdialogue.org/post/brazil-human-rights-defenders-are-in-the-line-of-fire.
[11]	International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations.
[12]	"India: Gunmen Target Minorities in Jammu and Kashmir Protect Hindus, Sikhs in Muslim-Majority Region," Human Rights Watch, 2021.
[13]	S. M. Prantik Ali, "The journey of ‘bulldozer justice’: From Right Wing fringe elements to Modi’s election vocabulary," 31 May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.altnews.in/the-journey-of-bulldozer-justice-from-right-wing-fringe-elements-to-modis-election-vocabulary/.
[14]	"The alarming rise of anti-Dalit violence and discrimination in India: A series of gruesome incidents since July 2024," 5 September 2024. [Online]. Available: https://cjp.org.in/the-alarming-rise-of-anti-dalit-violence-and-discrimination-in-india-a-series-of-gruesome-incidents-since-july-2024/.
[15]	"India: Ethnic Clashes Restart in Manipur," Human Rights Watch, 2025.
[16]	R. Kumar, "Misuse of UAPA, Delhi High Court Slaps State on Terror Tag," The Society For Constitutional Law Discussion, 2023.
[17]	V. Singh, "Sonam Wangchuk | Ladakh’s engineer of change," 25 October 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sonam-wangchuk-keeper-of-ladakhs-interests/article70125733.ece.
[18]	M. Naik, "From Prison to Uncertainty: After Battling for Bails, Kashmiri Journalists Battle Stigma, Financial Crisis and Isolation," 5 April 2025. [Online]. Available: https://kashmirtimes.com/news/after-battling-for-bails-kashmiri-journalists-battle-stigma-financial-crisis.
[19]	"After raids, CBI files FIR against activist Harsh Mander for alleged FCRA violations," [Online]. Available: https://scroll.in/latest/1063089/cbi-raids-think-tank-centre-for-equity-studies-activist-harsh-mander-in-alleged-fcra-violation-case.
[20]	"FCRA License Cancellations Harm the Poor and Vulnerable," 11 July 2024. [Online]. Available: https://newsreel.asia/articles/fcra-license-cancellations-harm-the-poor-and-vulnerable.
[21]	"India: FATF raps government on the risk to abuse that non-profits face," Amnesty International, 2024.
[22]	F. Deif, "Canada-India tension underscores a growing threat," 27 October 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2024/10/27/canada-india-tension-underscores-a-growing-threat/439082/.
[23]	A. Deep, "Number of Internet shutdowns highest in 2024 globally, India tops in govt-ordered curbs," 5 February 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/number-of-internet-shutdowns-highest-in-2024-globally-india-tops-in-govt-ordered-curbs/.
[24]	K. Majumder, "Why the rise of ‘godi media’ is a disaster for Indian democracy and economic growth," 14 January 2025. [Online]. Available: https://scroll.in/article/1077310/why-the-rise-of-godi-media-is-a-disaster-for-indian-democracy-and-economic-growth.
[25]	Y. Sharma, "Hate crime tracker Hindutva Watch blocked in India ahead of national vote," 31 January 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/31/hate-crime-tracker-hindutva-watch-blocked-in-india-ahead-of-national-vote.
[26]	"India: Authorities must immediately repeal repressive new criminal laws," Amnesty International, 2024.
[27]	"India: Authorities Revoke Visa Privileges of Diaspora Critics," Human Rights Watch, 2024.
[28]	S. Biswas, "Will India's Booker Prize-winning author face jail for 14-year-old remark?," 18 June 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ggyz13m2po.
[29]	L. Spencer, "The ECtHR and Post-coup Turkey: Losing Ground or Losing Credibility?," 17 July 2018. [Online]. Available: https://verfassungsblog.de/the-ecthr-and-post-coup-turkey-losing-ground-or-losing-credibility/.
[30]	"Turkey’s withdrawal from Istanbul Convention a setback for women and girls’ human rights," ICJ.
[31]	G. R. D. &. M. Souzab, "Illiberal Peacebuilding in UN Stabilization Peace Operations and Peace Agreements in the CAR, the DRC and Mali," International PeaceKeeping, pp. 157-185, 2024.
[32]	M. P. Dmitriy Nurullayev, "Bloc Politics at the UN: How Other States Behave When the United States and China–Russia Disagree," Global Studies Quarterly , p. 2023.
[33]	C. W. Dunne, "The Middle East’s Well-Documented Human Rights Abuses Have Little Impact on US Policy," Arab Center Washington DC, 2022.
[34]	S. S. a. S. K. James Cavallaro, " Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan," Stanford: International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic; New York: NYU School of Law, Global Justice Clinic, 2012.
[35]	"Drone wars: the full data," [Online]. Available: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-01/drone-wars-the-full-data.
[36]	A. Djilas, "Bombing to Bring Peace," 7 July 2011. [Online].
[37]	"The Iraq War," [Online]. Available: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/iraq-war.
[38]	P. C. Terry, "The Libya intervention (2011): neither lawful, nor successful," The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, pp. 162-182.

---

[1] P. Hockenos, "Hungary’s descent into dictatorship: How Viktor Orban pulled off the unthinkable.," 6 December 2024. [Online]. Available: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/12/06/hungary-viktor-orban-democracy-dictatorship-illiberalism-eu/.

[2] A. O'Donohue, "Why Türkiye Is at a Tipping Point Between Democracy and Authoritarianism," 26 March 2025. [Online]. Available: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/03/turkey-protests-erdogan-democracy-authoritarianism?lang=en.

[3] K. G. Y. Gráinne de Búrca, "The (mis)appropriation of human rights by the new global right: An introduction to the Symposium," International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2023.

[4] D. I. Hall, "Wagner, Hitler, and Germany's Rebirth after the First World War," King's College, London, 2017.

[5] M. Sharpe, "Make Italy great again: Mussolini’s rise and fall shows how democracy dies by a thousand cuts," 05 May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://scroll.in/article/1081753/make-italy-great-again-mussolinis-rise-and-fall-shows-how-democracy-dies-by-a-thousand-cuts.

[6] T. M. Biko Koenig, "The Symbolic Politics of Status in the MAGA Movement," Cambridge University Press, 2025.

[7] Human Rights Action Plan of China (2021-2025), The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2021.

[8] How China Defines Human Rights," 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.freiheit.org/southeast-and-east-asia/how-china-defines-human-rights.

[9] D. Braaten, "Human Rights: What Does the Future Hold?," International Studies Review, 2020.

[10] J. Loughran, "Brazil: Human rights defenders are in the line of fire," 8 September 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.latamdialogue.org/post/brazil-human-rights-defenders-are-in-the-line-of-fire.

[11] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations.

[12] "India: Gunmen Target Minorities in Jammu and Kashmir Protect Hindus, Sikhs in Muslim-Majority Region," Human Rights Watch, 2021.

[13] S. M. Prantik Ali, "The journey of ‘bulldozer justice’: From Right Wing fringe elements to Modi’s election vocabulary," 31 May 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.altnews.in/the-journey-of-bulldozer-justice-from-right-wing-fringe-elements-to-modis-election-vocabulary/

[14] "The alarming rise of anti-Dalit violence and discrimination in India: A series of gruesome incidents since July 2024," 5 September 2024. [Online]. Available: https://cjp.org.in/the-alarming-rise-of-anti-dalit-violence-and-discrimination-in-india-a-series-of-gruesome-incidents-since-july-2024/

[15] "India: Ethnic Clashes Restart in Manipur," Human Rights Watch, 2025.

[16] R. Kumar, "Misuse of UAPA, Delhi High Court Slaps State on Terror Tag," The Society For Constitutional Law Discussion, 2023.

[17] V. Singh, "Sonam Wangchuk | Ladakh’s engineer of change," 25 October 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sonam-wangchuk-keeper-of-ladakhs-interests/article70125733.ece

[18] M. Naik, "From Prison to Uncertainty: After Battling for Bails, Kashmiri Journalists Battle Stigma, Financial Crisis and Isolation," 5 April 2025. [Online]. Available: https://kashmirtimes.com/news/after-battling-for-bails-kashmiri-journalists-battle-stigma-financial-crisis

[19] "After raids, CBI files FIR against activist Harsh Mander for alleged FCRA violations," [Online]. Available: https://scroll.in/latest/1063089/cbi-raids-think-tank-centre-for-equity-studies-activist-harsh-mander-in-alleged-fcra-violation-case

[20] "FCRA License Cancellations Harm the Poor and Vulnerable," 11 July 2024. [Online]. Available: https://newsreel.asia/articles/fcra-license-cancellations-harm-the-poor-and-vulnerable

[21] "India: FATF raps government on the risk to abuse that non-profits face," Amnesty International, 2024.

[22] F. Deif, "Canada-India tension underscores a growing threat," 27 October 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2024/10/27/canada-india-tension-underscores-a-growing-threat/439082/

[23] A. Deep, "Number of Internet shutdowns highest in 2024 globally, India tops in govt-ordered curbs," 5 February 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/number-of-internet-shutdowns-highest-in-2024-globally-india-tops-in-govt-ordered-curbs/

[24] K. Majumder, "Why the rise of ‘godi media’ is a disaster for Indian democracy and economic growth," 14 January 2025. [Online]. Available: https://scroll.in/article/1077310/why-the-rise-of-godi-media-is-a-disaster-for-indian-democracy-and-economic-growth.

[25] Y. Sharma, "Hate crime tracker Hindutva Watch blocked in India ahead of national vote," 31 January 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/31/hate-crime-tracker-hindutva-watch-blocked-in-india-ahead-of-national-vote.

[26] "India: Authorities must immediately repeal repressive new criminal laws," Amnesty International, 2024.

[27] "India: Authorities Revoke Visa Privileges of Diaspora Critics," Human Rights Watch, 2024.

[28] S. Biswas, "Will India's Booker Prize-winning author face jail for 14-year-old remark?," 18 June 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3ggyz13m2po.

[29] L. Spencer, "The ECtHR and Post-coup Turkey: Losing Ground or Losing Credibility?," 17 July 2018. [Online]. Available: https://verfassungsblog.de/the-ecthr-and-post-coup-turkey-losing-ground-or-losing-credibility/.

[30] "Turkey’s withdrawal from Istanbul Convention a setback for women and girls’ human rights," ICJ.

[31] G. R. D. &. M. Souzab, "Illiberal Peacebuilding in UN Stabilization Peace Operations and Peace Agreements in the CAR, the DRC and Mali," International PeaceKeeping, pp. 157-185, 2024.

[32] M. P. Dmitriy Nurullayev, "Bloc Politics at the UN: How Other States Behave When the United States and China–Russia Disagree," Global Studies Quarterly , p. 2023.

[33] C. W. Dunne, "The Middle East’s Well-Documented Human Rights Abuses Have Little Impact on US Policy," Arab Center Washington DC, 2022.

[34] S. S. a. S. K. James Cavallaro, " Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan," Stanford: International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic; New York: NYU School of Law, Global Justice Clinic, 2012.

[35] "Drone wars: the full data," [Online]. Available: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-01/drone-wars-the-full-data.

[36] A. Djilas, "Bombing to Bring Peace," 7 July 2011. [Online].

[37] "The Iraq War," [Online]. Available: https://www.cfr.org/timeline/iraq-war.

[38] P. C. Terry, "The Libya intervention (2011): neither lawful, nor successful," The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, pp. 162-182.

Nour Direya

Pioneers Baccalaureate School

Nablus, Palestine

2^nd Prize

IGNORED, SILENCED, CONTROLLED:
THE REALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PALESTINE

By Nour Direya

Introduction

There’s a particular type of silence only a Palestinian would learn to fear, the silence when the checkpoint’s gates close, when the electricity gets cut during a raid, when your own government forces you to “keep your voice down” so you won’t disturb the oppressor. It is in that silence that you watch your basic human rights disappear. Life in Palestine grows to be increasingly unbearable as Palestinians watch their rights being violated by two different supposedly opposing sides, as worldwide ruling powers watch. The Israeli Occupation’s state policies and practices have included arbitrary detention, restrictions of freedom of movement, and what many describe as apartheid-like conditions [1]. At the same time the Palestinian Authority engages in arbitrary arrests of critics and activists, detention without due process, and restrictions on freedom of speech and expression [2]. Even Amnesty International reports that many world leaders apply “double standards” or remain silent in the face of these violations, enabling the suffering to continue unchecked [3]. Together, these local and global factors create an unending chain of injustice that ties around the Palestinians’ necks, leaving them breathless with bruises on their throats until it finally kills them.

The Israeli Occupation’s Violation of Human Rights

The most suffocating violation of Palestinians’ human rights comes from the Israeli Occupation, which compresses their existence into a shrinking space where movement, freedom, and dignity are left with no room to breathe. The walls responsible for tightening this space are built from a web of oppressive policies and practices that Palestinians are forced to confront on a daily basis. These walls take shape in suffocating restrictions on movement, in the reality of being detained without charge or trial, and in the slow and deliberate erasure of cultural and historical memory that attempts to strip Palestinians of the stories that lived on this land for far longer than 77 years.

Mobility in Palestine is made deliberately burdensome and overwhelming, with 849 movement obstacles recorded across the West Bank, including 288 road gates that function as parts of Israel’s checkpoint system [4]. Checkpoints are not just barriers built for protection and security, but they are ways to actively humiliate and disrupt Palestinians. Palestinians including pregnant women, children, sick people, and elderly [5] pass through checkpoints on an almost daily basis creating restrictions on movement and access to education, employment, and health care. Checkpoints expose Palestinians to torture and degrading treatment including physical violence, humiliation, arbitrary detention, and harsh restrictions, all documented by Amnesty International [6]. According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), at least 68 Palestinian women were forced to give birth at Israeli checkpoints because soldiers would not allow them to pass, and several of these newborns died as a result of the delays [7]. One widely reported incident involved a young Palestinian man who was forced by Israeli soldiers to play his violin just to be allowed to cross, this moment paints a clear picture depicting the humiliation that Palestinians are subjected to at checkpoints [5].

Yet checkpoints are only the first barrier, because beyond them lies another form of control that hits even deeper, the power to violently take Palestinians from their homes and detain them without charge.  Administrative detention is a policy that violently rips people from their families and imprison them in torturous jails without a charge, a trial, or any chance to defend themselves. According to Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention,” and anyone detained “shall be brought promptly before a judge” and given a trial within a reasonable time or released [8]. This is a core principle of international law that the Israeli Occupation fails to follow. B’Tselem reported that Israel uses administrative detention to imprison Palestinians for months and years, without charge or trial, relying on so-called secret evidence that prisoners and their lawyers are never allowed to see [9]. Israel’s use of administrative detention has expanded at a frightening pace, with the number of Palestinians imprisoned without charge or trial exploding from 1,319 in October 2023 to more than 2,070 just one month later [10]. This clearly exposes an unlawful and deeply dehumanizing system, one that violates international legal standards so plainly that Israel could be taken to trial for it, even though everyone knows it will never be held accountable. One specific case that reflects the cruelty of the Israeli Occupation and its system is that of 17-year-old Amal Nakhleh, who was forcefully taken from his home as a minor and held under administrative detention for months without ever being charged. His parents begged for answers, but Israel refused to show them a single page of the ‘secret evidence’ used to imprison their child [11].

If administrative detention erases the present, archive destruction attempts to erase the past itself. Israel has repeatedly restricted, hidden, destroyed, and manipulated Palestinian historical archives, purposefully limiting access to documents, photographs, and records that prove Palestinians’ deep-rooted presence on the land. These actions are not accidental, because they form a purposeful strategy of erasure aimed at taking Palestinians’ history and heritage, and demolishing the identity that has lived on this land for generations. Israel has sealed and hidden countless archival files from the 1948 Nakba, including military documents detailing expulsions, village depopulation, and civilian killings, even though these records were legally supposed to be opened to the public decades ago. This systematic covering is not a procedural delay but a deliberate attempt to bury the evidence of what Palestinians lived through in order to write a narrative that suits the Israeli Occupation’s narrative [12].

Another example of this erasure is the confiscation of more than 70,000 Palestinian books and manuscripts in 1948, taken straight from the shelves of families who were forced to flee. These books, poetry, history, letters, and entire private libraries were later labeled by Israel as ‘abandoned property,’ as if a people running for their lives had simply forgotten their own words behind them [13]. All together, these shades of violence expose an Occupation that extends far beyond military control, because it reaches into the intimate details of Palestinian life, determining where they can walk, whether they will see their families again, and even what parts of their past they are allowed to remember. In every form, the goal is the same, it is to shrink the space Palestinians can live in whether it’s physically, legally, and historically until freedom becomes nearly impossible to breathe.

The Palestinian Authority’s Violation of Human Rights

While the Occupation is guilty of violating Palestinians’ human rights, it isn’t the only one to blame. The Palestinian Authority violates Palestinians’ human rights as well. Instead of protecting the dignity of Palestinians that Israel tries to take away, the PA succeeds in becoming another hand pushing Palestinians even further into the shadows. As a Palestinian they leave you no choice to make, as there becomes a right and wrong opinion and if you express the ‘wrong’ opinion, you’ll suffer a consequence similar to the one of a criminal. The PA carries out arbitrary arrests or even killings that target students, activists, journalists, and anyone who publicly criticizes its leadership [14].

Nizar Banat was a Palestinian activist who openly criticized the PA for corruption and human rights violations. On June 24, 2021, units of PA security forces stormed the house where he was staying, beat him so severely that he could not stand, then arrested him, and he died shortly after being taken into custody [15]. His death did not go unnoticed; it became a symbol of what happens to Palestinians who dare to speak freely under a system that treats criticism as a threat.

Silencing dissent in this way is not just morally wrong, it directly violates international law, as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right of every person to hold and express opinions without interference [16]. This creates an environment where fear becomes a daily companion, shaping what people say, how they act, and even what they allow themselves to think. The price of honesty became death and detainment, so staying silent has become a way to survive. But the violation does not end with silencing voices, but it continues in the way individuals are taken into detention without clear charges, without access to legal representation, and without any real guarantee of due process. A documented example of this appears in a 2018 Human Rights Watch report, which describes cases where PA security forces detained activists and journalists without legitimate charges, often accusing them of vague offenses like “insulting higher authorities” and holding them for days without access to lawyers or any real legal procedure [17].

Such practices make it clear that these accusations aren’t about security at all, but they’re a convenient excuse that lets the PA drag critics through a system designed not to deliver justice but to break anyone who refuses to fall in line.  There are many similarities between the PA and the Israeli Occupation that prove that the PA’s behavior doesn’t try to change Israel’s oppression, but copies it instead. Which turns one system of control into two and leaves Palestinians caught between two mirrors of the same injustice.

The World’s Silence

What deepens the wound even further is the quietness of the world that claims to defend human rights yet watches Palestinians being erased and oppressed. Turning a blind eye towards the crisis in Palestine seems a lot more convenient to the world than taking an actual stance. The world never fails to depict a double standard, one that protects some lives with urgency while treating Palestinian lives as optional, negotiable, or simply easier to ignore. What exposes this double standard most clearly is the way the world reacts to suffering. When tragedy strikes in places deemed worthy of sympathy, global leaders rush to speak, rush to condemn, rush to defend. Yet when Palestinians are the ones being erased, the same voices suddenly go quiet, as if Palestinians’ pain demands a different kind of empathy [18]. The destruction of a building in Ukraine can summon urgent outrage within hours, while entire neighborhoods in Gaza can be leveled before the world manages more than a hesitant statement [19].

This comparison grows even worse when the inhumane violations are documented in detail. Human Rights Watch has described forced displacement, demolished homes, attacks on civilians, and other conditions that are considered crimes against humanity [20]. But even with all of these factors being seen and known, many governments continue sending weapons and providing political protection to Israel, the side responsible. This reveals a belief system that many people follow: some lives deserve safety while others can be negotiated away [21].

The double standard makes its way into the media as well. When the victims are not Palestinians, their stories are carried with care, and filled with dignity. But when the victims are Palestinians, their voices are suddenly distorted, their grief is minimized, their vocabulary changed, and their accounts are questioned or ignored [22]. This selective way of storytelling helps shape the narrative in the way most convenient for Israel. It turns Palestinians’ suffering into a background noise while giving injustice all the space it needs to grow [22].

The silence eventually becomes almost unbearable when even international law speaks, yet powerful states refuse to move. A UN Commission of Inquiry concluded in 2025 that the Israeli Occupation bears responsibility for genocide and for failing to prevent or punish it [23].

Conclusion

When everything is finally laid out, the truth stops hiding. These are not scattered violations or isolated mistakes. They form a system that closes in on Palestinians from multiple directions, making its hold tighter until breathing becomes negotiable. The Israeli Occupation controls where Palestinians walk, whether they can see their families, and what parts of their own history and heritage they are allowed to remember. The Palestinian Authority takes inspiration from the Israeli Occupation's cruelty, policing opinions, crushing criticism, and punishing honesty as if protecting its power matters more than protecting its people. And the world, fully aware of every checkpoint, every detention order, every silenced voice, chooses the comfort of silence over the responsibility of action.

This is where the idea of “human rights” collapses. Not because the principles are unclear, but because they are applied with a kind of selectiveness that exposes exactly who is considered human enough to deserve them. Global powers are quick to condemn abuses loudly when it happens to be suitable for them, then suddenly lose their voices when Palestinians’ human rights are the ones being violated. And the suffering of Palestinians becomes something the world observes like a distant storm, tragic enough to possibly comment on but never has enough meaning to stop.

Bibliography:

[1] Amnesty International, “Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory: Annual Report 2022,” 2022, n.p.

[2] U.S. Department of State, “2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: West Bank and Gaza,” 2022, p.3.

[3] Amnesty International, “International System Unfit to Deal With Global Crises: Annual Report 2022,” 2022, n.p.

[4] OCHA, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “West Bank Movement and Access Update”, 2025,p. 1

[5] Jane Schamlie, “Israeli Checkpoints Shame Oppressed and Oppressor Alike,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 2006, n.p.

[6] Amnesty International, “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: A Cruel System of Domination and a Crime Against Humanity,” Amnesty International, 2022, n.p.

[7] United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), “Checkpoints compound risks for childbirth for Palestinian women,” UNFPA, 2007, n.p.

[8] United Nations General Assembly, “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” United Nations, 1966, n.p.

[9] B’Tselem, “Administrative Detention,” B’Tselem, n.d., n.p.

[10] Amnesty International, Torture and Degrading Treatment of Palestinian Detainees amid Spike in Arbitrary Arrests,”  2023, n.p.

[11] Amnesty International, “Israel/OPT: Release Palestinian Teenager Held under Administrative Detention,” Amnesty International, 2021, n.p.

[12] Britain Palestine Project. “Burying the Nakba: How Israel Has Hidden the Archives of 1948.” Britain Palestine Project, 2020, n.p.

[13] Jerusalem Quarterly, Israel’s Seizure and Suppression of Palestinian Archives,” 2018, n.p.

[14] U.S. Department of State, West Bank and Gaza 2020 Human Rights Report, 2020, p. 13–14.

[15] Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Activist Nizar Banat Dies During Arrest; PCHR Condemns and Stresses Suspicion of Criminal Activity and Calls for Investigation and Accountability,” 2021, n.p.

[16] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” 1948, n.p.

[17] Human Rights Watch, “Two Authorities, One Way, Zero Dissent,” 2018, n.p

[18] Amnesty International, “International System Unfit to Deal With Global Crises: Annual Report 2022,” 2022, n.p.

[19] Foreign Policy Magazine, “Why the West Condemns Russia but Stays Quiet on Gaza,” 2023, n.p.

[20] Human Rights Watch, “Israel’s Crimes Against Humanity in Gaza,” 2024, n.p.

[21] Human Rights Watch, “Arms Transfers and Complicity in Violations in Gaza,” 2024, n.p.

[22] ODI (Overseas Development Institute), “Humanitarian Hypocrisy, Double Standards, and the Law in Gaza,” 2024, n.p.

[23] United Nations Human Rights Council, “Commission of Inquiry Report: Genocide in Gaza (A/HRC/60/CRP.3),” 2025, n.p.

Eunsoo Kwack

Saint Paul Preparatory

Seoul, Korea

3^rd Prize

LEADERSHIP IN SOUTH KOREA’S
DYNAMIC AND MULTI-DIMENSIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LANDSCAPE

By Eunsoo Kwack

The trajectory of human rights development in South Korea is a notable example of a dynamic transformation among modern democratic nations [1]. Over the past century, South Korea not only endured Japanese colonial rule, a civil war with North Korea, and decades of military authoritarian but also achieved remarkable economic improvement and established a constitutional democracy supported by sophisticated human rights institutions. Throughout this period, the country gradually fostered and structured an environment where human rights could evolve rapidly, driven by frequent interaction between civil society and political leaders from diverse backgrounds—including military dictators, conservative business leaders, democracy activists (including a Nobel Peace Prize laureate), and human rights lawyers. Today, the multidimensional nature of human rights in South Korea presents complex challenges for its leaders. Unlike many other nations, South Korean leaders must consider the rights of not only their own citizens but also those of a rapidly growing immigrant population, as well as the human rights situation in North Korea—a state politically divided from, yet historically and constitutionally linked to, South Korea. Given this landscape, this essay examines the role South Korean leaders have played shaping the country’s human rights evolution and the key agendas they currently confront.

1.   Historical Foundation: From an Authoritarian Legacy to the Establishment of Democracy

For most of the twentieth century, South Korea’s political system was characterized by strong centralization and restricted civil liberties. From 1948 to 1987, administrations of Syngman Rhee, Park Chung-hee, and Chun Doo-hwan severely curtailed the human rights of citizens [2]. These governments persecuted political opponents, censored the press, and constrained judicial independence in the name of national security and economic development. Notably, Park Chung-hee revoked direct presidential elections in 1972 to extend his rule [3]. During this period, human rights activism initially emerged to secure basic labor protections and gradually evolved into a broader pro-democracy movement led by activists Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung. However, due to persistent political repression—including torture, imprisonment, and surveillance—achieving meaningful progress remained extremely difficult.

A major transition occurred during the 1987 democracy protest. Nationwide resistance compelled political elites to accommodate constitutional reforms, resulting in the restoration of direct presidential elections, strengthened judicial oversight, and expanded civic freedoms [4]. Following these institution reforms, the Roh Tae-woo administration—although still led by former military officers—continued to implement democratizing measures, including the revival of the local autonomy system and the expansion of legal protections [5].

The establishment of the Kim Young-sam administration in 1992 marked the return to a fully civilian government for the first time in 30 years. His administration advanced South Korean democracy by enacting the Administrative Information Disclosure Act (1996), increasing transparency in military and intelligence agencies, and implementing public-official ethics reforms.

Kim Dae-jung, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, further strengthened the institutionalization of human rights by launching the National Human Rights Commission in 2001 in accordance with UN recommendations and by implementing policies such as the National Basic Livelihood Security Act (1999).

Ironically, South Korea’s authoritarian era helped cultivate democratic awareness among citizens. Although authoritarian suppressed civil liberties in the name of national security and economic development, rising economic prosperity heightened public expectations for dignity, rights, and political participation [6]. This, in turn, fueled widespread resistance to authoritarian rule. Ultimately, South Korea was able to overcome its long-standing authoritarianism and build a robust democratic foundation.

2.   Leadership in an Era of Consolidating Human Rights

Although South Korea had established a democratic foundation, the effective protection of substantive human rights remained incomplete [7]. Consequently, presidents elected after democratization sought to further institutionalize human rights, each with distinct priorities.

In 2003, former human-rights lawyer Roh Moo-hyun was elected as president. His administration emphasized participatory democracy and strengthened the role of the National Human Rights Commission. However, some corporations and conservative media expressed negative views toward these reforms, arguing that they could contribute to societal instability. This reaction illustrates how political backlash against human-rights initiatives and civic participation can emerge at any time.

Lee Myung-bak, a former CEO of Hyundai Group, was elected president in 2008. Considered a neo-conservative and often compared to President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher [8], he was credited with rapidly rebuilding the economy in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. However, his administration has been criticized for curtailing certain civil liberties—suppressing labor unions, restricting press freedom and cultural expression, and adopting a confrontational stance toward public protests. Even so, his administration laid an institutional foundation for immigrants’ human rights by enacting social-integration policies for the rapidly growing population of immigrants and multicultural families.

The next president, elected in 2013, was Park Geun-hye, daughter of Park Chung-hee, who once dominated South Korea during the authoritarian era. Her administration broadened the scope of human rights in South Korea by enacting the Refugee Act (2013) and the North Korean Human Rights Act (2016). However, the latter was criticized for prioritizing international pressure and sanctions on North Korea rather than meaningfully improving the practical rights of North Korean citizens. At the same time, she pursued policies that infringed on human rights domestically, including restrictions on freedom of expression through the creation of a blacklist targeting cultural and artistic figures critical of the administration [9]. Ultimately, her presidency collapsed after a mass citizens’ protest led to her impeachment.

Moon Jae-in, who had previously worked as a human rights lawyer alongside former president Roh Moo-hyun, was elected in the 2017 election held after Park Geun-hye’s impeachment. His administration emphasized social rights to ensure a dignified quality of life, enacting measures to expand welfare and protect vulnerable groups [10]. However, in relations with North Korea, he prioritized a diplomatic approach and adopted a cautious and restrained stance toward North Korea’s human-rights issues [11].

In 2022, Yoon Suk-yeol, a former prosecutor general, was elected president on a conservative platform. He emphasized the rule of law and advanced policies that highlighted North Korea’s human-rights violations in the international community [12]. However, due to severe difficulties in communicating with the opposition party, he came to view the opposition’s lack of cooperation as a national crisis and declared martial law [13]. Ultimately, facing substantial public resistance, he was removed from office through the impeachment. This episode illustrates that even leaders who invoke the language of law and human rights may encounter challenges in maintaining an appropriate balance during the practical implementation of policy.

After Yoon Suk-yeol was removed from office through impeachment, Lee Jae-myung—also a former human rights lawyer—was inaugurated as president in 2025. He now bears responsibility for revitalizing South Korean democracy and restoring human rights weakened under martial law, while simultaneously addressing the country’s rapidly evolving and increasingly complex human rights challenges.

Even after democratization, South Korea’s progression in human rights has not followed a linear path [14]. Throughout its modern history, South Korean citizens have alternated among leaders with diverse backgrounds, experiencing both advances and setbacks in human rights depending on their electoral choices. Nevertheless, what clearly distinguishes today’s South Korean leaders from their authoritarian predecessors is that—even when certain administrations have imposed comparatively greater restrictions on human rights—they have also taken steps to institutionalize protections concerning migrants, refugees, and North Korean residents. In doing so, they have contributed to expanding the human rights sphere in South Korea.

Most, importantly, this progress is largely attributable to the active role of citizens, who have functioned as a social safeguard by continually monitoring political authority and applying sustained pressure through civil society [15]. Consequently, the development of human rights in South Korea reflects an ongoing interaction between political leadership and civil society.

3.   The Current Status of Human Rights and the Challenges for Leadership

The current orientation of South Korean human rights policies emphasizes both the universal dignity of human beings and the expansion of human rights protections. These policy directions place increasing demands on political leaders, who must address the distinct human rights needs of diverse groups and social classes, including minorities, vulnerable groups, and North Korean residents. As the range of groups and issues encompassed within the human rights agenda continues widens, the policy landscape becomes correspondingly more complex.

Domestic Issues: Expanding Social Rights

Even half a century ago, the primary focus of Korea’s human rights movement was securing basic labor rights under a dictatorship that drove rapid industrialization. Today, however, the core direction of human rights in South Korea has shifted toward strengthening social rights that safeguard human dignity.

One of the most pressing issues concerning social rights is the establishment of decent working conditions. South Korea continues to face challenges such as the longest working hours and the highest rate of industrial accidents among advanced economies [16] [17], as well as substantial disparities in wages and treatment between full-time employees and temporary workers [18]. In response, the government has introduced limits on working hours, strengthened industrial-safety inspections, and increased the minimum wage. At the same time, to protect human-rights violations occur within private and semi-private spheres (e.g., the workplace and military) beyond the immediate reach of administrative oversight, the government has enacted measures including the Workplace Harassment Prohibition Provisions (2019) and the Military Human Rights Ombudsman System (2020).

These policies aim to guarantee citizens the right to a minimum standard of living and protection from major social risks. Nevertheless, the benefits of the policies accrue only to certain advantaged groups [19]. Moreover, some reforms face resistance due to the economic burdens they impose. Given these factors, South Korean leaders must consider the practical implementation of the policies.

Migrant and Immigrant: South Korea’s New Human-Rights Frontier

Until the 1980s, South Korea had been a country that exported its labor force abroad. However, after the 1990s, as the country experienced rapid economic development and significant demographic change, it transformed into an “immigration-receiving country” [20]. In 2006, the number of foreign residents stood at only 530,000. By 2023, however, it had increased nearly fourfold to 2.26 million, or 4.4% of the population [21]. This rapid influx of foreign residents presents South Korea with a new and complex challenge in terms of human-rights leadership.

In 2004, the South Korean government granted migrant workers the legal right to work in the country through the establishment of the Employment Permit System, mandating written labor contracts, set basic labor standards and provided avenues for dispute resolution for migrant workers. Despite these efforts, restrictions on changing workplaces, language barriers, and the risk of retaliatory violence from employers make it difficult for migrant workers to fully assert their rights [22]. Meanwhile, as rural populations migrated to cities, the number of marriageable women in rural areas declined, contributing to an increase in international marriages—primarily with women from Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Multicultural families formed through such marriages have long faced discrimination in South Korea, a society historically composed of a single ethnic group. In response, the government enacted the Multicultural Family Support Act (2008) to support immigrant women and their children by providing services, including language education and family counseling. However, these policies are often criticized as insufficient to address deeper structural issues, including racism, social stigma, and institutional discrimination [23].

Unlike many Western societies, South Korea does not have a long history of receiving immigrants, and the protection of immigrants’ human rights remains a relatively unfamiliar and underdeveloped area of public policy. Consequently, South Korean leaders must ensure that administrative bodies are equipped to effectively safeguard immigrants. They must also consistently communicate that multicultural families are legitimate members of South Korean society.

North Korean Human Rights: A Cross-Border Governance Challenge

South Korea has a distinctive characteristic compared to other nations in that it bears responsibility not only for human rights of its own citizens but also for those of North Korea. Although South Korea is currently divided from North Korea, its constitution continues to designate North Korea as part of its national territory and identifies the protection of North Korean residents’ human rights as a constitutional obligation. However, because South Korea cannot directly regulate the daily lives of people in North Korea, the protection of human rights there remains largely abstract and aspirational. Moreover, persistent political and military tensions create unavoidable challenges in balancing efforts to advocate for human rights in North Korea with the need to maintain diplomatic stability with the North Korean government.

Thus, policies relating to North Korean human rights have lacked consistency and have often been politicized across administrations [24]. Liberal governments have tended to emphasize humanitarian assistance, tension reduction, and increased inter-Korean engagement. Seeking long-term improvements in relations, they have generally expressed caution in directly criticizing North Korea. In contrast, conservative administrations have adopted a pressure-oriented approach, actively supporting UN resolutions condemning human rights abuses in North Korea.

Both approaches entail trade-offs. Strategies centered on engagement risk downplaying the urgent suffering of North Korean residents, while pressure-focused strategies may heighten tensions and reduce opportunities for humanitarian aid. As a result, North Korea’s human-rights issues—deeply intertwined with ideology, national identity, and moral responsibility—will continue to present South Korean leaders with complex dilemmas in determining the most appropriate and effective course of action.

4.   Conclusion

South Korean leaders currently govern in a context where human rights are widely valued yet occasionally contested. They are tasked with building human-rights policies within a landscape shaped by the legacy of democratization, active civil-society oversight, rapid social and demographic transformation, and complex geopolitical conditions. In this environment, they must not only secure the political freedom of their citizens but also extend equal treatment and social protection to rapidly increasing immigrant populations, all while maintaining a consistent stance on the human rights of North Korean residents beyond the South’s borders.

Thus far, although heightened political tensions have led to actual human-rights violations, the progress of advancing human rights in South Korea has been evident in the expansion of social rights and in growing public awareness of marginalized groups. At the same time, despite the maturation of civil society, discrimination against minorities and vulnerable groups persists as a social and cultural challenge that must still be overcome. Moreover, it is also necessary to protect social groups such as LGBTQ+ individuals, who still lack adequate institutional safeguards [25].

In the process of human rights development in South Korea, its key momentum has come not only from the actions of leaders but from the power and choices of citizens. Increasingly, citizens recognize themselves as active participants with legitimate rights.

Therefore, it is appropriate to understand human rights leadership in South Korea as fundamentally relational—formed in interaction with civil society. Although leaders may propose or challenge the boundaries of rights, such processes unfold through engagement with citizens. While this interaction is healthy, human rights tend to expand and advance; when it breaks down, the risk of regression grows, but so does the likelihood that citizens will actively raise their voices. Ultimately, the future of human rights in South Korea depends not only on who holds political power but also on how Korean society as a whole defines, defends, and reconstructs human dignity in a rapidly changing world.

Footnotes

¹ Nilsson-Wright, J. (2022). Contested politics in South Korea: Democratic evolution, national identity and political partisanship. Royal Institute of International Affairs. https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135300

² Kim, S. (2000). The politics of democratization in Korea: The role of civil society. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjt8k

³ The Korea Times. (2010, October 31). Park got dictatorial powers with Yushin Constitution in 1972. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/20101031/park-got-dictatorial-powers-with-yushin-constitution-in-1972

⁴ Kim, S. (2000). The politics of democratization in Korea: The role of civil society. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjt8k

⁵ Korean Cultural Centre UK. (n.d.). Transition to democracy and transformation into an economic powerhouse. KCCUK. https://kccuk.org.uk/en/about-korea/history/transition-democracy-and-transformation-economic-powerhouse/

⁶ The Korea Society. (2025). Seeds of mobilization: The authoritarian roots of South Korea's democracy [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDcg5NriLCA

⁷ Sin, T. C. (1999). Mass politics and culture in democratizing Korea. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gVia5X5oEc8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Gi-Wook+Shin+(1999).+Mass+Politics+and+Culture+in+Democratizing+Korea.+Cambridge+University+Press.&ots=Al3W5YACwW&sig=gSGoXBzpjm-tw_NdjFgNUaEodEY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

⁸ Kim, S.-h. (2008). Korea’s conservatives strike back: An uncertain revolution in Seoul. Global Asia. https://www.globalasia.org/v3no1/feature/koreas-conservatives-strike-back-an-uncertain-revolution-in-seoul_sung-ho-kim

⁹ The Korea Times. (2024, February 2). Prison sentences finalized for 2 ex-presidential officials in artist blacklist scandal. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/law-crime/20240202/prison-sentences-finalized-for-2-ex-presidential-officials-in-artist-blacklist-scandal

¹⁰ Kwon, S. (2020). The Ideals and Realities of Labor Reform under the Moon Jae-in Government: From Inclusive Security Strategy to Smoothed Dualization Strategy. Korea Social Policy Review (한국사회정책), 27(1), 129-152. https://doi.org/10.17000/kspr.27.1.202003.129

¹¹ Brennan, E. (2017, May 11). South Korea’s first “human rights president.” Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/south-korea-s-first-human-rights-president

¹² Yeo, A. (2023, March 20). South Korea as a global pivotal state. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/south-korea-as-a-global-pivotal-state/

¹³ Cha, V., & Lim, A. (2024, December 3). Yoon declares martial law in South Korea. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/yoon-declares-martial-law-south-korea

¹⁴ The Korea Society. (2025). Seeds of mobilization: The authoritarian roots of South Korea's democracy [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDcg5NriLCA

¹⁵ Human Rights Watch. (2025, January 16). South Korea: Rights and democracy prevail. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/01/16/south-korea-rights-and-democracy-prevail

¹⁶ Korea Development Institute. (2023). Labor market trends and policy implications (KDI Focus No. 18149). https://www.kdi.re.kr/research/focusView?pub_no=18149

¹⁷ The Korea Times. (2025, August 15). Korea’s construction worker death rate highest among major OECD economies: Data. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/society/20250815/koreas-construction-worker-death-rate-highest-among-major-oecd-economies-data

¹⁸ Chang, M., & Saxena, S. (2018). Labor market duality in Korea (IMF Working Paper No. 18/126). International Monetary Fund. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2018/126/article-A001-en.xml

¹⁹ Song, J. (2023). Reinforcement of labor market dualism and inequality in South Korea: The legacies of state-led coordination and the dominance of enterprise unions. Journal of International and Area Studies, 30(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.23071/jias.2023.30.1.129

²⁰ Kim, D. J. (2016). The past, present, and future of South Korea’s human rights diplomacy viewed in the context of the international human rights system. https://www.ifans.go.kr/knda/com/fileupload/FileDownloadView.do?storgeId=c61b04e5-0182-4c75-ad21-828ecacfb855&uploadId=30310081131626171&fileSn=1

²¹ Ministry of the Interior and Safety. (2023, November 8). Domestic foreign resident population reaches 2.26 million, 4.4% of total population. Press release. https://www.mois.go.kr/frt/bbs/type010/commonSelectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000008&nttId=104789

²² Amnesty International. (2014). South Korea: Migrant workers still vulnerable to exploitation under the Employment Permit System (EPS) (ASA 25/004/2014). https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa25/004/2014/en/

²³ Watson, I. (2010). Multiculturalism in South Korea: A critical assessment. Asian Survey, 50(3), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472331003600549

²⁴ 정기쁨. (2023). Human Rights in North Korea-The Conflict between Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Civil and Political Rights (Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Seoul National University). https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/handle/10371/193530

²⁵ Thoreson, R. (2024, September 23). Dangerous setback for minority rights in South Korea. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/23/dangerous-setback-minority-rights-south-korea

Bibliography

Amnesty International Annual Reports (1960-2024). https://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report-archive/

Amnesty International. (2014). South Korea: Migrant workers still vulnerable to exploitation under the Employment Permit System (EPS) (ASA 25/004/2014). https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa25/004/2014/en/

Brennan, E. (2017, May 11). South Korea’s first “human rights president.” Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/south-korea-s-first-human-rights-president

Cha, V., & Lim, A. (2024, December 3). Yoon declares martial law in South Korea. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/yoon-declares-martial-law-south-korea

Chang, M., & Saxena, S. (2018). Labor market duality in Korea (IMF Working Paper No. 18/126). International Monetary Fund. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2018/126/article-A001-en.xml

Equality Act Korea. (2024). Special review request on the NHRCK [PDF]. https://equalityact.kr/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Special_Review_Request_on_the_NHRCK%ED%8A%B9%EB%B3%84%EC%8B%AC%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%94%EC%B2%AD%EC%84%9C%EC%98%81%EB%AC%B8%EB%B3%B8.pdf

Fiori, A., & Kim, S. (2017). Civil society and democracy in South Korea: A reassessment. In Korea’s Quest for Economic Democratization: Globalization, Polarization and Contention (pp. 141-170). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio-Fiori/publication/319576196_Civil_Society_and_Democracy_in_South_Korea_A_Reassessment/links/5b5a6d44458515c4b24a039b/Civil-Society-and-Democracy-in-South-Korea-A-Reassessment.pdf

Human Resources Development Service of Korea. (n.d.). Employment Permit System (EPS) official website. https://www.eps.go.kr/eo/langMain.eo?langCD=ph

Human Rights Watch. (2025, January 16). South Korea: Rights and democracy prevail. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/01/16/south-korea-rights-and-democracy-prevail

Human Rights Watch. (n.d.). South Korea. https://www.hrw.org/asia/south-korea

Kim, D. J. (2016). The past, present, and future of South Korea’s human rights diplomacy viewed in the context of the international human rights system. https://www.ifans.go.kr/knda/com/fileupload/FileDownloadView.do?storgeId=c61b04e5-0182-4c75-ad21-828ecacfb855&uploadId=30310081131626171&fileSn=1

Kim, S. (2000). The politics of democratization in Korea: The role of civil society. University of pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjt8k

Kim, S. H. (2008). Korea's Conservatives Strike Back. Global Asia, 3(1), 78-85.. https://www.globalasia.org/v3no1/feature/koreas-conservatives-strike-back-an-uncertain-revolution-in-seoul_sung-ho-kim

Korea Development Institute. (2023). Labor market trends and policy implications (KDI Focus No. 18149). https://www.kdi.re.kr/research/focusView?pub_no=18149

The Korea Society. (2025). Seeds of mobilization: The authoritarian roots of South Korea's democracy [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDcg5NriLCA

The Korea Times. (2010, October 31). Park got dictatorial powers with Yushin Constitution in 1972. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/20101031/park-got-dictatorial-powers-with-yushin-constitution-in-1972

The Korea Times. (2024, February 2). Prison sentences finalized for 2 ex-presidential officials in artist blacklist scandal. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/law-crime/20240202/prison-sentences-finalized-for-2-ex-presidential-officials-in-artist-blacklist-scandal

The Korea Times. (2025, August 15). Korea’s construction worker death rate highest among major OECD economies: Data. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/society/20250815/koreas-construction-worker-death-rate-highest-among-major-oecd-economies-data

Korean Cultural Centre UK. (n.d.). Transition to democracy and transformation into an economic powerhouse. KCCUK. https://kccuk.org.uk/en/about-korea/history/transition-democracy-and-transformation-economic-powerhouse/

Kwon, S. (2020). The Ideals and Realities of Labor Reform under the Moon Jae-in Government: From Inclusive Security Strategy to Smoothed Dualization Strategy. Korea Social Policy Review (한국사회정책), 27(1), 129-152. https://doi.org/10.17000/kspr.27.1.202003.129

Labor Standards Act. (n.d.). Chapter IV: Work hours and recess (English translation). Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=25437&lang=ENG

Labor Standards Act. (2019). Workplace harassment prohibition provisions (English translation). Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=50313&lang=ENG

Minimum Wage Commission. (n.d.). Minimum wage in Korea: Official English website. https://www.minimumwage.go.kr/english/main.do

Ministry of the Interior and Safety. (2023, November 8). Domestic foreign resident population reaches 2.26 million, 4.4% of total population. Press release. https://www.mois.go.kr/frt/bbs/type010/commonSelectBoardArticle.do?bbsId=BBSMSTR_000000000008&nttId=104789

Multicultural Families Support Act. (2008). English translation. Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=29049&lang=ENG

National Basic Livelihood Security Act. (1999). English translation. Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63507&type=part&key=38

National Basic Living Security Act. (1999). English translation. Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=63507&type=part&key=38

Nilsson-Wright, J. (2022). Contested politics in South Korea: Democratic evolution, national identity and political partisanship. Royal Institute of International Affairs. https://doi.org/10.55317/9781784135300

North Korean Human Rights Act. (2016). English translation. Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=38344&lang=ENG

Occupational Safety and Health Act. (2021). English translation. Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=63609&lang=ENG

Official Information disclosure Act. (1996). English translation. Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?lang=ENG&hseq=29982

Refugee Act. (2013). English translation. Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=43622&lang=ENG

Republic of Korea. (1987). Constitution of the Republic of Korea (English/Korean translation). Korea Legislation Research Institute. https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=1&lang=KOR

Sin, T. C. (1999). Mass politics and culture in democratizing Korea. Cambridge University Press.https://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gVia5X5oEc8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Gi-ook+Shin+(1999).+Mass+Politics+and+Culture+in+Democratizing+Korea.+Cambridge+University+Press.&ots=Al3W5YACwW&sig=gSGoXBzpjm-tw_NdjFgNUaEodEY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Song, J. (2023). Reinforcement of labor market dualism and inequality in South Korea: The legacies of state-led coordination and the dominance of enterprise unions. Journal of International and Area Studies, 30(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.23071/jias.2023.30.1.129

Thoreson, R. (2024, September 23). Dangerous setback for minority rights in South Korea. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/23/dangerous-setback-minority-rights-south-korea

Watson, I. (2010). Multiculturalism in South Korea: A critical assessment. Asian Survey, 50(3), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472331003600549

Yeo, A. (2023, March 20). South Korea as a global pivotal state. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/south-korea-as-a-global-pivotal-state/

정기쁨. (2023). Human Rights in North Korea-The Conflict between Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Civil and Political Rights (Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Seoul National University). https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/handle/10371/193530

Tanitoluwa Ayoola-Erinosho

Greensprings School

Lagos, Nigeria

Honorable Mention

HOW LEADERS IN NIGERIA PROMOTE AND UNDERMINE HUMAN RIGHTS

By Tanitoluwa Ayoola-Erinosho

Human rights are the fundamental freedoms and entitlements that belong to every person, regardless of race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. These rights are inherent, universal, and inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away or denied. Human rights include civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights that ensure individuals can live with dignity, equality, and freedom.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. In essence, everyone should be treated fairly and live without harassment, marginalization, or maltreatment. Every person deserves the rights to life and security of person, freedom from abuse, freedom of expression, and an adequate standard of living, which includes health and education, all without discrimination.

Nigeria is a country in West Africa. It is situated between the Sahel to the north and the Gulf of Guinea in the Atlantic Ocean to the south. It covers an area of 923,769 square kilometers. With a population of more than 236 million, it is the most populous country in Africa, and the world's sixth-most populous country.

Human rights in Nigeria are protected under the current constitution of 1999, and Nigeria has made major improvements in human rights under this constitution. However, the American Human Rights Report of 2012 noted several areas where more improvement is needed, which include: abuses by Boko Haram, killings by government forces, lack of social equality and issues with freedom of speech. In the 2024 World Human Rights and Rule of Law Index, Nigeria ranked 120 out of 140 countries.

Over the past decade in Nigeria, human rights violations have affected millions of people. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) alone received hundreds of thousands of complaints each year, with 355,726 reported in December 2024 and 371,622 in September 2025, covering unlawful arrests, torture, gender-based violence, discrimination, and denial of justice. In addition, rights groups reported that between 2021 and 2023 in the South-East region, at least 1,844 people were killed, and many more were subjected to enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, and other abuses. These figures illustrate that a significant portion of Nigerians continue to experience violations of their fundamental rights across different regions and social groups.

It is expected of leaders to ensure that the human rights of every citizen are protected. However, statistics show that leaders are sometimes neither consistent nor tenacious in upholding human rights. In many cases, human rights are violated. For instance, in April 2014, Boko Haram’s abduction of nearly 300 schoolgirls in the town of Chibok focused unprecedented global attention on the group. In a shocking display of its military power, Boko Haram seized and controlled territory in the beleaguered northeastern states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa. In responding to the Islamist group, government security forces were also implicated in grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the treatment of Boko Haram suspects.

In 2024, many girls and young women who escaped Boko Haram captivity in north-east Nigeria continued to face human rights violations. Instead of receiving support, some were detained by the military without charge or legal help, while others struggled in displacement camps without access to healthcare, schooling, or social reintegration. These failures to protect survivors even after escape show how their basic rights to freedom, safety, and dignity were still denied.

In the same vein, elections in Nigeria have often been marked by human rights violations, showing that citizens’ rights to free expression, political participation, and security were not fully protected. For example, during the 2015 and 2019 general elections, reports highlighted vote buying, intimidation, attacks on opposition supporters, and harassment of election observers. In some areas, voters were threatened or physically attacked, polling stations were disrupted, and journalists covering the elections faced harassment. These actions undermined the right to free and fair elections, limiting people’s ability to participate safely in the democratic process and violating fundamental political and civil rights.

Firstly, it is important to note the positives, although they pale in comparison to the negatives. One way leaders in Nigeria try to help human rights is through education. In 1976, under the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo, came the inception of free education in Nigeria. As of 2024, about 72 per cent of school-age children in Nigeria are enrolled in basic education, including early childhood, primary, and junior secondary levels. However, nearly three out of every ten children, or roughly 28 per cent, still do not have access to formal schooling. While the current enrolment of 46.9 million children represents a significant improvement compared to the early years of Universal Primary Education in 1976, millions remain out of school, highlighting persistent gaps in access. Many of these children live in rural or conflict-affected areas, face poverty, or encounter gender-based barriers, particularly girls in northern regions. However, experts say that despite decades of investment and policy initiatives, Nigeria continues to face major challenges in ensuring that every child’s right to education is fully realized.

One would agree that the importance of education cannot be overestimated. Education is crucial for any functioning society. Without access to education, skill acquisition, and gainful employment becomes an almost insurmountable challenge. The Universal Basic Education, or UBE, ensures free education for students from primary through secondary school. As well as the provision of textbooks, and the construction of more conducive and highly functional learning environments. This has greatly benefited the masses, especially children whose parents cannot afford quality education. Government initiatives to improve education are significant precursors to the promotion of human rights.

Furthermore, leaders in Nigeria play an important role in protecting the rights of women. Women and girls in the country are more prone to face numerous challenges, including domestic abuse, child marriage, and workplace discrimination. In 2015, the Nigerian government enacted the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act, which was intended to provide legal protection and justice for victims of abuse. In addition, there are ongoing campaigns aimed at preventing child marriage and promoting girls’ education, recognizing that every girl has the right to learn and live in safety. While these laws and initiatives represent significant steps forward, enforcement remains inconsistent, and many women still do not benefit fully from these protections. Despite leaders' efforts, these measures do not always reach the individuals who need them most, underscoring the need for continued focus on effective implementation and awareness.

In addition, healthcare should be regarded as a fundamental human right. Unfortunately, this has not necessarily been the case in Nigeria. For instance, in Nigeria, approximately 63% of the population is multidimensionally poor, with health shocks being a significant cause of impoverishment. Over 75% of Nigerians pay for their healthcare out-of-pocket, which exposes millions to poor health conditions. Often, the medicine is expensive and difficult to afford. In 2019, on average, health care made up six per cent of Nigerian household spending, with higher figures in rural areas than in urban zones.  

The National Health Insurance Scheme, NHIS, is supposed to help people pay for hospitals and treatment. There are also programs aimed at combating and treating major diseases across the country, like polio, malaria, and even COVID-19. Nonetheless, healthcare in Nigeria still poses a significant threat to the overall health of its citizens in many parts of the country. Several hospitals struggle with shortages of doctors, nurses, essential equipment, and even basic medicines, which makes it difficult for people to receive proper treatment when they need it most. The government continues to make efforts to improve the system through new policies, expanded facilities, and health programs. This makes the improvement of healthcare an integral part of developing the country and ensuring a better future for everyone.

People with disabilities in many countries often find themselves on the short end of the stick when it comes to the protection of human rights. In fact, Nigeria is perhaps one of the most inaccessible countries in the world to people with disabilities. The State of Disability Inclusion Report (SDIR) 2024 shows just how wide the gap remains: 28 per cent of health facilities in Nigeria lack basic accessibility features that persons with disabilities need to access care. Functional difficulties are even more prevalent among older age groups, at 1.9% for ages 15 to 29, 3.7% for ages 30 to 44, 9.7% for ages 45 to 64, and 38.8% for ages 65 and over. Across the six functional domains considered, difficulties with mobility (4%) and seeing (2.8%) are most common.

At the household level, the prevalence of any functional difficulties is at 18.2%, including 11.7% with some difficulty and 6.5% with at least a lot of difficulty. The prevalence of functional difficulties is higher in rural areas compared to urban areas: 7.4% vs. 5.8% among adults and 19.4% vs. 15.6% among households, for rural and urban areas, respectively.

Despite these challenges, however, Nigerian leaders have made some efforts geared toward supporting people with disabilities. They have successfully implemented educational programs that empower individuals to attend school, gain essential training, and secure meaningful employment opportunities. Strong legislation, such as the Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities( Prohibition) Act, protects against discrimination and ensures equal treatment across all sectors of society. 

This is crucial, as everyone deserves the same opportunities, irrespective of their physical or mental abilities. When individuals are unjustly treated because of a disability, it directly undermines the core principles and justice and equality. While these initiatives reflect a commitment from leaders to foster positive change, it is essential to recognise that they are not universally effective, and many individuals with disabilities continue to face significant challenges in accessing the support they need. 

When people are treated unfairly because of a disability, it goes against basic principles of justice and equality. Even though these initiatives show that leaders are trying to make things better, the reality is that they do not work effectively in every community, and many people with disabilities still struggle to receive the support they need.

Police brutality remains undoubtedly one of the most daunting problems posing a threat to the human rights of Nigerian citizens. The #EndSARS protests in 2020 depicted this in the most unflattering light. The Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) was a Nigerian Police Force unit created in late 1992 to deal with crimes associated with robbery, motor vehicle theft, kidnapping, cattle rustling, and firearms. This, however, took an unfortunate turn when they began harassing Nigerian youth, conducting indiscriminate arrests, and brutal killings. During the # EndSARS 2020 protests, unarmed civilians were vehemently attacked by the police. This was a violation of human rights in every sense. Nigerian youth were stripped of their right to life, the right to protest, and freedom of speech. Although the government dissolved the unit, the topic of ENDSARS remains an unspoken mystery. It was from this that the “Sọ̀rọ̀ Sọ́kè” movement was born. 

The Nigerian government undermines fundamental human rights by restricting free speech. There have been instances where they shut down newspapers, television stations, or social media platforms. For example, during the #EndSARS protests, Twitter was blocked for several days. In the same vein, Instagram Live was taken down to prevent a livestream of the protest. This action revealed the extent to which the government would push censorship of the media to silence the voices of its citizens. 

Freedom of speech is essential, as it empowers citizens to voice their concerns to leaders when they go astray. Silencing this freedom equates to stripping away a basic human right. 

Moreso, corruption continues to undermine the protection of human rights in Nigeria. When public funds meant for hospitals, schools, and clean water are diverted for personal use, the poorest and most vulnerable citizens suffer the most. 

The mismanagement of health budgets continues to deny people access to medical care, while the diversion of education funds prevents children from receiving the learning opportunities they deserve. These actions weaken social services, deepen poverty, and strip citizens of dignity and opportunity.

Insecurity across several regions also contributes significantly to human rights violations. The Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast has caused widespread violence, loss of life, and mass displacement. Many children in internally displaced persons camps are unable to attend school. Recent reports show that out of 188,606 school-age children in such camps in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe, only 57,606 are currently enrolled in school. This is part of a larger education crisis. Nigeria has an estimated 18,300,000 children out of school, which is one of the highest figures in the world. Among these children, 10,200,000 are of primary school age, and 8,100,000 are of junior secondary age. In addition, about 74 per cent of children aged seven to fourteen lack basic reading and mathematics skills. This situation represents a clear violation of the right to education and limits the country’s long-term development potential.

Elections in Nigeria face serious human rights challenges, including voter intimidation, ballot‑box snatching, and violence. For example, during the 2023 elections, armed thugs attacked voters and destroyed election materials in Lagos. In one case, a woman was stabbed while waiting to vote, but returned later to cast her ballot, showing both the dangers voters faced and their determination to participate. When people cannot vote freely and confidently, democratic accountability breaks down. Leaders who are not properly elected are less likely to prioritize policies that advance rights such as access to education, healthcare, and justice.

There are positive developments, however. Government programs aimed at expanding basic education, improving healthcare access, and protecting women and vulnerable groups reinforce a commitment to some aspects of human rights. Laws such as the one protecting women and the Universal Basic Education program demonstrate attempts to close the gap in essential services. Still, corruption, insecurity, restrictions on speech, police abuse, and electoral problems show that the progress is incomplete and that citizens continue to face serious barriers to fully enjoying their rights.

Observing other countries provides useful comparisons. Nations such as Canada, Germany, and Sweden maintain strong protections for freedom of speech, gender equality, healthcare access, and education. Their leaders perform under systems where independent courts, transparent institutions, and credible elections ensure that citizens’ rights are respected. While Nigeria’s context is different, these examples show that stronger institutions, reduced corruption, better enforcement of laws, and consistent respect for civic freedoms can greatly improve national well-being.

Citizens also play an essential role in safeguarding rights. Human rights do not depend only on government action. Public pressure, peaceful protest, civic participation, and the work of non-governmental organizations have forced leaders to respond to abuses. Movements like EndSARS showed that when people speak out collectively, they can push the government toward reform. Active citizenship encourages leaders to govern more responsibly.

In conclusion, human rights in Nigeria reflect a combination of progress and continuing challenges. Programs that support free education, basic healthcare, and the protection of women demonstrate genuine efforts toward improvement. However, corruption, insecurity, election problems, restrictions on speech, and police misconduct remain serious issues. Leaders have the responsibility to uphold and protect the rights of all citizens, but citizens must also demand accountability and good governance. If both work together, Nigeria can move toward a future where dignity, safety, education, and justice thrive, and development ensues.

Footnotes

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

United States Department of State, Nigeria Human Rights Report, 2012.

World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index 2024.

National Human Rights Commission, Annual Report on Human Rights Violations in Nigeria, 2024 and 2025.

International Crisis Group, Facing the Challenge of Boko Haram, 2023.

Human Rights Watch, Nigeria: Events of 2023, 2024.

UNICEF Nigeria, Education Opportunities for Out of School Children, 2022.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, Universal Basic Education Act, 2004.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act, 2015.

National Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF, State of Disability Inclusion Report, 2024.

Amnesty International, Nigeria 2024 Human Rights Report, 2024.

World Bank, Nigeria Human Capital Review, 2023.

INEC; European Union Election Observation Mission; Yiaga Africa, Nigeria Elections Reports, 2015 to 2023.

Human Rights Watch, Nigeria Police Abuses and the EndSARS Protests, 2021.

UNICEF Nigeria, Education Status of Internally Displaced Children in Northeast Nigeria, 2024.

Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2024, 2024.

Bibliography

Amnesty International. Nigeria 2024 Human Rights Report. Amnesty International, 2024.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. Government of Nigeria, 1999.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. Universal Basic Education Act. Universal Basic Education Commission, 2004.

Federal Republic of Nigeria. Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act. Government of Nigeria, 2015.

Human Rights Watch. Nigeria Police Abuses and the EndSARS Protests. Human Rights Watch, 2021.

Human Rights Watch. Nigeria: Events of 2023. Human Rights Watch, 2024.

INEC, European Union EOM, Yiaga Africa. Reports on Nigeria General Elections 2015 to 2023. Various Publications.

International Crisis Group. Facing the Challenge of Boko Haram. ICG, 2023.

National Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF. State of Disability Inclusion Report 2024. NBS, 2024.

National Human Rights Commission. Annual Report on Human Rights Violations in Nigeria 2024 and 2025. NHRC, 2025.

Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2024. Transparency International, 2024.

 UNICEF Nigeria. Education Opportunities for Out of School Children in Nigeria. UNICEF, 2022.

UNICEF Nigeria. Education Status of Internally Displaced Children in Northeast Nigeria. UNICEF, 2024.

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, 1948.

United States Department of State. Nigeria Human Rights Report 2012. US Government Printing Office, 2012.

World Bank. Nigeria Human Capital Review 2023. World Bank, 2023.

World Justice Project. Rule of Law Index 2024. World Justice Project, 2024.

Hugo Richards

Grade 10

Walter Payton College Preparatory School, Chicago, IL

1st Prize

Navigating the Line Between Liberty and Dignity

Hate speech, once confined to the fringes of society, is now more pervasive than ever, seeping into mainstream conversations, political speeches, and our social media feeds. In November 2024, racist and offensive text messages about slave catchers and mass deportations were sent to Black and Latino individuals across the United States. Recipients reported feeling targeted, hurt and unsafe,^[1] showing the real-world harm that hate speech causes. While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, can it cross the line from protected speech to violating human rights like dignity, equality and security?

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres considers hate speech a threat to human rights but suppressing it outright risks infringing freedom of speech. These conflicting rights pose a challenge for nations:protecting citizens from the harm of hate speech while preserving free speech. How, then, should hate speech be addressed in a way that navigates the line between upholding dignity (the right to inherent worth and value) and safeguarding liberty (the right to free expression)?

Hate Speech and Human Rights

Hate speech is on the rise.^[2] Fueled by the internet, it is increasingly exploited by extremists, cyberbullies and politicians. In today’s globally interconnected world, it impacts every society and culture, yet its lack of a universally accepted definition is one of its greatest challenges. Consistent with the UN, hate speech refers to any form of speech, writing, or behavior that attacks or discriminates against someone based on who they are.^[3] More than just provocative or offensive language, it deliberately intends to harm, intimidate and degrade based on immutable characteristics like race, sexual orientation or gender. It promotes hatred and division through excluding and dehumanizing individuals and groups. Rooted in underlying systemic inequalities, it functions as a ‘mechanism of subordination’, designed to reinforce power imbalances and keep marginalized communities oppressed.^[4]

As shown with the racist text messages, hate speech inflicts immediate and lasting mental, emotional and physical harm. But it doesn’t only need to target individuals by name to inflict injury. Indirect hate speech, such as broader racist or homophobic rhetoric, creates a climate of fear and exclusion, erodes victims’ dignity and security, and causes long-term psychological distress. Repeated exposure to hate speech has a cumulative, detrimental effect on societies, deepening divisions, silencing marginalized groups and denying them opportunities.^[5]

The more hate speech is normalized, the more it risks escalating to violence andhate crime, as seen with events like the Holocaust and 1994 Rwandan genocide. The
Anti-Defamation League's ‘Pyramid of Hate’ illustrates how hatefulbiases can escalate from thoughts to violent actions,^[6] evident in the 2019 Christchurch and 2022 Colorado mass shootings, where the attackersshared extremist views prior to their attacks.^[7]When politicians such asPresident Trump use global platforms to spread divisive rhetoric, like hisanti-Muslim and anti-immigrant comments, it normalizes hate,stokes division and encourages violence against minorities.^[8] This was seen in Myanmar in 2017, where anti-Rohingya language fueledtheir later persecution and genocide.^[9]

It is clear that hate speech threatens our human rights to live free and equal in dignity and rights, with security of person and without discrimination as enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).^[10] By promoting hatred and division, hate speech contradicts the core principle that everyone deserves the right to dignity, equal treatment, equal protection, and freedom from violence and discrimination.

However, suppressing hate speech outright, before it has a chance to be heard, risks infringing another human right: the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as also enshrined in the UDHR (Article 19). This right is protected in other international human rights frameworks like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 19) and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 1), and national constitutions like the U.S. First Amendment. Our right to free speech is at the core of democracy, truth and liberty and is crucial for us to exercise other rights, such as voting and assembly,^[11]so should it override our other rights when they conflict?

Free-speech advocates say yes,free speech should be prioritized to protect liberty.^[12] They argue that society benefits when it permits all ideas, even hateful and shocking ones, into a diverse 'marketplace of ideas' that will naturally allow strong ideas to prevail and weak ones to be rejected. This concept is rooted in John Milton’s centuries-old argument that truth will always triumph in a free and open exchange of ideas,^[13] and echoed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ assertion that the truest test of an idea lies in its ability to gain acceptance through open competition.^[14]Regulating hate speech, therefore, risks compromising democracy bythreatening liberties, stiflingopen debate, and leadingus down a dangerous path toward censorship and suppression.

However, in today’s digital age, the concept of a functioning marketplace requires re-examination.^[15] Online dissemination of hate speech often allows it to grow stronger, not weaker, and spread farther than Milton ever envisioned. Moreover, access to the digital marketplace is uneven, where some voices go unheard, and others are amplified to millions of followers. Even free-speech advocate John Stuart Mill acknowledged that limits on free speech would be necessary if its harm outweighed its benefit.^[16]

International Approaches

Despite the fundamental value offree speech, international frameworks like the UDHR (Article 1) and the ICCPR (Article 22.2) have increasingly advocated for hate speech restrictions. Western nations in Europe, along with countries like Canada, Brazil, Israel, India and Australia, have all passed laws restricting hate speech,^[17] affirming that freedom of expression may be limited to uphold the human rights of others. Reid (2024) describes this as the ‘dignity approach’, where nations maintain the right to free speech but place it secondary to the right to dignity.

Each country’s legal frameworkfor confronting hate speech reflectsits unique history. For example, Germany bans Nazi symbols to prevent the rise of far-right ideologies, while South Africa’s laws stem from its post-apartheid efforts at reconciliation. Canada enforces strict hate speech laws to protect its multi-ethnic and multi-racial society, and Brazil’s criminalization of hate propaganda derives from its history of slavery.^[18] Eleven European countries specifically criminalize Holocaust denial or justification.^[19] These examples illustrate that, while these nations differ in their experiences, each nation reinforces its commitment to rights of equal treatment and human dignity over free speech. Social philosopher Karl Popper advocated that free and open societiesshould maintain the right “not to tolerate the intolerant”, drawing a line between speech that contributes to democratic society, and speech that threatens it.^[20]

In contrast, the U.S. follows a ‘liberty approach’ (Reid, 2024) that prioritizes free speech over human dignity, as seen in the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision to defend a
neo-Nazi demonstration in Skokie, Illinois.^[21] This approach puts the U.S. out of step with almost every other liberal democracy, and ignores large numbers of Americans who support limits on hate speech.^[22]But First Amendment protection doesn’t grant the right to say anything you want. Some speech, like defamation and obscenity, is restricted as long as the restriction is content-neutral, meaning it cannot be banned simply for being offensive. Hate speech, therefore, remains protected in the U.S. unless it constitutes a true threator risksimminent harm,^[23] a standard that ignores the long-term harm hate speech causes, and disregards international human rights obligations.

Rather than altering First Amendment protections, the U.S. favors ‘counterspeech’ over censorship, advocating for “more speech, not enforced silence”.^[24] Peaceful counter-demonstrations, the public outpouring of opposition to the alt-right demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, and public backlash, like cancel culture, are examples of ways civil society can self-regulate without suppression.^[25]Although also endorsed by the UN,^[26]counterspeechcan dismiss real-life harm and allow hate speech to continue unchecked. Moreover, counterspeech is not feasible in cases like swastika graffiti, online hate posts, or the anonymous racist text messages previously referenced. Counterspeech, therefore, offers a potential solution, but not a complete one.

Furthermore, the U.S. legal framework faces criticism for failing to fully integrate international human rights treaties like the ICCPR into domestic law,^[27] creating legal and cultural gaps in global protections. These gaps have widened with the rise of digital communication, allowing hate speech and extremist ideologies to spread rapidly across borders. While 55% of EU respondents report experiencing online hate speech, the figure rises to 65% in the U.S.^[28] With over five billion internet users worldwide,^[29] content shared legally in the U.S., such as Holocaust denial, can instantly reach countries where it is criminalized, highlighting the urgent need for consistent international standards and regulations.

Social media amplifies the online spread of hate speech, with platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube profiting from engagement-driven algorithms that prioritize provocative and controversial content. While platforms pledge to remove harmful content, much still slips through. Facebook for example, with three billion monthly users, removed only 38% of flagged hate speech in 2018,^[30] and was instrumental in “supercharging” the spread of anti-Rohingya rhetoric in 2017.^[31] This enables extremists to push harmful ideologies into the mainstream, reach global audiences, and stoke real-world violence. While the EU requires hate speech removal within twenty-four hours, the U.S., prioritizing First Amendment protections, grants companies broad discretion. As a result, 40% of global hate speech now originates from U.S.-based platforms.^[32] Lenient content moderation policies, such as those advocated by Elon Musk for X, have increased online hate speech, misinformation and harassment,^[33] with use of the racist “N-word” surging by almost 500% since his acquisition.^[34]

In agreement with António Guterres, hate speech poses a significant threat to human rights of dignity, equality and security, exacerbated by the internet’s global reach, social media amplification, and inconsistent legal approachesbetween the U.S. and the international community. Attempts to remove online hate speech are often inadequate and fail to address underlying prejudices. So, how should governments deal with the threat of hate speech in a way that balances dignity and liberty?

Recommendations

Ideally, the U.S. would reconsider its position on the First Amendment to exclude certain forms of hate speech, as it has done with defamation and obscenity, and affirm that hate speech undermines dignity, violates the rights of its targets, and brings no value to the marketplace of ideas. This would also align with the international community in affirming the priority of human rights protections. However, given the strong resistance in the U.S. to amending it,^[35] these recommendations focus on content moderation, algorithm regulation, education, and international cooperation.

To counter hate speech’s global spread, governments need to enforce stricter content moderation policies on internet platforms. The U.S. has one of the most permissive regulatory environments, largely due to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996). This provision shields platforms from liability for user-generated content, letting them adopt a ‘hands-off’ approach to regulating content. By comparison, the EU, and countries like Germany and Australia, have implemented regulations that require platforms to remove harmful content, report criminal activity, and ensure transparency, with evidence suggesting this has reduced both online and offline hate in Germany.^[36] Australia also recently passed a social media ban for children under 16, emphasizing the social responsibility that platforms have in protecting young users from online harm.^[37] Repealing or reforming Section 230 would compel U.S. platforms to adopt stricter measures for detecting and removing hate speech, as well as geo-blocking content like Holocaust denial that violates laws in other countries. Governments should also enforce clear, consistent community guidelines that define harmful speech, ideally aligning with international frameworks like the UDHR.

To tackle the amplification of hate speech, another recommendation is to regulate the AI and algorithms used by social media platforms. These algorithms prioritize sensational content like hate speech to boost user engagement and maximize profit. The algorithms’ inability to understand linguistic diversity, coded hate speech and contextual nuances also allows hate speech to go undetected.^[38] Governments should impose stricter regulations on these algorithms, requiring platforms to increase accountability, improve reporting systems, and quickly remove flagged posts. Transparent practices would also enable advertisers and users to hold platforms accountable, advocate for better protections, or choose platforms that encourage safer, more inclusive content. Moreover, governments should mandate algorithm redesigns that promote inclusive and diverse content over harmful material, which would prevent the spread of hate speech while still protecting free speech.

Regulation alone, however, doesn’t deal with the societal attitudes, like prejudice, discrimination and ignorance, that fuel hate speech. Governments should invest in public awareness and educational campaigns that promote tolerance, empathy and diversity. These campaigns should collaborate with schools, organizations and digital platforms to educate about hate speech’s harm and empower communities to recognize and challenge it constructively. This would strengthen marginalized voices and create opportunities for counterspeech, such as calling out hateful rhetoric by politicians to help counter the normalization of hate. Additionally, governments should provide specialized support systems for victims, including mental health services, legal assistance, and advocacy groups, ensuring victims are heard and supported.

These three recommendations – holding platforms accountable, regulating algorithms, and confronting the root causes of hate speech – offer a comprehensive strategy for combating hate speech that affirms human dignity as paramount. However, hate speech’s global reach means no single country can address this problem in isolation. Its rapid proliferation online demands international cooperation, particularly from the U.S., to establish consistent norms, definitions, and enforcement. Collaborative geopolitical efforts should include binding international treaties and technology standards that promote a unifiedapproach to combating this shared global threat.

Conclusion

In line with António Guterres, it’s clear that hate speech undermines human rights of dignity, security and equality while fueling exclusion, fear and discrimination, making its harm outweigh any value as free speech. While the U.S. prioritizes liberty in dealing with hate speech, other nations prioritize dignity, imposing restrictions to protect human rights. However, hate speech’s prolific rise in recent years shows that not enough is being done. Governments worldwidehave the potential and responsibility to do even more to confront hate speech and its real-world consequences.

To combat the rapid spread of hate speech fueled by the internet and engagement-driven algorithms, governments should enforce stricter content moderation and transparency standards for social media platforms. Tackling the deeper societal prejudices that drive hate speech requires long-term government investment into public education campaigns and community support initiatives. To counter the inconsistencies in legal approaches worldwide, governments need to collaborate internationally to establish shared standards, definitions and norms.Finally, to send a powerful message to the international community, the U.S. should repeal Section 230, criminalize Holocaust denial and justification, and carve out an exception to the First Amendment for hate speech.

Governments hold the power to shape hate speech’sevolution and keep it out of the mainstream permanently. By failing to act, they risk allowing hate speech to continue to threaten human rights and human lives. However, by adopting balanced and comprehensive policies, governments can confront this threat by navigating the line between liberty and dignity and prioritizing the human rights of dignity, security and equality for everyone.

Bibliography

Amnesty International. Myanmar: Facebook’s systems promoted violence against Rohingya. September 29, 2022. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/.

Anti-Defamation League Anti-Bias Education. “The Pyramid of Hate.” ADL, April 14, 2021. https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/pyramid-hate-student-edition.

Anti-Defamation League. Online Hate and Harassment: The American Experience 2023. June 27, 2023.https://www.adl.org/resources/report/online-hate-and-harassment-american-experience-2023?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiArva5BhBiEiwA-oTnXWUqXqv-EA59L5bqPXFGNnoeEmMrHZiMr_A7x7I1V0fJEmR7-2z_URoCJtkQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.

Carlson, Caitlin R. Hate Speech. MIT Press, 2021.

Cortese, Anthony. Opposing Hate Speech. Praeger, 2006.

Council of Europe. European Convention on Human Rights. November 4, 1950. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf.

Delgado, Richard. “Words That Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 17, 1982. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000918.

Dixon, Stacy. “Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide.” Statista, May 2024. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/.

European Citizens’ Panel. “Tackling Hatred in Society.” European Commission, 2024. https://citizens.ec.europa.eu/tackling-hatred-society_en#:~:text=Hateful%20toxicity%20increased%20by%2030,times%20from%202022%20to%202023.
 

Faheid, Dalia, et al. “Authorities work to find the source of racist texts sent to Black people nationwide.” CNN, November 10, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/us/racist-texts-black-people-investigation-what-we-know/index.html.

Fish, Stanley. The First. Simon & Schuster, 2019.

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Poll: Majority of Americans believe First Amendment goes TOO FAR in the rights it guarantees. August 1, 2024. https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-majority-americans-believe-first-amendment-goes-too-far-rights-it-guarantees.

Foxman, Abraham H. and Christopher Wolf. Viral Hate. Macmillan, 2013.

Frankel, Sheera et al. “On Instagram, 11,696 examples of how hate thrives on social media.” New York Times, October 29, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/technology/hate-on-social-media.html.

Futtner, Nora and Natalia Brusco. “Hate Speech is On the Rise.” Geneva International Centre for Justice, March 12, 2024. https://www.gicj.org/gicj-reports/1970-hate-speech-on-the-rise.

Goldsmith, Jack. "Should International Human Rights Law Trump US Domestic Law?" Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 1: No. 2, Article 12., 2000. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol1/iss2/12.

Government Accountability Office. Online Extremism. January 12, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105553.

Government Accountability Office. Online Extremism is a Growing Problem, February 13, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/blog/online-extremism-growing-problem-whats-being-done-about-it.

Herz, Michael and Peter Molnar. The Content and Context of Hate Speech. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Heyman, Steven J. Free Speech and Human Dignity. Keystone, 2008.

Kemp, Simon. “Digital 2024: Global Overview Report.” DataReportal, January 31, 2024. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-global-overview-report#:~:text=More%20than%2066%20percent%20of,since%20the%20start%20of%202023.

Lewis, Anthony. Freedom for the Thought that we Hate. Basic Books, 2007.

MacCarthy, Mark. “What Should Policymakers Do to Encourage Better Platform Content Moderation?” Forbes, May 22, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2019/05/14/what-should-policymakers-do-to-encourage-better-platform-content-moderation/?sh=94c7a831ee49.

Menczer, Filippo. “Elon Musk says relaxing content rules on Twitter will boost free speech.” Nieman Lab, May 9, 2022.https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/05/elon-musk-says-relaxing-content-rules-on-twitter-will-boost-free-speech-but-research-shows-otherwise/.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Originally published 1859. Reprint, Penguin Classics, 2006.

Milton, John. Areopagitica, 1644. Ed. Edward Arber. Saifer: Philadelphia, 1972.

Müller, Karsren et al. “The effect of content moderation on online and offline hate.” CEPR VoxEU, November 23, 2022. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/effect-content-moderation-online-and-offline-hate.

Nderitu, Alice W. “Intolerance, Hate Speech Often Very Cause of Wars.” UN Security Council, June 14, 2024, https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15731.doc.htm.

Pal, Alasdair and Cordelia Hsu, “Australia's under-16 social media ban sparks anger and relief,” Reuters, November 29, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-pm-albanese-says-social-media-firms-now-have-responsibility-protect-2024-11-28/.

Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Originally published 1945. Reprint, Princeton University Press, 1994.

Post, Robert C. “Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment,” William and Mary Law Review, 32 ,1991. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol32/iss2/4.

Reid, John W. “Liberty vs. Dignity? A Euro-American Comparison of Two Free Speech Baselines.” Constitutional Discourse, May 15, 2024. https://constitutionaldiscourse.com/liberty-vs-dignity-a-euro-american-comparison-of-two-free-speech-baselines/.

Schweppe, Jennifer and Mark Austin Walters. The Globalization of Hate: Internationalizing Hate Crime?  Oxford University Press, 2016.

Sternberg, Robert (Ed.) Perspectives on Hate. American Psychological Association, 2020.

Strossen, Nadine. “Counterspeech in Response to Changing Notions of Free Speech.” American Bar Association, May 2018,

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/counterspeech-in-response-to-free-speech/.

Strossen, Nadine. HATE. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Tsesis, Alexander. “Dignity and Speech: The Regulation of Hate Speech in a Democracy.” Wake Forest Law Review 44, May 2009. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs/40/.

United Nations. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. December 16, 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights.

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. December 10, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

United NationsArticles:

-          “Freedom of speech is not freedom to spread racial hatred on social media,” January 6, 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2023/01/freedom-speech-not-freedom-spread-racial-hatred-social-media-un-experts.

-          “Hate Speech versus Freedom of Speech,” May 2019. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech.

-          “UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech,”May 2019. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/un-strategy-and-plan-of-action-on-hate-speech.

Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press, 2012.

---

^[1]Dalia Faheid et al., “Authorities work to find the source of racist texts sent to Black people nationwide,” CNN, November 10, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/09/us/racist-texts-black-people-investigation-what-we-know/index.html.

^[2]Government Accountability Office, Online Extremism is a Growing Problem, February 13, 2024, https://www.gao.gov/blog/online-extremism-growing-problem-whats-being-done-about-it.

^[3]United Nations, UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, 2019, https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/un-strategy-and-plan-of-action-on-hate-speech.

^[4]Robert C. Post, “Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment,” William and Mary Law Review, 32 1991, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol32/iss2/4, p.273.

^[5]Richard Delgado, “Words That Wound: A Tort Action for Racial Insults, Epithets, and Name-Calling,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 17, 1982, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000918, pp.136-40.

^[6]Anti-Defamation League Anti-Bias Education, “The Pyramid of Hate,” ADL, April 14, 2021, https://www.adl.org/resources/tools-and-strategies/pyramid-hate-student-edition.

^[7]Government Accountability Office, Online Extremism, January 12, 2024, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105553, p.2.

^[8] Nora Futtner and Natalia Brusco, “Hate Speech is On the Rise,” Geneva International Centre for Justice, March 12, 2024, https://www.gicj.org/gicj-reports/1970-hate-speech-on-the-rise.

^[9]Alice Wairimu Nderitu, “Intolerance, Hate Speech Often Very Cause of Wars,” UN Security Council, June 14, 2024,https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15731.doc.htm.

^[10]Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 1-3, https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

^[11] Robert Sternberg, Perspectives on Hate, American Psychological Association, 2020, p.207.

^[12] For example in the U.S., the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (https://www.thefire.org/), and the American Civil Liberties Union (https://www.aclu.org/).

^[13]John Milton, Areopagitica, 1644, ed. Edward Arber, Saifer: Philadelphia, 1972, p.74.

^[14]Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919).

^[15] Stanley Fish, The First, Simon & Schuster, 2019, pp.47-9.

^[16] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, originally published 1859, reprint Penguin Classics, 2006, p.16.

^[17]Alexander Tsesis, “Dignity and Speech: The Regulation of Hate Speech in a Democracy,” Wake Forest Law Review 44, May 2009, https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs/40/, p.521.

^[18]Caitlin Ring Carlson, Hate Speech, MIT Press, 2021, pp.46-70.

^[19] Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, Basic Books, 2007, pp.157-8.

^[20] Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, originally published 1945, reprint, Princeton University Press, 1994, p.581.

^[21] National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).

^[22] American Bar Association surveys from 1991-2008: respondents believing the government should ban hate speech, the lowest agreement 53% (2005) and the highest agreement 78% (1999). In Strossen, 2018.
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education survey, 2024: 63-69% Americans believe First Amendment goes too far in the rights it protects, August 1, 2024, https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-majority-americans-believe-first-amendment-goes-too-far-rights-it-guarantees.

^[23] Abraham H. Foxman and Christopher Wolf, Viral Hate, Macmillan, 2013, pp.63-7.

^[24]Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1926).

^[25] Arthur Jacobson and Bernhard Schlink, “Hate Speech and Self Restraint,” in The Content and Context of Hate Speech, ed. Michael Herz and Peter Molnar, Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp.220-1.

^[26] “Hate Speech versus Freedom of Speech,” United Nations, May 2019, https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech.

^[27] Jack Goldsmith, "Should International Human Rights Law Trump US Domestic Law?," Chicago Journal of International Law: Article 12., 2000, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol1/iss2/12, p.331.

^[28]European Citizens’ Panel, “Tackling Hatred in Society,” European Commission, 2024, https://citizens.ec.europa.eu/tackling-hatred-society_en#:~:text=Hateful%20toxicity%20increased%20by%2030,times%20from%202022%20to%202023.
Anti-Defamation League, Online Hate and Harassment: The American Experience 2023, June 27, 2023, https://www.adl.org/resources/report/online-hate-and-harassment-american-experience-2023?gad_source=URoCJtkQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.

^[29] Simon Kemp, “Digital 2024: Global Overview Report,” DataReportal, January 31, 2024, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-global-overview-since%20the%20start%20of%202023.

^[30]Sheera Frankel et al., “On Instagram, 11,696 examples of how hate thrives on social media,” New York Times, October 29, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/technology/hate-on-social-media.html.
Stacy Dixon, “Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide,” Statista, May 2024, https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/.

^[31] “Myanmar: Facebook’s systems promoted violence against Rohingya,” Amnesty International, September 29, 2022, https://www.amnesty.g/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/.

^[32] Government Accountability Office, Online Extremism, p.30.

^[33]Filippo Menczer, “Elon Musk says relaxing content rules on Twitter will boost free speech,” Nieman Lab, May 9, 2022,https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/05/elon-musk-says-relaxing-content-rules-on-twitter-will-boost-free-speech-but-research-shows-otherwise/.

^[34] United Nations, “Freedom of speech is not freedom to spread racial hatred on social media: UN experts,” UN News, January 6, 2023, https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2023/01/freedom-speech-not-freedom-spread-racial-hatred-social-media-un-experts.

^[35] Carlson, p.159.

^[36] EU’s Digital Services Act (2020), Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (2018) and Australia’s Online Safety Act (2021). In Jennifer Schweppe and Mark Austin Walters, The Globalization of Hate: Internationalizing Hate Crime?, Oxford University Press, 2016, p.248.
Karsten Müller et al., “The effect of content moderation on online and offline hate,” CEPR VoxEU, November 23, 2022, https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/effect-content-moderation-online-and-offline-hate.

^[37] Alasdair Pal and Cordelia Hsu, “Australia's under-16 social media ban sparks anger and relief,” Reuters, November 29, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-pm-albanese-says-social-media-firms-now-have-responsibility-protect-2024-11-28/.

^[38]Mark MacCarthy, “What Should Policymakers Do to Encourage Better Platform Content Moderation?” Forbes, May 22, 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2019/05/14/what-should-policymakers-do-to-encourage-better-platform-content-moderation/?sh=94c7a831ee49.

Yulisa Ma

11^th grade

Miss Porter’s School, Farmington, CT

2nd Prize

When Words Wound: The Case for

Limiting Hate Speech to Protect Human Rights

In societies, freedom of speech is considered the key of democracy, allowing individuals to express their thoughts and ideas without fear of censorship or punishment. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) reaffirms this principle, stating that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”^[1]

While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, certain circumstances reveal that protecting one person's right to express hate speech can directly violate others' rights, leading to silencing, intimidation, or discrimination. When speech crosses into hate speech—any kind of communication that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group based on identity factors—it poses a real threat to the human rights and freedoms of those targeted.^[2]

Hate speech not only perpetuates inequality and discrimination but also undermines the dignity, mental well-being, and security of its targets, with the potential to incite violence, ultimately suppressing their voices and involvement in society. Given these threats to human rights, hate speech should not fall under the protection of free speech; rather, governments should implement restrictive legislation, and promote counterspeech, to effectively combat its harmful impact.

Dignity is the foundation of all human rights as stated in the first sentence of the preamble of UDHR: “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”^[3] In a just society, one’s dignity should be recognized and upheld by other citizens. However, in publicly denying the status of its targets as social equals, hate speech undermines the public assurance that their status is secure. Moreover, public hate reaches out to other hateful persons to affirm and even empower their voices. Instead of assuring dignity, it is replaced with the assurance of hatred.^[4]

Hate speech delivers offensive discourse towards a group or an individual based on their inherent characteristics, such as race, religion, gender, or ethnicity.^[5] It serves to fuel discrimination by reinforcing harmful stereotypes and creating damaging narratives about the targeted groups, ultimately disseminating these ideas to a wider public. A study of violence in Sweden found that hateful speech spurs negative emotions toward the target community among listeners.^[6] Furthermore, research shows that, over time, messages spread by hate speech take root within societal attitudes and norms, creating an environment where discrimination becomes normalized, particularly against minorities who often lack the social power to defend themselves effectively.^[7]

The direct effects of language and content of hate speech, along with its societal consequences, have a significant impact on the targeted individual’s mental well-being. Empirical findings suggest that targets of hate speech often experience negative psychological consequences—such as greater anxiety, feelings of fear and insecurity, and sleeping disorders—that can be considered as similar to the effects of traumatizing events.^[8] Individuals facing hate speech also experience feelings of ostracization and have often been linked with depression, low self-esteem, and diminished quality of life, resulting in further social alienation.^[9]

As hate speech justifies prejudice and normalizes discrimination, it amplifies hostility and influences other members of society to stop viewing the targeted groups as equals. The targeted groups are deprived of dignity, and implanted with a sense of fear and alienation, therefore resulting in the minimizing and suppression of their voices. This creates an environment where minorities feel pressured into silence, fearing further hostility if they speak out. This self-censorship is a direct response to threats or intimidation stemming from hate speech. Research shows that victims of hate speech avoid expressing their views publicly due to feelings of insecurity.^[10] They suffer a “chilling effect,” where individuals self-censor as they seek to avoid potential harm.^[11] In a 2017 European survey, 75% of those who followed or participated in online debates had encountered instances of abuse and threats, with almost half of these respondents saying that this deterred them from engaging in online discussions.^[12] According to a report by Amnesty International, 41% of women who had experienced online abuse or harassment reported feeling physically unsafe afterward. Around 32% of women said they stopped posting content that expressed their opinion on certain issues.^[13] This data shows how hate speech silences marginalized voices, hindering certain groups’ right to free expression and participation in society openly.

Hate speech extends beyond personal insult; it creates a social atmosphere that discourages the targeted groups from participating in political and civic life. In public settings, citizens need to have the assurance that their dignity is safeguarded in order to feel free to voice their opinions, pursue their aims, and participate without fear or shame.^[14] However, hate speech deprives its victims of the safe psychological conditions needed, therefore, targeted individuals are less likely to engage in democratic activities like attending rallies, or running for office.^[15] This leads to a lack of representation of the targeted group, making it less likely that the concerns and needs of these communities would be addressed in policy and governance, further marginalizing them from the democratic process. Hate speech creates a self-reinforcing cycle of exclusion: without the public voice or political ability to advocate for themselves, the societal prejudices against the groups deepen, causing further alienation.

Hate speech threatens the security of individuals and broader communities who share the targeted identity, directly opposing the rights guaranteed in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”^[16] While this declaration pertains to many rights, the idea that hate speech threatens the security of individuals could mean their safety of self. Hate speech often serves as a precursor to hate crime. The incendiary language used in hate speech stirs anger, fear, and resentment toward specific groups. By promoting an "us versus them" narrative, hate speech fosters distrust and division within communities, leading to the dehumanization of outgroups who are framed as threats or enemies. This dehumanization, in turn, emboldens audiences to feel justified in targeting those they perceive as outsiders. Research shows that when individuals dehumanize others, they feel less moral responsibility toward them, which increases the likelihood of aggression and violence.^[17] This escalation poses a threat not only to the safety of targeted groups but also to society at large.

Public and political speeches given by influential figures or leaders that contain hateful rhetoric often hold significant power to incite violence. Part of the problem is that leaders’ remarks do not fade away after they are given. Incendiary rhetoric from political leaders against minority groups, and other targets is often quickly magnified.^[18] Public speech that contains bias and discrimination sets an example for its widespread audience, encouraging them to declare their own prejudices and act on them accordingly, even legitimizing hate-fueled aggression among supporters. This can be seen in the case of former U.S. President Donald Trump and how his frequent use of derogatory comments accompanied with fabricated information in targeting minority groups correlates with the rise of hate crime in the United States. A study based on data collected by the Anti-Defamation League shows that state counties that hosted a Trump campaign rally in 2016 saw hate crime rates more than double compared to similar counties that did not host a rally.^[19] FBI data also shows that since Trump’s election, there has been an anomalous spike in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins.^[20] Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric during his 2016 campaign and presidency led to notable upticks in hate crimes against the Muslim community. Researchers at California State University analyzed data across 20 states and reported 196 incidents of hate crimes against Muslims in the US in 2015, a 78 percent increase over the prior year.^[21] The trend continued in 2016, anti-Muslim hate crime incidents rose dramatically in 2015 and then increased a further 44 percent in 2016.^[22] These statistics demonstrate how public hateful rhetoric could incite violence and threaten the right to security of the targeted group.

While politicians have a large platform, social media has amplified the reach of hate speech by giving the average person more of an opportunity to spout such hate. On social media, users’ experiences online are mediated by algorithms designed to maximize their engagement, not their safety, which often lead to the promotion of extreme content. The digital platforms also allow fringe sites, including peddlers of conspiracies, to reach audiences far broader than their core readership.^[23] In the age of social media, inflammatory speech online has been linked with real-world violent acts. In 2018, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter was an active user on the social media network Gab, known for its minimal content restrictions, which attract extremists banned by mainstream platforms. On Gab, he posted repeatedly about the “great replacement” conspiracy—a belief that Jews were supporting immigration to undermine white populations. This toxic rhetoric, which fueled demographic anxieties about immigration and birth rates, had been echoed previously in the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. Believing this conspiracy, he targeted a Jewish congregation, killing 11 worshippers gathered for a refugee-themed service.^[24] This example exemplifies how unchecked hate speech on social media can radicalize individuals, resulting in tragic real-world violence.

Given the violence provoked by hate speech and its detrimental effects on society and human rights, countries’ governments should take the responsibility to address this pressing issue. Effective measures must be implemented to combat hate speech. Implementing a full ban on hate speech is complex. A ban on hate speech is often hard to enforce due to its subjective nature and the challenge of defining harmful speech versus protected opinion. However, while a blanket ban may be difficult, establishing legislation can set a clear stance against hate speech, guide societal norms, and give legal instructions on when and how to intervene in the most severe cases.

The European Union (EU) offers an example of this approach, having declared hate-motivated crimes and speech illegal across member countries. Hate speech is defined in EU law as the public incitement to violence or hatred on the basis of certain characteristics, including race, color, religion, descent and national or ethnic origin.^[25] The Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia (2008) mandates a criminal-law approach to hate speech in public forums such as rallies and speeches across the EU. This approach is intended to ensure that “the same behavior constitutes an offense in all Member States,” and that penalties are “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive” for individuals and organizations involved.^[26] By standardizing the definition and penalties, the EU aims to create a unified stance against hate crimes and ensure consistent enforcement across countries.

Countries that address and combat hate speech have shown success in reducing hate speech and crime, illustrating the benefits of such policies. In England and Wales, for example, hate crimes decreased significantly over a 13-year period, falling by 38% from an estimated 307,000 incidents per year to 190,000 incidents annually.^[27] In contrast, countries without hate speech regulations, such as the United States, have seen increases in hate crimes. U.S. hate crimes have reached their highest levels in over a decade, with 7,759 incidents reported in 2020 — a 6% increase from 2019, showing a steeper growth than previous years.^[28] As demonstrated by the statistics, restrictions on hate speech would help guarantee the right to security of the public.

Since online platforms have played a major role in the dissemination of hate messages and inciting violence in real life, governments need to establish regulations that guide the removal of harmful content and ensure greater accountability for tech companies in monitoring their platforms. Germany enacted the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) in 2018, which obligates the covered social media networks to remove content that is “clearly illegal” within 24 hours after receiving a user complaint. If the illegality of the content is not obvious on a surface level, the social network has seven days to investigate and delete it.^[29] A recent study has shown that this regulation not only decreased the presence of inflammatory content online but also reduced offline hate crimes by about 1% for every standard deviation increase in far-right social media exposure.^[30] Germany’s policy demonstrates the potential of regulatory action, marking a step towards reducing inflammatory online content and therefore curbing related hate crimes.

While Germany’s strategy offers an effective model for reducing the spread of harmful messages, it also highlights the limitations of censorship and bans. Removing hate speech alone does not address deeply ingrained negative sentiments toward minorities that have accumulated over decades, governments should go beyond legislative action and actively speak out against hate speech. A new report from California State University-San Bernardino’s Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism suggests that political rhetoric may play a role in mitigating or fueling hate crimes.^[31] The report examined the incidence of hate crimes in the aftermath of two reactions to terrorism from political leaders. First, George W. Bush’s speech following the 9/11 attacks declaring: “Islam is peace” and “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,” and second, Trump calling for a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. after the San Bernardino terror attack. The report found a steep rise in hate crimes following Trump’s remarks and a significant drop in hate crimes after Bush’s speech, relative to the number of hate crimes immediately following the initial terror attacks.^[32] These examples illustrate that counterspeech from political figures can serve as a powerful tool in combating hate.

By having public officials consistently affirm ideals of human dignity, tolerance, and respect, governments can counter the influence of hateful rhetoric. Counterspeech can be direct, such as by denouncing specific hate incidents, or indirect, through symbolic actions that reinforce inclusive values—like dedicating public monuments to diversity, enacting public holidays that celebrate minority communities, or naming public spaces in honor of civil rights leaders.^[33] This counterspeech strategy empowers the state to take an authoritative role in denouncing hate, showing citizens that discriminatory views are unacceptable, and promoting a culture that values inclusivity and actively opposes prejudice.

Hate speech presents a serious threat to individual dignity, equality, and security, posing a threat to fundamental human rights. Through examples of how hateful rhetoric normalizes discrimination, silences voices, and incites violence, it is clear that hate speech has real consequences that go beyond individual expression, impacting communities and societies at large. Legislation and counterspeech are essential tools for mitigating these effects. By taking these measures to address the underlying causes of hate speech and promote a culture of respect, governments can uphold the values of human rights and ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all citizens.

Bibliography

Amnesty International. 2017. “Amnesty Reveals Alarming Impact of Online Abuse against Women.” Amnesty International. November 20. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2017/11/amnesty-reveals-alarming-impact-of-online-abuse-against-women/.

Arne Dreißigacker, Philipp Müller, Anna Isenhardt, and Jonas Schemmel. 2024. “Online Hate Speech Victimization: Consequences for Victims’ Feelings of Insecurity.” Crime Science 13 (1). BioMed Central. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-024-00204-y.

Buchholz, Katharina. 2021. “Infographic: U.S. Hate Crimes Remain at Heightened Levels.” Statista Infographics. August 31. https://www.statista.com/chart/16100/total-number-of-hate-crime-incidents-recorded-by-the-fbi/.

“Hate Speech Laws in Democratic Countries | Compass Journal.” Compassjournal.org. February 12. https://compassjournal.org/hate-speech-laws-in-democratic-countries/.

Byman, Daniel. 2021. “How Hateful Rhetoric Connects to Real-World Violence.” Brookings. April 9. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-hateful-rhetoric-connects-to-real-world-violence/

Council of Europe. n.d. “Hate Speech.” Freedom of Expression. https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech.

“Countering Cyberhate: More Regulation or More Speech? On JSTOR.” 2024. Jstor.org. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/27880110.

Daalder, Marc. 2021. “The Chilling Effect of Hate Speech.” Newsroom. June 29. https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/06/29/the-chilling-effect-of-hate-speech/.

Durán, Rafael, Karsten Müller, Carlo Schwarz, Leonardo Bursztyn, Fabrizio Germano, Sophie Hatte, SulinRo'ee Levy, et al. 2023. “The Effect of Content Moderation on Online and Offline Hate: Evidence from Germany’s NetzDG *.” https://congress-files.s3.amazonaws.com/2023-07/NetzDG_and_Hate_Crime.pdf.

“EUR-Lex - 32008F0913 - EN - EUR-Lex.” 2013. Europa.eu. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008F0913.

Foran, Clare. 2016. “Donald Trump, Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes, and Islamophobia.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic. September 22. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/.

Gesley, Jenny. 2021. “Germany: Network Enforcement Act Amended to Better Fight Online Hate Speech.” Library of Congress. July 6. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-06/germany-network-enforcement-act-amended-to-better-fight-online-hate-speech/.

“Hate Speech: A Dilemma for Journalists the World Over.” n.d. OpenDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/hate-speech-dilemma-for-journalists-world-over/.

Home Office. 2024. “Hate Crime, England and Wales, Year Ending March 2024.” GOV.UK. October 10. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024.

Laub, Zachary. 2019. “Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons.” Council on Foreign Relations. June 7. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons.

Lepoutre, Maxime. 2017. “Hate Speech in Public Discourse: A Pessimistic Defense of Counterspeech.” Social Theory and Practice 43 (4): 851–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26405309.

Obermaier, Magdalena, and Desirée Schmuck. 2022. “Youths as Targets: Factors of Online Hate Speech Victimization among Adolescents and Young Adults.” Edited by Jessica Vitak. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 27 (4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac012.

Park, Ahran, Minjeong Kim, and Ee-Sun Kim. 2023. “SEM Analysis of Agreement with Regulating Online Hate Speech: Influences of Victimization, Social Harm Assessment, and Regulatory Effectiveness Assessment.” Frontiers in Psychology 14 (December): 1276568. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1276568.

Pitter, Laura. 2017. “Hate Crimes against Muslims in US Continue to Rise in 2016.” Human Rights Watch. May 11. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/11/hate-crimes-against-muslims-us-continue-rise-2016.

Pluta, Agnieszka, Joanna Mazurek, Jakub Wojciechowski, Tomasz Wolak, Wiktor Soral, and MichałBilewicz. 2023. “Exposure to Hate Speech Deteriorates Neurocognitive Mechanisms of the Ability to Understand Others’ Pain.” Scientific Reports 13 (1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31146-1.

Rushin, Stephen, and Griffin Sims Edwards. 2018. “The Effect of President Trump’s Election on Hate Crimes.” SSRN Electronic Journal, January. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3102652.

Seglow, Jonathan. 2016. “Hate Speech, Dignity and Self-Respect.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (5): 1103–16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44955460.

“Special Status Report: Hate Crime in the United States.” 2024. Documentcloud.org. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3110202-SPECIAL-STATUS-REPORT-v5-9-16-16.html..

Stop Hate UK. 2023. “The Impact of Hate Crime and Discrimination on Mental Health - Guest Blog from PMAC.” Stop Hate UK. August 30. https://www.stophateuk.org/2023/08/30/the-impact-of-hate-crime-and-discrimination-on-mental-health/.

United Nations. 1948. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

“United Nations Strategy and Plan on Actions of Hate Speech.” n.d.

Wachs, Sebastian, Alexander Wettstein, Ludwig Bilz, Norman Krause, Cindy Ballaschk, Julia Kansok-Dusche, and Michelle F. Wright. 2021. “Playing by the Rules? An Investigation of the Relationship between Social Norms and Adolescents’ Hate Speech Perpetration in Schools.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, December, 088626052110560. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211056032.

Wahlström, Mattias, Anton Törnberg, and Hans Ekbrand. 2020. “Dynamics of Violent and Dehumanizing Rhetoric in Far-Right Social Media.” New Media & Society 23 (11): 146144482095279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820952795.

Waldron, Jeremy. 2012. The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press.

Williamson, Vanessa, and Isabella Gelfand. 2019. “Trump and Racism: What Do the Data Say?” Brookings. August 14. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/.

“World in Paradox: Hate Speech vs. Speech Freedom | Annenberg.” n.d. Www.asc.upenn.edu. https://www.asc.upenn.edu/research/centers/milton-wolf-seminar-media-and-diplomacy/blog/world-paradox-hate-speech-vs-speech-freedom.

---

^[1] United Nations. 1948. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

^[2] “United Nations Strategy and Plan on Actions of Hate Speech.”

^[3] Ibid.

^[4]Lepoutre, Maxime. 2017. “Hate Speech in Public Discourse: A Pessimistic Defense of Counterspeech.” Social Theory and Practice 43 (4): 851–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26405309.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6]Wahlström, Mattias, Anton Törnberg, and Hans Ekbrand. 2020. “Dynamics of Violent and Dehumanizing Rhetoric in Far-Right Social Media.” New Media & Society 23 (11): 146144482095279. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820952795.

^[7]Wachs, Sebastian, Alexander Wettstein, Ludwig Bilz, Norman Krause, Cindy Ballaschk, Julia Kansok-Dusche, and Michelle F. Wright. 2021. “Playing by the Rules? An Investigation of the Relationship between Social Norms and Adolescents’ Hate Speech Perpetration in Schools.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, December, 088626052110560. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211056032.

^[8]Obermaier, Magdalena, and Desirée Schmuck. 2022. “Youths as Targets: Factors of Online Hate Speech Victimization among Adolescents and Young Adults.” Edited by Jessica Vitak. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 27 (4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac012.

^[9] Stop Hate UK. 2023. “The Impact of Hate Crime and Discrimination on Mental Health - Guest Blog from PMAC.” Stop Hate UK. August 30. https://www.stophateuk.org/2023/08/30/the-impact-of-hate-crime-and-discrimination-on-mental-health/.

^[10] Arne Dreißigacker, Philipp Müller, Anna Isenhardt, and Jonas Schemmel. 2024. “Online Hate Speech Victimization: Consequences for Victims’ Feelings of Insecurity.” Crime Science 13 (1). BioMed Central. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-024-00204-y.

^[11] Daalder, Marc. 2021. “The Chilling Effect of Hate Speech.” Newsroom. June 29. https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/06/29/the-chilling-effect-of-hate-speech/.

^[12] Park, Ahran, Minjeong Kim, and Ee-Sun Kim. 2023. “SEM Analysis of Agreement with Regulating Online Hate Speech: Influences of Victimization, Social Harm Assessment, and Regulatory Effectiveness Assessment.” Frontiers in Psychology 14 (December): 1276568. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1276568.

^[13] Amnesty International. 2017. “Amnesty Reveals Alarming Impact of Online Abuse against Women.” Amnesty International. November 20. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2017/11/amnesty-reveals-alarming-impact-of-online-abuse-against-women/.

^[14] Waldron, Jeremy. 2012. The Harm in Hate Speech. Harvard University Press.

^[15] Ibid.

^[16] Ibid.

^[17] Pluta, Agnieszka, Joanna Mazurek, Jakub Wojciechowski, Tomasz Wolak, Wiktor Soral, and MichałBilewicz.

2023. “Exposure to Hate Speech Deteriorates Neurocognitive Mechanisms of the Ability to Understand Others’

Pain.” Scientific Reports 13 (1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31146-1.

^[18] Daniel, Byman, 2021. “How Hateful Rhetoric Connects to Real-World Violence.” Brookings. April 9. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-hateful-rhetoric-connects-to-real-world-violence/.

^[19] Williamson, Vanessa, and Isabella Gelfand. 2019. “Trump and Racism: What Does the Data Say?” Brookings. August 14. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/.

^[20] Rushin, Stephen, and Griffin Sims Edwards. 2018. “The Effect of President Trump’s Election on Hate Crimes.” SSRN Electronic Journal, January. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3102652.

^[21] Pitter, Laura. 2017. “Hate Crimes against Muslims in US Continue to Rise in 2016.” Human Rights Watch. May 11. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/11/hate-crimes-against-muslims-us-continue-rise-2016.

^[22] Ibid.

^[23] Laub, Zachary. 2019. “Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons.” Council on Foreign Relations. June 7. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons.

^[24] Ibid.

^[25] Council of Europe. n.d. “Hate Speech.” Freedom of Expression. https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech.

^[26]“ EUR-Lex - 32008F0913 - EN - EUR-Lex.” 2013. Europa.eu. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008F0913.

^[27] Home Office. 2024. “Hate Crime, England and Wales, Year Ending March 2024.” GOV.UK. October 10. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024.

^[28] Buchholz, Katharina. 2021. “Infographic: U.S. Hate Crimes Remain at Heightened Levels.” Statista Infographics. August 31. https://www.statista.com/chart/16100/total-number-of-hate-crime-incidents-recorded-by-the-fbi/.

^[29]Gesley, Jenny. 2021. “Germany: Network Enforcement Act Amended to Better Fight Online Hate Speech.” Library of Congress. July 6. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-06/germany-network-enforcement-act-amended-to-better-fight-online-hate-speech/.

^[30] Durán, Rafael, Karsten Müller, Carlo Schwarz, Leonardo Bursztyn, Fabrizio Germano, Sophie Hatte, SulinRo'ee Levy, et al. 2023. “The Effect of Content Moderation on Online and Offline Hate: Evidence from Germany’s NetzDG *.” https://congress-files.s3.amazonaws.com/2023-07/NetzDG_and_Hate_Crime.pdf.

^[31] “Special Status Report: Hate Crime in the United States.” 2024. Documentcloud.org. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3110202-SPECIAL-STATUS-REPORT-v5-9-16-16.html.

^[32] Foran, Clare. 2016. “Donald Trump, Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes, and Islamophobia.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic. September 22. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/.

^[33] Ibid.

Joon Kim

10^th grade

Stuyvesant High School, New York City, NY

Shared 3^rdPrize

Navigating the Line Between

Free Speech and Hate Speech:

Protecting Rights While Promoting Respect

Freedom of expression is a basic human right and one of the cornerstones of democracy. It is recognized in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees everyone's right to hold opinions and to express them freely^[1]. The formalization of this right in 1948 was a direct response to the atrocities of World War II, during which authoritarian regimes suppressed any signs of dissent, manipulated information, and fueled propaganda with devastating effect. The post-war international community recognized that the protection of freedom of expression was integral to preventing future oppression and facilitating accountability.

Free speech in democratic societies is important because it allows for open debate, encourages dissent, and facilitates the exchange of ideas. It allows citizens to challenge unjust policies and hold leaders accountable, hence contributing to progress in society. However, this freedom is not within limits. While Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enunciates the universal right to freedom of expression, hate speech indeed poses a serious threat to human rights, social cohesion, and democratic values. The harm caused by hate speech, such as inciting violence, perpetuating discrimination, and marginalizing vulnerable communities, necessitates a balanced response^[2]. Governments should address this threat through transparent and proportional legislation, public-private partnerships with social media platforms, and education initiatives, ensuring the protection of free expression while safeguarding individuals and societies from the harmful effects of hate speech.

Defining Hate Speech and Its Threats

Hate speech is typically defined as any form of communication that incites hatred, discrimination, or violence against individuals or groups based on various attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability^[3]. While freedom of expression protects the right to hold unpopular or offensive opinions, hate speech goes beyond this by actively undermining the dignity and safety of targeted individuals and communities. Unlike offensive but non-harmful speech, which can cause disagreement or discomfort, hate speech inflicts a real threat by nurturing an atmosphere of hostility, exclusion, and fear. Hate speech is not confined to words; rather, it causes deep social and psychological injury^[4]. It sows fear, inculcates prejudice, and entrenches structural discrimination against vulnerable groups. Victims of hate speech often display symptoms of anxiety, depression, and a diminished feeling of belonging in their respective communities. Furthermore, allowing hate speech to go on without intervention normalizes intolerance and justifies discriminatory conduct, which undermines social cohesion, enabling cycles of oppression.

Real-world examples illustrate the devastating consequences of hate speech. In Myanmar, social media platforms like Facebook became a tool for spreading anti-Rohingya propaganda, including derogatory language and direct incitement to violence against the Muslim minority^[5]. This uncurbed spread of hate speech fueled widespread discrimination, mass violence, and the forced migration of over 700,000 Rohingya, culminating in what the United Nations described as a "textbook example of ethnic cleansing." Similarly, the 2017 Charlottesville rally in the United States underlined how hate speech can cause social unrest^[6]. The white supremacist groups organized a rally replete with rhetoric aimed at racial minorities and marginalized communities that turned violent and killed one of the counter-protesters. This incident highlighted how hated ideologies, through the means of online forums and in-person demonstrations, escalate physical violence and polarize people.

Unchecked hate speech puts at risk not just individual rights but also the social fabric through the polarization of communities and erosion of trust. It builds an "us versus them" mentality that brings about deep social chasms and undermines efforts at building inclusive and just societies. The threat that hate speech poses requires an urgent response in proactive ways, balancing the scale with preserving the principles of free expression.

Freedom of Expression vs. Hate Speech

The tension between free expression and the need to address hate speech creates a difficult legal and ethical balancing act. Most legal systems around the world face this challenge, trying to protect the principle of free expression while protecting individuals and communities from harm. Landmark legal precedents and differing national policies reveal diverse approaches to this intricate issue, shaped by historical, cultural, and philosophical considerations. One significant legal precedent in the United States is the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, which established a framework for determining when speech crosses the line from protected expression to harmful incitement. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader when it ruled that speech is only restricted if it can be said to be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action^[7].” That “imminent lawless action” test set a high threshold for limiting speech, emphasizing that expression has to create a clear and present danger in order for restriction to be justified. While this approach protects robust freedom of speech, critics argue that it may do little to address the more subtle, long-term harms of hate speech, which include fostering discrimination and social division.

The “imminent lawless action” test continues to influence how U.S. courts handle hate speech cases, prioritizing individual liberties unless a direct and immediate threat is evident. However, other nations adopt stricter approaches to balancing free speech and harm prevention. For example, Germany has strict hate speech laws under its Strafgesetzbuch(Criminal Code), particularly Section 130, which criminalizes incitement to hatred, Holocaust denial, and other forms of speech that threaten public order^[8]. In 2018, Germany introduced the NetzDG law, requiring social media platforms to remove hate speech within 24 hours or face substantial fines^[9]. The policies of Germany are guided by a post-World War II commitment to the prevention of hate-fueled violence and to the adage that history should not be allowed to repeat itself. Similarly, the United Kingdom enforces hate speech restrictions through legislation such as the Public Order Act of 1986 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006. These laws forbid speech that intentionally stirs racial or religious hatred, emphasizing protection for societal cohesion. The model followed by the UK brings in the need for safeguards, which protect the marginalized group without stifling open debate. Another insight could be the model of Canada, balancing free expression with protection from harm under Section 319 of its Criminal Code, criminalizing "willful promotion of hatred" against identifiable groups^[10]. Furthermore, the Canadian Human Rights Act regulates hate speech in contexts where it targets vulnerable populations, reflecting the country's commitment to maintaining a multicultural and inclusive society^[11].

These different approaches reflect a variety of judgments on how governments balance the right to free speech with the need to prevent harm. These legal frameworks are underpinned by philosophical perspectives, which are instructive regarding the ethical considerations of regulating hate speech. John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work On Liberty, espoused the principle of free speech, arguing that open expression fosters the pursuit of truth and individual growth. However, Mill also modified this with the “harm principle,” which states that individual liberty should be curtailed if the liberty causes harm to others^[12]. In the context of hate speech, this principle justifies regulation when speech violates the rights and well-being of others. Similarly, John Rawls' theory of “justice as fairness” provides a strong rationale for curbing hate speech. Rawls argued that a just society is one that enacts principles protecting the most vulnerable of its members. His Theory of Justice emphasizes that sometimes, in order to create equity and protect the most vulnerable from harm, some rights will have to be curtailed^[13]. In that sense, the regulation of hate speech serves the greater aim of creating a society that is both fair and open to all people to participate in without fear of discrimination or violence.

The Role of Governments in Addressing Hate Speech

The government is pivotal in addressing hate speech through policies and laws that strike a balance between protection for free expression and the prevention of harm. Laws and policies to address hate speech have become major tools in combating its proliferation, especially when it incites violence or enacts systemic discrimination. These need to be informed, nonetheless, by principles of fairness, transparency, and proportionality to prevent overreach and preserve democratic integrity.

Legislation Against Hate Speech

Anti-hate speech laws remain a common response to the threats emanating from harmful rhetoric. Many countries have enacted laws that criminalize hate speech, especially when it comes to inciting violence or hatred against a particular group of people. For instance, the European Union's Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia (2008) obliges EU member-states to criminalize speech related to incitement to violence or hatred based on race, religion, or ethnicity^[14]. This framework allows different legal systems to work in harmony on the issue of hate speech without necessarily violating basic human rights. Most of the penalties related to these laws are fines and, in worst cases, imprisonment, meant to prevent people from uttering inflammatory remarks.

The Public Order Act of the United Kingdom is one such example: The Act has a provision for penalizing incitement to violence either with a fine or imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense^[15]. In this respect, such penalties are meant to deter any government from allowing hate speech to escalate into acts of violence or social unrest. These measures serve as a deterrent and demonstrate a commitment to protecting vulnerable communities from harm. But enforcement should be done with caution to avoid the suppression of legitimate dissent or unpopular opinion.

Principles to Guide Effective Regulation

To ensure that anti-hate speech measures are just and effective, guiding principles are required from governments, such as transparency, proportionality, and judicial oversight. For there to be transparency, one needs to clearly define what hate speech is and how cases are processed. Clearness will help the community understand the purpose and reach of hate speech laws, avoiding misinterpretation or misapplication. For example, the creation and publication of guidelines related to the regulation of hate speech enable individuals to confidently know how far they can go with lawful expression.

Proportionality means that the punishment should match the severity of the offense. Casual offensive remarks, though potentially hurtful, do not deserve the same treatment as explicit calls for violence. Proportionate measures would keep the playing field fair and avoid over-zealous enforcement that might throttle free expression. Judicial oversight adds an additional safeguard: it provides courts with the opportunity to review cases to ensure hate speech regulations do not contravene constitutional protections or principles of justice. This is an oversight that checks the abuse of power and balances free speech with the prevention of harm.

Challenges and Risks

Aside from their potential benefits, hate speech laws have inherent risks: the possibility of overreach by the government and of unintended consequences. One risk is that such laws might be used to suppress political dissent or opposition. Indeed, in a number of countries, governments have abused anti-hate speech laws to silence critics or clamp down on media freedom. This undermines democracy, turning tools designed to protect vulnerable minorities into instruments of authoritarian repression.

Another challenge is the potential for censorship of controversial but important speech. Discussions about sensitive issues, such as immigration policy or systemic inequalities, might be curtailed if perceived as inflammatory, even when these conversations are essential for societal progress. Overly cautious enforcement of hate speech laws can inadvertently suppress valid, constructive dialogue, depriving societies of diverse perspectives.

Finally, too broad laws on hate speech may well result in a “chilling effect,” whereby individuals avoid stating opinions for fear of the legal consequences^[16]. The result of such self-censorship is to stifle public debate and hinder progress by dissuading people from debating contentious issues or challenging entrenched views. Striking a balance between regulating harmful speech and protecting free expression is critical to fostering an open, democratic society.

Collaborative Approaches to Combat Hate Speech

Combating hate speech requires a multi-faceted approach that includes collaboration by governments, private entities, and communities for its sustainability. Public-private partnerships, education, and community support programs play important roles in addressing this complex issue.

Public-Private Partnerships

Governments engage with social media companies in the monitoring and removal of harmful content while protecting free speech. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have enormous influence in shaping public discourse; hence, their involvement is critical. Laws like Germany's NetzDG law, which require the deletion of hate speech content within 24 hours, are a good example of how governments can compel accountability from technology companies^[17]. A government and private sector collaboration, with guidelines on identifying and curbing hate speech, will go a long way in reducing its spread online. Transparency in enforcement and opportunities for appeal of content takedowns are important in maintaining public trust and ensuring the protection of legitimate expression.

Media Literacy and Education

Promotion of media literacy and educating the citizens about respectful discourse is important for addressing the roots of hate speech. The programs in schools, workplaces, and online can provide people with the ability to recognize and contest toxic narratives while understanding the power of words. By fostering critical thinking and empathy, media literacy programs empower individuals to engage in constructive dialogue and resist misinformation that fuels hate. These skills can be reflected in curricula developed collaboratively by governments and educational institutions to foster more inclusive societies.

Community Support Initiatives

Community-based programs that foster understanding among different groups are an important response to the harm caused by hate speech. Such programs, including interfaith dialogues, anti-bias workshops, and support networks for targeted communities, help rebuild trust and forge solidarity. These programs help knit the social fabric torn apart by hate speech and encourage social cohesion and mutual respect. To this end, governments can support such initiatives with funding, resources, and platforms for dialogue, ensuring that affected communities feel heard and valued.

Conclusion

Freedom of expression, under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the bedrock on which democratic societies exist, allowing for the free flow of ideas, dissensions, and progress. Yet, hate speech has posed a serious threat to all these values by engendering harm, discrimination, and divisions in society. Finding a balance between protecting free expression and addressing the harms caused by hate-driven rhetoric is complicated but very necessary.

When governments are transparent and respect human rights, they can put in place hate speech controls without weakening the foundation of free expression. Evidence that legal frameworks, public-private partnerships, and education programs do work to mitigate the harm from hate speech while protecting democratic freedoms highlights the fact that such initiatives are possible. Any efforts, however, need to be proportionate, under judicial oversight, and prevent misuse to ensure fairness and accountability. However, the struggle against hate speech is not just for governments or institutions; rather, it requires all individuals to be committed to responsible speech as a way to create an environment of respect and inclusion. By promoting considered and compassionate speech, society can come together to create a safer, more harmonious public sphere in which the rights and dignity of all are respected.

Works Cited

“Brandenburg v. Ohio.” Oyez. Accessed November 29, 2024. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492.

“Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6).” Justice Laws Website, November 25, 2024. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/.

“Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law.” EUR. Accessed November 29, 2024.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008F0913.

“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46).” Justice Laws Website, November 25, 2024. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/.

Elliott, Debbie. “The Charlottesville Rally 5 Years Later: ‘It’s What You’re Still Trying to Forget.’” NPR, August 12, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1116942725/the-charlottesville-rally-5-years-later-its-what-youre-still-trying-to-forget.

“German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB).” Federal Ministry of Justice. Accessed November 29, 2024. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html.

Gesley, Jenny. “Germany: Network Enforcement Act Amended to Better Fight Online Hate Speech.” The Library of Congress, July 6, 2021. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-06/germany-network-enforcement-act-amended-to-better-fight-online-hate-speech/.

Hudson, David L. “Chilling Effect Overview.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Accessed November 29, 2024. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overview#:~:text=The%20%22chilling%20effect%22%20refers%20to,too%20broad%20or%20too%20vague.

Katz, Andrew. “Charlottesville: ‘unite the Right’ Rally, State of Emergency.” Time, August 15, 2017. https://time.com/charlottesville-white-nationalist-rally-clashes/.

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. United States: BEESQUARE, 2024.

“Myanmar: No Justice, No Freedom for Rohingya 5 Years On.” Human Rights Watch, August 24, 2022. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/24/myanmar-no-justice-no-freedom-rohingya-5-years.

Pluta, Agnieszka, Joanna Mazurek, Jakub Wojciechowski, Tomasz Wolak, Wiktor Soral, and MichałBilewicz. “Exposure to Hate Speech Deteriorates Neurocognitive Mechanisms of the Ability to Understand Others’ Pain.” Nature News, March 13, 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31146-1#citeas.

“Public Order Act 1986.” Legislation.gov.uk, November 7, 1986. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64#:~:text=An%20Act%20to%20abolish%20the,provide%20for%20the%20exclusion%20of.

“Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.” Legislation.gov.uk. Accessed November 29, 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/1/contents.

“Rohingya Refugee Crisis Explained.” USA for UNHCR, August 22, 2024. https://www.unrefugees.org/news/rohingya-refugee-crisis-explained/.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. Accessed November 29, 2024. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Article%2019,media%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers.

Wenar, Leif. “John Rawls.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, April 12, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/.

“What Is Hate Speech?” United Nations. Accessed November 29, 2024. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech.

---

^[1]“Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, accessed November 29, 2024, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Article%2019,media%20and%20regardless%20of%20frontiers.

^[2]“What Is Hate Speech?,” United Nations, accessed November 29, 2024, https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech.

^[3]“What Is Hate Speech?,” United Nations, accessed November 29, 2024, https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech.

^[4]Agnieszka Pluta et al., “Exposure to Hate Speech Deteriorates Neurocognitive Mechanisms of the Ability to Understand Others’ Pain,” Nature News, March 13, 2023, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31146-1#citeas.

^[5]“Rohingya Refugee Crisis Explained,” USA for UNHCR, August 22, 2024, https://www.unrefugees.org/news/rohingya-refugee-crisis-explained/.

^[6]Debbie Elliott, “The Charlottesville Rally 5 Years Later: ‘It’s What You’re Still Trying to Forget,’” NPR, August 12, 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/08/12/1116942725/the-charlottesville-rally-5-years-later-its-what-youre-still-trying-to-forget.

^[7]“Brandenburg v. Ohio,” Oyez, accessed November 29, 2024, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492.

^[8]“German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB),” Federal Ministry of Justice, accessed November 29, 2024, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html.

^[9]Jenny Gesley, “Germany: Network Enforcement Act Amended to Better Fight Online Hate Speech,” The Library of Congress, July 6, 2021, https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-06/germany-network-enforcement-act-amended-to-better-fight-online-hate-speech/.

^[10]“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46),” Justice Laws Website, November 25, 2024, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/.

^[11]“Canadian Human Rights Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6),” Justice Laws Website, November 25, 2024, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/.

^[12]John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (United States: BEESQUARE, 2024).

^[13]Leif Wenar, “John Rawls,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, April 12, 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/.

^[14] “Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law,” EUR, accessed November 29, 2024, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008F0913.

^[15]“Public Order Act 1986,” Legislation.gov.uk, November 7, 1986, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64#:~:text=An%20Act%20to%20abolish%20the,provide%20for%20the%20exclusion%20of.

^[16]David L Hudson, “Chilling Effect Overview,” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, accessed November 29, 2024, https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chilling-effect-overview#:~:text=The%20%22chilling%20effect%22%20refers%20to,too%20broad%20or%20too%20vague.

^[17]Jenny Gesley, “Germany: Network Enforcement Act Amended to Better Fight Online Hate Speech,” The Library of Congress, July 6, 2021, https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-07-06/germany-network-enforcement-act-amended-to-better-fight-online-hate-speech/.

Ivy McMullin

10^th grade

West Shore Jr./Sr. High School, Melbourne, FL.

Shared 3^rdPrize

Examining Hate Speech

Within the Regulation of Freedom of Expression

Human Rights, the Freedom of Expression and the Boundaries of Hate Speech

It is a value of many societies to preserve the freedoms of speech and expression. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), affirms in Article 19 that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”^[1]However, this Article is neither comprehensive nor infallible, particularly as societies see the growth of contemporary means of communication via the internet, and many groups and individuals express concern regarding the circumstances under which hate speech becomes a threat to human rights. While on the concept of freedom of speech, one ought to also consider Article 12, stating “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation,”because both correspondence and reputation are significant elements in the debate over what qualifies as hate speech.^[2] Yet, the debate on whether limitations on free speech should be imposed—and if so, to what degree—centers not on the enactment of regulations to quell intentionally “evil” or “malicious” thinking, but on the interpretation of whether hate speech falls under the scope of protective measures.^[3]One must then consider the parameters and purposes of these restrictionsin both a legal and moral context, which is made difficult by a lack of universally codified limitations.

 Regardless, to examine whether hate speech obstructs human rights, one must first attempt to define human rights, and their ultimate purpose. Historical scholar Sener’sdefinition describes human rights as being held to express the highest moral standards, guaranteeing upon childbirth, the necessary freedoms to establish individual existence, dignity, and human living conditions.^[4]Professor Freeman’s analysis holds that since human rights are an abstract concept, they are subjectively interpreted—applied against an individual’s own experiences and sympathies and therefore contain no explicit definition.^[5] Being a cultural and social construct, human rights bear incredible variation in terms of how they are acquired, applied, and defined, so for the purpose of this essay we will acknowledge both interpretations, but focus to a greater degree on the intended purpose of declaring human rights protected. According to the UDHR, the fundamental pillar of human rights is human dignity: “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.”^[6]Applying this concept to the extent of freedom of speech, it becomes the government’s authority and responsibility to ensure that people are able to hold opinions and receive and impart information to a degree that no other person is subjected to an intrusion of their own honor or agency to guarantee freedom and dignity in the pursuit of peace.

 The final consideration to establish is what qualifies “hate speech.” As with human rights, no universally applicable definition exists for the countries that do prohibit some form of it, and defining hate speech is made difficult by the variance of context, rhetoric, codification, and implications of hatred—all of which are magnified by the expanded use of internet communication. Another obstacle in explicitly identifying hate speech is the difference between academic definitions created for the purpose of recognition, and legal ones developed for the purpose of regulation. In 1992, Professor Calvin Massey described it as “any form of speech that produces the harms which advocates for suppression ascribe to hate speech: loss of self-esteem, economic and social subordination, physical and mental stress, silencing of the victim, and effective exclusion from the political arena.”^[7] By putting emphasis on the effects of the speech rather than intent, Massey strayed from more modern interpretations. Professors Marwick and Miller instead generated a series of requirements for speech to be considered hateful: “(1) a content-based element, (2) an intent-based element, and (3) a harms-based element.”^[8] Each of these academic definitions deserves consideration and will be applied to several examples over the course of this essay.

Legal interpretations vary just the same, and in historical contexts often apply to racial sentiments. American statutes on hate speech are found only in noncriminal libel and defamation law. The Criminal Code of Canada forbids speech that “willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group,” excluding good faith assertions, truthful testimonies, religious opinions, or subjects of public interest. The UK’s Public Order Act of 1986 applies to anyone who displays or distributes sentiments that are “threatening, abusive, or insulting”, or “intending to stir up racial hatred.”^[9] The plurality of legal definitions employed by different nations makes a universal policy nearly impossible. Where the US has no explicit prohibition, the UK’s Act accounts for both intentional and negligent harm, and Canada’s policy applies only when communication is public. When discussing the next step toward the forenamed aims of peace and the preservation of human dignity, these definitions of human rights and hate speech will be the anchors of this piece.

Should Regulations Exist at All?

 When a conflict arises concerning limitations on expression, one must analyze the purpose of protecting the freedom of speech—something that has changed continually over time. In America, a foundational recognition of this principle was the Zenger trial. The Governor of New York brought J.P. Zenger to trial for seditious libel for the publication of a satirical piece in 1735. The jury found his publication not libelous, and its seditious quality was defended by Zenger’s acquittal, leading to the protection of free speech, even if it contained seditious intent, particularly if disseminated for the benefit of the public.^[10] Yet perhaps the birthplace of free speech occurred even earlier, as Attorney Jacob Mchangama notes that a concept known asparrhesia developed under Athenian democracy to establish a culture of tolerance and foster political, social, and philosophical intercourse for the furthering of society.^[11] For these purposes, the freedom of speech clearly ought to remain uninhibited, so the question arises: if all discourse furthers the development of a diverse society, should limitations be applied at all?

 In his novel The Tolerant Society, Bollinger argues that a tolerant society is strengthened by the permission of what might be considered hate speech. This forces the recognition of the existence of, for example, critical race theory, by a society so they must contend with or confront it. However, Professor Sellars opposes this theory with the recognition that it is not the whole of society that is forced to contend with this hatred, but the victims of it. That group or individual becomes the human cost of confrontation and the expense that the rest of the society is willing to pay.^[12]With this in mind, a society pursuing the protection of human rights, under the definition that a targeted group or individual may retain lawful equality and dignity, must have some form of interpretive regulation, if not preventative.

 Sellars evaluates two additional theories concerning the extent of this regulation. The “Marketplace of Ideas”theory asserts that a government may only interfere when speech becomes libelous: a government must not interfere in the plural discourse of society, as the right to express diverse opinions facilitates social development.^[13] In counter, Sellars notes that even in a diverse society, cognitive bias and the influence of a majority over minority groups drowns out effective exchanges of ideas. Second, the Democratic Self-Governance belief holds that speech is free for the purpose of debate and words “worth saying” may be spoken, allowing for the prevalence of hate speech but also encouraging opponents’ direct confrontation. Several flaws are evident in this interpretation: a lack of clarity in what is “worth saying”, advocation for potentially volatile public discourse, and again the passive exclusion of minorities.^[14]That is not to say these constructions lack value, but the best solution might be found in the moderation of each. It may seem most beneficial to hold the judiciary responsible for interpreting the legality of an expression on a case-by-case basis, with acknowledgement of the multiplicities of context and rhetoric. Yet, analyses demonstrate that this is made complicated by the ambiguous quality of criminal and tort law to be subjectively applied to implicate someone, and the counterweight of the First Amendment protection of hate speech.^[15] For a concept complicated by the multifariousness of context, the best environment for analysis is in application.

The Freedom of Speech and Its Regulations in Practice

 In 1969, Brandenburg v. Ohio presented a landmark case in the modification of the right to freedom of expression. Klu Klux Klan organizer Clarence Brandenburg spoke at an Ohio rally, where he was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act for promoting revengent and illegal activity,^[16] yet the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court since the speech was not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, or [...] likely to produce such action.”^[17] The Actfailed to convict Brandenburg, nor has it been utilized to limit expression since, but was the first explicit limitation of such freedoms, making it a prominent ruling in First Amendment jurisprudence. Brookings Institution fellow Rauch proclaims that a government must “actively protect speech and thought that is seditious, vulgar, offensive, wrongheaded, bigoted, or just plain wrong,”^[18] because it is the principle to protect all opinions regardless of their distasteful nature—as demonstrated by the Brandenburg ruling. Yet, Professor Hasset-Walker acknowledges, through the example of lawful prohibitions against yelling “fire!” in a crowded theatre, that free speech protection was not intended to be all-permitting.^[19] Accepting this necessary adherence to principle and selective limitation tenet, where should the lines be drawn to establish legal and illegal speech?

 The Brandenburg case produced a three-pronged test, for what incites “imminent lawless action”. The test stipulates that to be illegal, the statement must contain: (1) an intent to incite action; (2) a direction or organization of “imminent lawless action”; and (3) be likely to produce it.^[20] This test has a notable resemblance to Marwick and Miller’s definition of hate speech, requiring a content-, intent-, and harms-based element.^[21] Since 1969, the precedent set by Brandenburg v. Ohio has shown an aptitude in protecting peace and human dignity in the context of Article 19 of the UDHR in numerous freedom of speech cases and establishes an effective boundary to that protection. The generous nature of the Brandenburg Test offers security for the Marketplace of Ideas and for Democratic Self-Governance to occur (to a reasonable and nonthreatening degree), although its original environment lacks the complexity of internet communication and is largely dependent on judicial competence.

 Therefore, a modern issue arises—regulating free speech online. Both Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, concerned the right of a state government to moderate the editorial decisions of social networking site publishers. Attorneys Goldman and Kwun note two ways in which this censorship occurs: those governments directly moderating publication decisions, orindirectly altering decision-making through “compelled editorial transparency”—that is, requiring a publisher to disclose why they might moderate, take down or not publish a post. Their “Amicus Brief…”denotes these justifications as “explanation obligations”.^[22] In the Supreme Court, the discussion revolved around whether social media platforms were afforded the rights of private commercial entities or more regulatable common carriers.^[23] The online environment being uncharted territory, comparisons to newspaper companies and telephone providers constantly resurfaced in the debate, particularly in the context of how publishers (online and offline) may be unduly influenced by desires to avoid litigation, the cost of responding to massive amounts of discourse (including illegitimate submissions), and the pressures of their regulators’ interests.^[24] The justices asserted that social media platforms express the viewpoints and preferences of an individual entity, not a carrier service—these services are made successful due to their ability to curate desirable material, not present all of it.^[25]

 The NetChoice cases absolved that social media platforms could not be constitutionally commanded by state governments through “explanation obligations”, and the state statutes involved were nullified. This allows platforms to remove hate speech should they choose to. Yet publishers alone cannot be held legally responsible for filtering out hate speech considered likely to incite lawless action. To set this in context, one must acknowledge that while unfamiliar territory, this is not the first time that communication infrastructure has been revolutionized. In the early twentieth century, the League of Nations convened to discuss an appropriate response to the first international broadcasting system. The 1936 Convention on Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace was much more concerned about the incitement of global conflict through nationalist propaganda than modern hate speech, but the issue raised made an interesting point. In the global sphere, positive liberal discourse was seen as constructive by some and propagating by others, and it became increasingly difficult to identify distinctions between propaganda and education.^[26] But in both the Marketplace of Ideas and Demographic Self-Governance premises, propaganda is protected and permitted, so differentiating education from propaganda becomes unnecessary. What becomes prominent, at any level of analysis, is the balance of power. Certain entities are able todisseminate increasingly influential sentiments, not because of their content, but because of the relentless and universalizing nature of their presence.

Moving Forward

 These cases leave us with two notable commodities: the Brandenburg Test and the limited role of legislative authority in the digital environment. Obviously, the Brandenburg Test is not faultless, nor is it universally applicable, but it acknowledges that it is a statement’s potential to incite harm that makes it worthy of prohibition. The Brandenburg Test offers a solution to hate speech’s ability to prevent certain groups and individuals from achieving equal opportunity to participate in the social, political, and professional spheres of a society,^[27] while protecting the essential principles of freedom of expression. And as demonstrated in its application, the judiciary is not wont to abuse its protective nature. In reference to the latter, digital authoritarianism poses a significant threat due to the dominion powerful entities to use internet technology to “monitor, manipulate, control, and suppress information, ideas, and individuals within their society.”^[28] To achieve freedom of expression and protect those threatened with exclusion from equal opportunities in society by means of hate speech, government regulations would have to be cautiously imposed so as not to devolve into digital authoritarianism.

 Meeting these ends is a delicate balance, but theoretically achievable. The protection of the freedom of speech by all societies is a necessity, but so is the maintenance of human dignity and peace. Whether utilizing the criteria set forth by the Brandenburg Test or Marwick and Miller’s definition of hate speech, a test examining a statement’s intent and its plausibility to do harm applied by democracies possessing judiciaries of integrity is a viable solution for the security of human rights world-wide. No solution is infallible, but no society is perpetually unchanging, so governments must be adaptable as well.

Bibliography

Alfredsson, Gudmundur S. and Eide, Asbjorn., “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Common Standard of Achievement” (March 31, 1999). Google Books, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Right.html?id=FmuoB-BlMvEC.

Battle, MacKenzie, and Bence, Cydnee, “How Does the First Amendment Apply to Food and Supplement Labels?” (June 2021). Center For Agriculture & Food Systems, Labels Unwrapped. Available at: https://labelsunwrapped.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/First-Amendment-Food-Labeling-Issue-r5.pdf

Connaughton, Stacey L., and Pukallus, Stefanie. “The Three Communicative Dimensions of Hate Speech” (October 28, 2024). The Routledge Handbook of Conflict and Peace Communication, 1st Edition. Part II, essay 10. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003392002-12

Daoust, Matthew, “Brandenburg v Ohio: The Brandenburg Test” (2019). Journoportfolio, National University 2019. Available at: https://media.journoportfolio.com/users/20373/uploads/f043fdf3-8bb1-4f39-a6dc-6848b4f4b548.pdf

Eldridge, L. D. (1995). Before Zenger: Truth and Seditious Speech in Colonial America, 1607-1700. The American Journal of Legal History, 39(3), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/845791

Freeman, Michael, “Human Rights” (July 24, 2017). Google Books, Wiley. https://books.google.com/books/about/Human_Rights.html?id=zSD0vQAACAAJ.

General Assembly of the UN, “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (December 16, 1996). General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI). Articles 19–20. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

General Assembly of the UN, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (December 10, 1948). General Assembly resolution 217 (III) A. Preamble. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

General Assembly of the UN, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (December 10, 1948). General Assembly resolution 217 (III) A. Article 12. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

General Assembly of the UN, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (December 10, 1948). General Assembly resolution 217 (III) A. Article 19. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

General Assembly of the UN, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (December 10, 1948). General Assembly resolution 217 (III) A. Article 20. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Goldman, Eric and Kwun, Michael S., Amicus Brief in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton (December 5, 2023). Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4655464, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4655464 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4655464

Goodman, David, “Liberal and Illiberal Internationalism in the Making of the League of Nations Convention on Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace” (2020). Journal of World History 31, no.1: 31(1), 165-94. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26904325

Gordon, J. (1997). John Stuart Mill and the “Marketplace of Ideas.” Social Theory and Practice, 23(2), 235–249. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23559183

Greenwalt, Kent, Free Speech Justifications, 89 Colum. L. Rev. 119 (1989). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/84

Hassett-Walker, C. (2022). Does Brandenburg v. Ohio still hold in the social media era? Racist (and other) online hate speech and the First Amendment. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2038848

Howard, Jeffrey W., “Free Speech and Hate Speech” (May 2019). Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 22:93-109. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343

Jones, Marc Owen, “CIVIL ACTORS UNDER ATTACK: Digital Authoritarianism and the weaponization of social media” (2024). Editors Stacey L. Connaughton, and Stefanie Pukallus. The Routledge Handbook of Conflict and Peace Communication, 1st Edition. Part II, essay 14. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003392002-16

Marwick, Alice E. and Miller, Ross W., “Online Harassment, Defamation, and Hateful Speech: A Primer of the Legal Landscape” (June 10, 2014). Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy Report. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/clip/article/1002/&path_info=Online_Harassment__Defamation__and_Hateful_Speech_A_Primer_of_the_Legal_Landscape.pdf

Massey, Calvin R., Hate Speech, Cultural Diversity, and the Foundational Paradigms of Free Expression, 40 UCLA L. Rev. 103 (1992). Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/faculty_scholarship/1376

McCabe, Brigid, “A First Amendment Right to Censor: Social Media Regulation and Freedom of Speech in the NetChoice Cases” (Summer 2024). Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, Vol. XX, Issue III pp. 28-49. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cb4edda94d71acb46468830/t/66e88020ef584b362002f688/1726513184610/CULR+Summer+2024+Print+Journal.pdf#page=28

Mchangama, Jacob and Rauch, Jonathan, “What We Can Learn from the History of Free Speech” (May/June 2022). CATO Institute, Policy Report. Available at: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2022/what-we-can-learn-history-free-speech

Olson, A. (2000). The Zenger Case Revisited: Satire, Sedition and Political Debate in Eighteenth Century America. Early American Literature, 35(3), 223–245. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25057203

Sellars, Andrew, Defining Hate Speech (December 1, 2016). Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20, Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-48, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2882244 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2882244

Sener, Mustafa Burak, “A Review Of The Meaning And Importance Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” (December 2021). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLITICAL STUDIES, Vol.7 15-25. Doi: 10.26272/icps.962292

Siegel, P. (1981). Protecting political speech: Brandenburg vs. Ohio updated. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638109383552

---

^[1] General Assembly of the UN, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (December 10, 1948). General Assembly resolution 217 (III) A. Article 19. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

^[2] General Assembly of the UN, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (December 10, 1948). General Assembly resolution 217 (III) A. Article 12. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

^[3] Howard, Jeffrey W., “Free Speech and Hate Speech” (May 2019). Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 22:93-109. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343

^[4]Sener, Mustafa Burak, “A Review Of The Meaning And Importance Of The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” (December 2021). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLITICAL STUDIES, Vol.7 15-25. Doi: 10.26272/icps.962292

^[5] Freeman, Michael, “Human Rights” (July 24, 2017). Google Books, Wiley. https://books.google.com/books/about/Human_Rights.html?id=zSD0vQAACAAJ.

^[6]General Assembly of the UN, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (December 10, 1948). General Assembly resolution 217 (III) A. Preamble. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights 

^[7]Massey, Calvin R., Hate Speech, Cultural Diversity, and the Foundational Paradigms of Free Expression, 40 UCLA L. Rev. 103 (1992). Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/faculty_scholarship/1376

^[8] Marwick, Alice E. and Miller, Ross W., “Online Harassment, Defamation, and Hateful Speech: A Primer of the Legal Landscape” (June 10, 2014). Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy Report. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/clip/article/1002/&path_info=Online_Harassment__Defamation__and_Hateful_Speech_A_Primer_of_the_Legal_Landscape.pdf

^[9] Sellars, Andrew, Defining Hate Speech (December 1, 2016). Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20, Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-48, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2882244 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2882244

^[10] Olson, A. (2000). The Zenger Case Revisited: Satire, Sedition and Political Debate in Eighteenth Century America. Early American Literature, 35(3), 223–245. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25057203

^[11]Mchangama, Jacob and Rauch, Jonathan, “What We Can Learn from the History of Free Speech” (May/June 2022). CATO Institute, Policy Report. Available at: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2022/what-we-can-learn-history-free-speech

^[12] Sellars, Andrew, Defining Hate Speech (December 1, 2016). Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20, Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-48, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2882244 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2882244

^[13] Gordon, J. (1997). John Stuart Mill and the “Marketplace of Ideas.” Social Theory and Practice, 23(2), 235–249. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23559183

^[14] Sellars, Andrew, Defining Hate Speech (December 1, 2016). Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20, Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-48, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2882244 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2882244

^[15] Sellars, Andrew, Defining Hate Speech (December 1, 2016). Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2016-20, Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 16-48, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2882244 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2882244

^[16]Hassett-Walker, C. (2022). Does Brandenburg v. Ohio still hold in the social media era? Racist (and other) online hate speech and the First Amendment. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2038848

^[17] Siegel, P. (1981). Protecting political speech: Brandenburg vs. Ohio updated. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 67(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638109383552

^[18]Mchangama, Jacob and Rauch, Jonathan, “What We Can Learn from the History of Free Speech” (May/June 2022). CATO Institute, Policy Report. Available at: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2022/what-we-can-learn-history-free-speech

^[19] Hassett-Walker, C. (2022). Does Brandenburg v. Ohio still hold in the social media era? Racist (and other) online hate speech and the First Amendment. Cogent Social Sciences, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2022.2038848

^[20] Daoust, Matthew, “Brandenburg v Ohio: The Brandenburg Test” (2019). Journoportfolio, National University 2019. Available at: https://media.journoportfolio.com/users/20373/uploads/f043fdf3-8bb1-4f39-a6dc-6848b4f4b548.pdf

^[21] Marwick, Alice E. and Miller, Ross W., “Online Harassment, Defamation, and Hateful Speech: A Primer of the Legal Landscape” ( June 10, 2014). Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy Report. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/clip/article/1002/&path_info=Online_Harassment__Defamation__and_Hateful_Speech_A_Primer_of_the_Legal_Landscape.pdf

^[22] Goldman, Eric and Kwun, Michael S., Amicus Brief in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton (December 5, 2023). Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4655464, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4655464 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4655464

^[23] McCabe, Brigid, “A First Amendment Right to Censor: Social Media Regulation and Freedom of Speech in the NetChoice Cases” (Summer 2024). Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, Vol. XX, Issue III pp. 28-49. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cb4edda94d71acb46468830/t/66e88020ef584b362002f688/1726513184610/CULR+Summer+2024+Print+Journal.pdf#page=28

^[24] Goldman, Eric and Kwun, Michael S., Amicus Brief in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton (December 5, 2023). Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4655464, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4655464 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4655464

^[25]McCabe, Brigid, “A First Amendment Right to Censor: Social Media Regulation and Freedom of Speech in the NetChoice Cases” (Summer 2024). Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, Vol. XX, Issue III pp. 28-49. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cb4edda94d71acb46468830/t/66e88020ef584b362002f688/1726513184610/CULR+Summer+2024+Print+Journal.pdf#page=28

^[26] Goodman, David, “Liberal and Illiberal Internationalism in the Making of the League of Nations Convention on Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace” (2020). Journal of World History 31, no.1: 31(1), 165-94. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26904325

^[27] Connaughton, Stacey L., and Pukallus, Stefanie. “The Three Communicative Dimensions of Hate Speech” (October 28, 2024). The Routledge Handbook of Conflict and Peace Communication, 1st Edition. Part II, essay 10. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003392002-12

^[28] Jones, Marc Owen, “CIVIL ACTORS UNDER ATTACK: Digital Authoritarianism and the weaponization of social media” (2024). Editors Stacey L. Connaughton, and Stefanie Pukallus. The Routledge Handbook of Conflict and Peace Communication, 1st Edition. Part II, essay 14. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003392002-16

Duha Shabir

10th Grade

Presentation Convent Higher Secondary School, Srinagar, India.

1st Prize

The Paradox of Free Speech:
Can we afford absolute freedom of speech?

Freedom may be popularly defined as the right to act without restraints, a concept so vital that societies have fought revolutions to claim it. Yet history shows that unbridled freedom destroys the very harmony it seeks to create. From the Soviet Union to the Han Dynasty (End of the Han Dynasty) , history has time and again, shown that the concept of ‘absolute freedom’ is an illusion, for a world without limits would collapse into chaos—where might makes right, and justice is impossible. Limits, or laws only exist because unchecked freedom breeds oppression and, not liberation. Liberation, by ensuring the balance that one person’s ‘freedom’ does not infringe another’s. I argue that freedom, in its truest sense, is not the absence of restraints but the presence of a balance that uplifts and frees everyone from the shackles of oppression. The concept of free speech is no exception. It empowers ideas, fuels progress and sustains democracy—but only within limits. When it morphs into hate speech, it undermines its very own purpose, and stops being a right rather becomes an attack on the very balance that makes freedom meaningful. Afterall, can we truly call it freedom if it thrives on taking it away from others? While the Article 19 of the United Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enshrines the fundamental freedom of opinion and expression (UDHR, 1948) , it is important to note that there are limits imposed to the extent of this ‘freedom’. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) specifically limits freedom of expression in cases where it threatens public order, incites discrimination, hostility, or violence

the fundamental freedom of opinion and expression (UDHR, 1948)[1], it is important to note that there are limits imposed to the extent of this ‘freedom’. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)[2] specifically limits freedom of expression in cases where it threatens public order, incites discrimination, hostility, or violence.

The Holocaust did not begin with gas chambers; it began with words that dehumanized an entire community (AP, 2021)[3]. The Cambodian genocide arose from rhetoric labeling intellectuals and minorities as "New People." (Brief histories: Cambodian genocide, 1975-1978)[4] In Rwanda, hate-filled broadcasts calling Tutsis “cockroaches” culminated in the massacre of over 800,000 lives (Britannica, 2024)[5]. The Bosnian genocide followed years of nationalist propaganda demonizing Muslims (Brosse)[6]. More recently, in Myanmar, relentless campaigns of hate and misinformation stripped the Rohingya of their humanity and safety (Fortify Rights)[7]. What starts as words can spiral into collective action, turning communities against one another. The psychological effects followed after are:  stigmatization, isolation, and the erosion of trust between groups.

Our societies are governed by the influence of media, where narratives can create or destroy identities within moments. Consider the cases of Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi (University of Michigan Law School, n.d.)[8], Hamid Hayat (Peled, M. , 2021)[9], and the victims of the "Tiffin Bomb" case (Times of India, 2016)[10]. These individuals, along with countless others, were branded as terrorists, their lives irrevocably altered by accusations that proved to be false. In a world where the media wields the power to declare anyone a hero or a terrorist with the stroke of a headline, the liberty to share anything without restraint becomes dangerous.  This is the grim reality of our era—the "Age of Information," where we are inundated with data yet deprived of discernment, stuffed with information but starved of true understanding. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are breeding grounds for ideologies that target minorities, reinforcing biases and inciting violence. For example, in Germany, a spike in anti-refugee posts by the far-right Alternative for Germany party was linked to increased physical attacks on refugees (Müller, K., & Schwarz, C, 2020)[11]. Similarly, in the United States, perpetrators of white supremacist attacks have cited online forums as sources of inspiration and coordination (Murder and extremism in the United States in 2022, 2023)[12]. The issue transcends borders. Myanmar witnessed the use of Facebook by military leaders to incite violence against the Rohingya minority, culminating in ethnic cleansing  (Mozur, P, 2018) [13]. In India and Sri Lanka, rumors spread on WhatsApp have incited lynch mobs and communal violence (Banaji, S., Bhat, R., & Srinivas, N., 2019)[14].

Social media platforms thrive on user engagement, often achieved through algorithms that inadvertently promote extremist content (Haroon, M. , 2023)[15]. Features like YouTube’s autoplay function have been criticized for driving users toward divisive and conspiratorial videos, contributing to radicalization (Nicas, J, 2018)[16]. Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci aptly called YouTube “one of the most powerful radicalizing instruments of the 21st century.” (Pearce, K., 2019)[17] Efforts to curb hate speech through content moderation face limitations. Algorithms lack the nuance to detect hate in varied cultural and linguistic contexts, while human moderators are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of content. Furthermore, platforms often prioritize profit over accountability, leaving room for hate speech to proliferate.

In democracies like India, the challenges of regulating free speech underscore how unchecked expression, particularly in the form of hate speech, undermines democratic principles. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2024 electoral campaign offers a glaring example. His rhetoric and that of his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) frequently targeted Muslim and other minority communities, fostering social divisions. Human Rights Watch documented at least 110 speeches in which Modi used Islamophobic narratives, despite the election code prohibiting appeals to communal sentiments (Human Rights Watch, 2024)[18]. The ramifications extend beyond rhetoric. BJP-led state governments have institutionalized this animosity through policies and actions like the demolition of Muslim homes and places of worship, often without due process, under the guise of "bulldozer justice."

Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (Vinney, C, 2024)[19], posits that individuals derive their identity from group memberships, leading to heightened intergroup conflict when in-group favoritism fosters hostility toward out-groups. While these tendencies are natural and deeply rooted in human psychology, they become dangerous when manipulated by those in power.  When individuals with radical mindsets gain unbridled access to platforms, they exploit these in-group and out-group distinctions to incite hatred. By framing out-groups as threats, they amplify biases, ensuring their narratives resonate emotionally and viscerally with their audience. When hate is allowed to proliferate unchecked, it threatens not only its immediate targets but the very foundation of human rights and democracy. History has shown us the cost of inaction. If we, as global citizens, do not confront this menace with urgency, we risk enabling the next atrocity. Freedom of speech must never be a shield for hate, for when words are wielded to destroy, they cease to be expressions of liberty and become instruments of tyranny. It is time to ask ourselves: can we afford to stand by and let history repeat itself?

But we are already letting history repeat itself: the case of Palestine.

The shadow of history grows long in the Gaza Strip, where the cost of silence and suppression mirrors humanity's darkest chapters. No genocide begins with bloodshed—it starts with words. Today, Palestinians face systemic erasure. Journalists are targeted, protests are banned, and symbols of Palestinian identity—flags, slogans, even the keffiyeh—are outlawed in many places. Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur (United Nations, 2024)[20], warns that freedom of expression is being sacrificed under the pretense of political convenience. This is not freedom of speech—it is the weaponization of speech. Hate speech, unchecked, has always been humanity’s most potent poison. It was hate speech that fueled the Holocaust, demonized intellectuals in Cambodia, and turned neighbors into executioners in Rwanda. In every instance, the seeds of violence were planted through words that made oppression seem acceptable.

Even though the Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (ICCPR, 1966), mandates that any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence must be prohibited by law. Yet as discussed above, hate speech continues to proliferate unchecked across the globe, normalized through divisive political rhetoric. This glaring disconnect between legal mandates and real-world practices poses a pressing question: Is the solution to impose stricter laws to curb this danger? Advocating for restrictions on hate speech often opens the door to broader censorship, as governments may exploit these measures to suppress dissent and marginalize inconvenient truths. This leads to a paradox: speaking in favor of one—be it free speech or restrictions—can inadvertently fuel the other. The challenge lies in finding an equilibrium, ensuring that protections against hate speech do not evolve into tools of repression.

This disturbing pattern is evident in Project 2025, the controversial policy blueprint shaping America's future. Proposed by the Heritage Foundation, it envisions consolidating federal power under a single executive, dismantling agencies like the Department of Education, and erasing terms such as "gender equality" and "reproductive rights" from laws (Wendling, M, 2024)[21]. Even India is following similar paths of historical erasure. The decision by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to remove chapters on the Mughal Empire from class 12 history textbooks is part of a larger pattern that seeks to erase parts of the past deemed politically inconvenient. This move, under the guise of “syllabus rationalization,” does not just erase historical content; it erases the very diversity of India’s heritage, presenting a skewed narrative that omits crucial perspectives on the country’s past. (LiveMint, 2023)[22]

The act of erasing these lessons is not just an academic issue; it is a human rights issue. As per the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), every individual has the right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." By selectively suppressing content in education and media, these moves undermine the very foundation of freedom of speech. What is being erased is not just information but also the ability to engage with multiple viewpoints, challenge dominant narratives, and build a well-rounded understanding of history. Hate speech flourishes when only certain stories are allowed to be told, and others are deliberately concealed or ignored. When the portrayal of historical events becomes distorted or incomplete, it invites the spread of misinformation, fosters intolerance, and deepens societal divides. Censorship may no longer wear the guise of overt, authoritarian control, but it is still very much alive. These erasures can be seen as a quiet form of censorship that undermines the freedom of expression we should uphold—especially in a democracy. The attempt to erase history is part of a broader effort to control the narratives we tell about ourselves. What begins as the removal of chapters today could evolve into the complete erasure of inconvenient truths tomorrow.

To address such issues, governments and international institutions must take resolute and collaborative steps, recognizing the fine balance between safeguarding free expression and ensuring the safety and dignity of all individuals. At the national level, governments must create comprehensive legal frameworks that define and penalize hate speech without overstepping into censorship. These laws should be crafted with input from diverse communities to ensure they are inclusive and sensitive to cultural nuances. Educational campaigns must accompany such legislation, teaching citizens about the boundaries of responsible speech and the profound consequences of hateful rhetoric. Hate speech laws, however, must come with checks and balances to prevent misuse against marginalized groups. Transparent judicial review mechanisms and oversight bodies can ensure these laws are applied fairly and equitably.

Governments must also establish regulations that compel tech companies to prioritize user safety over profit. This includes mandating algorithmic transparency, so the public and regulators understand how content is curated and amplified. Platforms should be held liable for negligence when their systems promote hate speech or incite violence. Just as industries are held accountable for defective products, social media companies must face consequences when their tools cause societal harm. On the international stage, institutions like the United Nations must spearhead the creation of globally accepted guidelines on hate speech. This can be achieved through binding treaties that hold nations accountable for fostering environments where hate speech thrives. Lessons can be drawn from the Nuremberg Principles and modern tribunals to establish mechanisms for prosecuting those who use online platforms to incite violence or genocide. A global coalition of nations could fund and operate a neutral body dedicated to monitoring hate speech across borders, equipped with multilingual AI tools and cultural experts to identify and address harmful content accurately. Collaboration between governments, tech companies, and civil society is crucial. Forums that bring these stakeholders together can help build consensus on best practices for content moderation and restorative justice. Moreover, international aid programs should support developing nations in building their digital infrastructure and hate speech moderation capabilities, ensuring global equity in tackling this issue. Supporting survivors must be at the heart of these efforts. Governments can fund initiatives like survivor-led communities and restorative justice platforms, allowing individuals harmed by hate speech to heal, find support, and even advocate for systemic changes. Policies that amplify the voices of victims, ensuring their stories are heard and their needs are addressed, will lay the groundwork for more compassionate and just societies.

And within our communities, we must be the catalysts for change. We can choose to engage in dialogue that bridges divides, to educate ourselves and others about the impact of hate speech, and to stand firm against those who seek to exploit our differences. The fight against hate is not the responsibility of governments alone; it belongs to every one of us. The time has come for us to recognize the power of words—their ability to heal, to unite, to inspire, and, sadly, to harm. We must not allow ourselves to be complacent in the face of such a threat. For in defending the dignity of all people, we defend the soul of humanity itself. We must rise above the false dichotomy that pits free speech against safety. True freedom does not thrive in a society where individuals live in fear of verbal abuse, threats, or dehumanization.

We are not helpless in this endeavor. We have seen what happens when societies rally together for the greater good. We have seen walls fall, movements rise, and hope triumph over despair. Let us now channel that same determination into creating a culture where words build rather than destroy, where freedom uplifts rather than oppresses, and where the right to speak is matched by the responsibility to listen. This is not just about protecting laws or platforms. It is about protecting each other. It is about building a future where no child grows up fearing the hatred of others, where no voice is silenced by threats, and where the basic dignity of every human being is not just a right but a reality. Let this be our mission, our promise, and our legacy. Together, we can achieve it. Together, we must.

---

[1] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, 1948.

[2] United Nations, General Assembly. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations, 1966.

[3] AP. (2021, April 8). 'It started with words': Holocaust survivors recount how hate speech led to mass murder. Euro News. https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/08/it-started-with-words-holocaust-survivors-recount-how-hate-speech-led-to-mass-murder

[4] USC Shoah Foundation. (n.d.). Brief histories: Cambodian genocide, 1975-1978. USC Shoah Foundation. https://sfi.usc.edu

[5] Britannica. (2024). Rwanda genocide of 1994. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/Rwanda-genocide-of-1994

[6] De La Brosse, R. (2003). Political Propaganda and the Plan to Create a 'State for all Serbs'. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

[7] Fortify Rights. (2018). They Gave Them Long Swords: Preparations for Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State, Myanmar

[8] National Registry of Exonerations. (n.d.). Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi. University of Michigan Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3761

[9] Peled, M. (2021, December 16). An American terror story. The Intercept. Retrieved from https://theintercept.com/2021/12/16/hamid-hayat-fbi-terrorism-wrongful-conviction/

[10] TNN. (2016, January 16). Tiffin bomb accused acquitted after 10 years. The Times of India. Retrieved  from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/tiffin-bomb-accused-acquitted-after-10-years/articleshow/50594352.cms

[11] Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2020). Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hate crime. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 172, 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.02.011

[12] ADL. (2023). Murder and extremism in the United States in 2022. Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved from https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022

[13] Mozur, P. (2018, October 15). A genocide incited on Facebook, with posts from Myanmar’s military. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html

[14] Banaji, S., Bhat, R., & Srinivas, N. (2019). WhatsApp vigilantes: An exploration of citizen reception and circulation of WhatsApp misinformation in India. London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/projects/WhatsApp-Misinformation-India-Sri-Lanka.pdf

[15] Haroon, M. (2023). Do YouTube Recommendations Foster Political Radicalization? UC Davis. Retrieved from UC Davis Website.

[16] Nicas, J. (2018, February 7). How YouTube drives people to the internet’s darkest corners. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-youtube-drives-people-to-the-internets-darkest-corners-1518024301

[17] Pearce, K. (2019, February 11). Zeynep Tufekci on tech's powers and perils for democracy. Johns Hopkins University Hub. Retrieved from https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/02/11/zeynep-tufekci-democracy-dialogues/

[18] Human Rights Watch. (2024, August 14). India: Hate speech fueled Modi’s election campaign: Prime minister, ruling party targeted Muslims, other at-risk groups. Human Rights Watch.

[19] Vinney, C. (2024, September 3). Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior.

[20] United Nations. (2024, October 18). Freedom of expression also under fire in Gaza war, rights expert says. United Nations. https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155881

[21] Wendling, M. (2024, September 11). Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for another Trump presidency. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news

[22] LiveMint. (2023, April 5). Why NCERT removed chapters on Mughals from history syllabus. Explained. LiveMint. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/why-ncert-removed-chapters-on-mughals-from-history-syllabus-explained-11680677937093.html

.

Bibliography

AP.(2021). It started with words': Holocaust survivors recount how hate speech led to mass murder. Euro News.

Banaji, S., Bhat, R., & Srinivas, N. (2019). WhatsApp vigilantes: An exploration of citizen reception and circulation of WhatsApp misinformation in India. Retrieved from London School of Economics and Political Science: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-com

Brief histories: Cambodian genocide, 1975-1978. (n.d.). USC Shoah Foundation.

Britannica. (2024). Rwanda genocide of 1994. Retrieved from Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/event/Rwanda-genocide-of-1994

Brosse, D. L. (n.d.). Political Propaganda and the Plan to Create a 'State for all Serbs'. 2003. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

End of the Han Dynasty. (n.d.). Wikipedia.

Fortify Rights. (n.d.). They Gave Them Long Swords: Preparations for Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State, Myanmar. 2018. Fortify Rights.

Haroon, M. . (2023). Do YouTube Recommendations Foster Political Radicalization? Retrieved from UC Davis.

Human Rights Watch. (2024, August 14). India: Hate speech fueled Modi’s election campaign: Prime minister, ruling party targeted Muslims, other at-risk groups. Retrieved from Human Rights Watch.

ICCPR. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations.

LiveMint. (2023, April 5). Why NCERT removed chapters on Mughals from history syllabus. Explained. Retrieved from LiveMint: https://www.livemint.com/news/india/why-ncert-removed-chapters-on-mughals-from-history-syllabus-explained-11680677937093.html

Mozur, P. (2018, October 15). A genocide incited on Facebook, with posts from Myanmar’s military. Retrieved from The New York Times. : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html

Müller, K., & Schwarz, C. (2020). Fanning the flames of hate: Social media and hate crime. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.02.011

Murder and extremism in the United States in 2022. (2023). Anti-Defamation League. Retrieved from https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022

Nicas, J. (2018, February 7). How YouTube drives people to the internet’s darkest corners. The Wall Street Journal.

Pearce, K. (2019, February 11). Zeynep Tufekci on tech's powers and perils for democracy. Retrieved from Johns Hopkins University Hub: https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/02/11/zeynep-tufekci-democracy-dialogues/

Peled, M. . (2021, December 16). An American terror story. Retrieved from The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2021/12/16/hamid-hayat-fbi-terrorism-wrongful-conviction/

Times of India. (2016, January 16). Tiffin bomb accused acquitted after 10 years. Retrieved from TNN: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/tiffin-bomb-accused-acquitted-after-10-years/articleshow/50594352.cms

UDHR. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.

United Nations. (2024, October 18). Freedom of expression also under fire in Gaza war, rights expert says. Retrieved from United Nations.

University of Michigan Law School. (n.d.). University of Michigan Law School. . Retrieved from Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3761

Vinney, C. (2024, September 3). Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior.

Wendling, M. (2024, September 11). Project 2025: The right-wing wish list for another Trump presidency. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news

Rwiti Roy

12th Grade

Billabong International High School, Mumbai, India

2ndPrize

Hate Speech and Human Rights:
A Roadmap for Governments to Foster Inclusivity

Introduction

Parekh argues free speech is the indispensable basis of free thought and critical self-consciousness, it is the basis of a meaningful human life, just as vital in political life and is just as crucial to intellectual inquiries. He says “Although free speech is an important value, it is not the only one. Human dignity, equality, freedom to live without harassment and intimidation, social harmony, mutual respect, and protection of one’s good name and honour are central to the good life and deserve to be safeguarded.” Speech that violates these human values is a formidable threat to human rights.[1]

However, the central discourse regarding hate speech in the 21^st century is “How can one distinguish between hate speech and protected speech?” and “Should Governments implement hate speech laws or will it give them arbitrary power to undermine the voices of people?”. For instance, North Korea dropped more than 260 balloons carrying rubbish in South Korea. The action was reportedly a response to South Korean activists who regularly launch balloons carrying leaflets criticizing North Korean policies and human rights abuses. While North Korean authorities claimed it to be the citizens expressing freedom of expression, South Korea sees it as a demonstration of hate speech.[2] At the same time, In the Middle East, Egypt's anti-cybercrime laws have been used to arrest journalists, bloggers, and activists under charges of spreading misinformation or promoting hate, often broadly applied to those questioning the government’s actions or addressing sensitive social issues.[3]

Furthermore, hate speech online via social media platforms has increased the amount of virulent speech directed towards individuals and marginalized communities (Laub).[4] The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this trend. Research by L1ght, a cybersecurity firm, indicated a 900% increase in hate speech against Chinese people and a 200% increase in general hate speech on social media platforms during the first months of the pandemic.[5]

A survey conducted by Ipsos on 8,000 individuals from 16 countries showed that 2 in 3 people have experienced hate speech online.[6] Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have adopted guidelines to remove hateful content. There is much debate on whether they should censor content or not. But this essay limits its discussions to what governments should do to tackle hate speech.

There is no legally binding, universally agreed-upon definition of hate speech. The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender or other identity factor.” This essay will refer to this definition of hate speech.

It aims to cite reasons validating the argument: Hate speech is a formidable threat to human rights. Curbing hate speech and maintaining free speech is equally important; Governments should reduce hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement without censorship. However, it is imperative to punish hate speech that incites discrimination, hostility and violence.

Reasons why hate speech is detrimental to human rights.

The reason is simple and a grave one- hate speech can harm societies, peace and development, as it lays the ground for conflict, tension and human rights violations, including atrocity crimes (Nderitu).[7]

Laws against hate speech find their origin in the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, where Nazi propagandists Julius Streicher and Hans Fritzsche were charged with crimes against humanity on the basis of their hate speech. The Nazi regime took control of the independent media, replacing it with state-controlled radio, print and later cinemas media that disseminated antisemitic views, and other racist stereotypes. The hateful persecution of Jews, Roma, people with disabilities, Poles and Slavs, and political opponents such as communists, socialists, trade unionists, Jehovah’s witnesses, LGBTQ+ individuals and Afro-Germans culminated in the holocaust, killing 6 million Jewish children, women and men, and at least half a million Roma and Sinti.[8]

In Rwanda, the government encouraged anti-Tutsi propaganda via the media, newspapers, and radio. In 1994, they were encouraging everyone to go to every home, hunt them down, and kill kids and women. In the ensuing genocide, 1 million people were systematically killed in less than three months. (Mutegwaraba)[9]

In Bosnia, the regions where the main population is Serbian, the Bosnian Muslim community and other groups were constantly portrayed by party-controlled media as violent fundamentalist opponents who were planning an attack on the Serbs. Also, dissent was suppressed. In the town of Srebrenica, a Muslim enclave in eastern Bosnia and a "safe area" protected by the United Nations, 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were slaughtered by Serbian forces in a couple of days in July 1995. Over 100,000 people died and 20,000 went missing.[10]

After the genocides in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were established to hold accountable those individuals who were responsible for these horrific human tragedies. These tribunals have recognised that genocide begins with words and find direct and public incitement to genocide punishable as an offence in its own right (Cotler).[11]

Though these genocides have set strong precedents about the disastrous effects of hate speech, they continue to play a major role in the perpetuation of wars and the subversion of human rights. The war in Gaza, which has continued to this day is a case in point. Disinformation and propaganda spread through digital platforms and social media can influence individuals to act in a discriminatory manner[12]. For instance, the Gaza war started in essence due to the prejudiced views of Israeli-semiotics and Palestinian Arabs against each other. Soon after the war began antisemitic content increased more than 919 % on X while anti-Muslim content jumped 422 %. Moreover, the Anti-Defamation League reported 832 antisemitic incidents of assault, vandalism, and harassment between October 7, the day Hamas attacked Israel, and November 7. Similarly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reports an "unprecedented surge in bigotry" since the war began, receiving 1,283 requests for help and complaints of anti-Muslim or anti-Arab bias between October 7 and November 4. Thus, there is a clear connection between hateful speech and hateful acts.[13]

Marginalized groups cannot protect themselves against verbal abuse and discriminatory behaviour that degrades their quality of life. So, when hate speech is still used against the Scheduled Castes and Tribes or the Muslims in India[14]; LGBTQ+ in Russia[15], women in Brazil[16], Ahmadis in Pakistan[17], Rohingyas in Bangladesh[18], Tigrayans in Ethiopia[19] and other minority groups in different countries, it is imperative to bring in hate speech laws. However, as we observe from their lasting manifestations jurisprudence is not enough. (see footnotes for relevant information)

Challenges of Hate Speech Laws: Shortcomings and the Conflict with Article 19 Freedom of Speech

The European Union's 2008 Framework Decision mandates the criminalisation of public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, religion, or ethnic origin. This was influenced by Germany's law against Volksverhetzung to combat Nazism. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981) ensures freedom of expression, provided it respects others' rights. The 2015 Kigali Declaration also calls for legislation to combat hate speech.

The International jurisprudence against hate speech includes The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) which addresses hate speech through the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is regarded as jus cogens, peremptory international norms and obligatio erga omnes, an obligation owned by all states (Cotler).

Article 19(3) permits limitations on freedom of expression only when such restrictions are authorised by law and necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others. Additionally, Article 20 prohibits any form of national, religious, or racial hatred that incites violence, discrimination, or hostility. These provisions are part of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Furthermore, the UN Rabat Plan of Action provides key guidance to states on the difference between freedom of expression and “incitement”. It resolves the previous problem of analogous ambiguities for the interpretation of Article 20. The Covenant has 174 parties and six more signatories upon which it is legally binding, although many have made reservations. Most notably, the USA considers Article 20(2) unconstitutional according to its First Amendment.

UN also launched The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech in 2019 which aims to combat hate speech globally by enhancing the UN’s response and mitigating its potential to incite violence and discrimination, particularly against vulnerable groups.

Though there are many laws and regulations in place to combat virulent speech, the central debate around hate speech laws revolves around their conflict with Article 19 of UDHR. Strossen claims that upon examining countries with hate speech laws, she found that they often use them to silence ideas that conflict with mainstream beliefs or those in power, which poses a serious threat to freedom of speech. Moreover, the term "hate speech" is hard to define objectively, therefore there is no basis in reality for trying to coin a legal concept that is so vague and arbitrary around this idea of hate speech and doing so would inevitably hand the government arbitrary power to silence dissenting offensive or unpopular speech. She provides an example from Canada, where a man was prosecuted for distributing four pamphlets that quoted Bible verses opposing homosexuality. The pamphlets underwent three judicial reviews: one court labelled all four as "hate speech," another court found none to be hate speech, and a third court deemed two pamphlets criminally punishable while the other two were not.[20]

Dworkin argues that hate speech laws undermine political legitimacy. He believes that allowing hate speech, while often distasteful, is essential for a marketplace of ideas where true opinions can be tested and strengthened. He claims that government suppression of views weakens free debate and makes it an arbiter of truth, which is incompatible with democracy. However, he does support laws against direct incitement to imminent violence.[21]

Their arguments can perhaps be ratified by Human Rights Watch’s Submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression. It mentions the misuse of hate speech laws by Governments, such as when, In Jordan, authorities have detained and harassed many individuals participating in pro-Palestine protests or online advocacy since October 2023, charging some under the controversial cybercrimes law passed in August 2023. There is a similar situation in Bahrain. Even in the USA, as pro-Palestine protests spread across university campuses in April 2024, some universities reportedly responded with mass suspensions, evictions from university housing, and arrests of students, faculty, legal observers, and journalists covering these events.[22]

Therefore, we conclude that the inefficiency of hate speech laws are1) These can suppress free speech due to the misuse by Governments, either intentionally or unintentionally 2) The inconsistent enforcement of such laws by various countries due to insufficient resources or differing ideologies. 3) The UN Rabat Plan (2012) and the UN Strategy to tackle hate speech (2019) are not legally binding, making them ineffective.

Resolution

According to Peter Molnar, “Art and education in the broadest sense, combined with a careful application of the “imminent danger” test, provide useful remedies against “hate speech” in all democracies.” Prohibitions cannot reach the roots of hatred or even its symptoms. Art and education are the most effective ways to prevent hate speech, addressing the roots of prejudice: ignorance, misunderstanding, and false beliefs.[23]

Alice Nderitu explains how a child learns to hate. The child begins to hear about hate from his/her family, they begin to understand their own community as an ingroup and other as an ‘outgroup’. They internalize the stereotypes about other races, ethnicities, and religions. When they move to the schools, they are socialized this time by the media, by religious organizations and by observing political issues. By the time they become adults, they have already internalized hate. That adult who was a child born without hate becomes the person who continues the next cycle of socialization. That cycle can be broken by education that promotes inclusivity and empathy.[24]

Governments can combat hate speech by embedding critical thinking, empathy, and digital literacy into education. The curricula should aim at prebunking xenophobic and hateful disinformation, propaganda and conspiracy theories by teaching about past genocides that help learners understand what is hate speech, such as Argentina’s “education and memory programme”. It should also teach them what is and what is not protected by the right to freedom of expression – hence a clearer grasp of one’s rights and responsibilities, both online and offline. Schools must introduce social and emotional learning (SEL) which teaches them to regulate their emotions and develop empathy, openness and compassion. Governments can create programs like The SELMA Toolkit, funded by the European Commission, which offers over one hundred resources for educators to tackle hate speech among children and youth. Furthermore, Learners need training in media and information literacy and critical thinking to recognize persuasive tactics in conspiracy theories and disinformation, like fearmongering and scapegoating. Such training has effectively reduced susceptibility to hate speech. Evidence from inoculation-style interventions shows that learners can be taught to recognize and resist propaganda and conspiracy theories, thereby weakening support for exclusionary and violent extremist ideas.[25]

To determine if speech poses imminent danger warranting prohibition, we must consider not only the immediate circumstances but also the broader social context that influences the speech's potential to incite violent action (Molnar). Therefore, one can say as long as pro-Palestinian speech does not turn ‘Anti-Israel’ or ‘Pro-terrorist’, promoting antisemitic acts of violence, it must be allowed, so that they express their right to freedom of speech.

Gregory S Gordon proposes reimagining the whole legal apparatus via a unified liability theory to met out the gaps of international speech law. The theory posits he core atrocity offenses—genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—should be methodically attached to each type of liability—inciting, speech (abetting a proposed new offense for noncatalytic speech), instigating, and ordering. He suggests removing the causation requirement absolutely from incitement: “The incitement crime is inchoate and geared toward prevention. That means early intervention. Having a causation requirement would be inimical to that goal.” One proposal involves the creation of an international treaty aimed at defining laws against atrocity speech offences. Its implementation, however, is another matter that will only be possible by the consensus of all countries.[26]

Conclusion

In conclusion, hate speech undeniably subverts human rights. However, much needs to be done by Governments to intercept hate speech. Implementing hate speech laws is not enough. Governments need to address the root cause of hate speech through education and art, i.e. by making respective changes and additions in curricula to promote inclusivity and empathy. They need to be careful so as to not suppress the voices of minorities or misuse hate speech laws for their personal motives. Going ahead, Governments can perhaps one day reach a consensus to restructure international speech laws to ensure the well-being of every world citizen.

[1] Miklos Haraszti, Adam Liptak, Parekh, B., Baker, C. E., & Kenan Malik. (2012). The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking regulation and responses (M. Herz & P. Molnar, Eds.; pp. ix–81). (P. 43-44) Cambridge University Press. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/91098/frontmatter/9780521191098_frontmatter.pdf

[2] Ng, K. (2024, May 29). North Korea drops balloons carrying trash in South. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nn2p32zrzo

[3] Michaelson, R. (2022, October 19). “Fake news” becomes tool of repression after Egypt passes new law. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jul/27/fake-news-becomes-tool-of-repression-after-egypt-passes-new-law

[4] Laub, Z. (2019, June 7). Hate speech on social media: global comparisons. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons

[5]

Pérez, Ana Laura (2021), UNESCO Office Montevideo and Regional Bureau for Science in Latin America and the Caribbean,  the    United    Nations    Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

[6] UNESCO & IPSOS. (2023). Survey on the impact of online disinformation and hate speech (M. Gallard, Ed.) (P. 3) [Report]. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-11/unesco-ipsos-online-disinformation-hate-speech.pdf

[7] Alice Wairimu Nderitu United Nations. (n.d.). Why tackle hate speech?  | United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/impact-and-prevention/why-tackle-hate-speech#:~:text=It%20may%20expose%20those%20targeted,rights%20violations%2C%20including%20atrocity%20crimes.

[8] Alice Wairimu Nderitu, United Nations. (n.d.-a). Hate speech and real harm | United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm

[9] INTERVIEW: How hate speech triggered genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. (2023, April 23). UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1135902

[10] [10] Alice Wairimu Nderitu, United Nations. (n.d.-a). Hate speech and real harm | United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm

[11] Irwin Cotler, 2012, State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide : The Responsibility to Prevent, The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking regulation and responses (M. Herz & P. Molnar, Eds.; pp. ix–81). Cambridge University Press. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/91098/frontmatter/9780521191098_frontmatter.pdf

[12]Dealing with propaganda, misinformation and fake news. (2023, October 7). Democratic Schools for All. https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/dealing-with-propaganda-misinformation-and-fake-news

[13] Honderich, H. (2024, October 6). Antisemitic incidents in US surge to record high: report. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wkxv9d99vo

[14] Government officials and leaders from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have incited violence against religious minorities, particularly Muslims, leading to increased hate crimes. Demolitions of Muslim properties and mass evictions after communal violence have become common and unpunished. The Indian government has imposed arbitrary internet restrictions, including shutdowns, and has withheld Twitter accounts of journalists and civil society organizations without due process. Marginalized groups, including Dalits and Adivasis, continue to face violence and discrimination, especially women and girls concerning their bodily autonomy. Despite a ban on manual scavenging, over 300 individuals have died cleaning sewage since 2018.. (n.d.). Human rights in India. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/india/report-india/

[15] In a closed hearing, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Justice Ministry’s lawsuit accusing the “LGBT movement” of inciting social and religious discord. Under Russian criminal law, participating in or financing an extremist organization is punishable by up to 12 years in prison. A person found guilty of displaying such groups’ symbols faces up to 15 days in detention for the first offense and up to four years in prison for a repeat offense. Russia: Supreme Court bans “LGBT movement” as “Extremist.” (2023, November 30). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/30/russia-supreme-court-bans-lgbt-movement-extremist

[16] In Brazil, gender-based online abuse is a significant issue, especially targeting women in politics and public roles. In 2020, a study revealed that 58% of elected female mayors reported experiencing some form of political violence, with 74% facing the spread of false information and 66% enduring online threats, slurs, and hate speech. This hostile environment often discourages women from participating in public life or engaging actively on social media platforms due to fear of harassment and abuse. Disinformation and online political violence against women in Brazil. (n.d.). Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/disinformation-and-online-political-violence-against-women-brazil

[17] In Pakistan, hate speech and violent discrimination against the Ahmadiyya community continue to rise in 2024, with several worrying statistics. Pakistan’s National Commission for Human Rights reports that from 1984 to September 2023, over 280 Ahmadis were killed in targeted violence. Additionally, 415 Ahmadis were assaulted, and religious sites have been increasingly attacked: 51 worship places damaged, 39 burned, and 18 forcibly occupied, while 46 others have been sealed by authorities Amnesty International. (2024, June 24). Pakistan: Authorities must end escalating attacks on minority Ahmadiyya community. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/06/end-escalating-attacks-on-minority-ahmadiyya-community/

[18] In 2023, Human Rights Watch documented incidents of violence and hate, with over 48 Rohingya refugees killed by June, often as a result of camp violence involving gangs and extremists. Many refugees are unable to report crimes due to fear and limited access to legal recourse, furthering their marginalization​. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/13/bangladesh-spiraling-violence-against-rohingya-refugees

[19] The Tigray conflict in Ethiopia, which began in 2020, has been accompanied by a surge in hate speech and violence targeting the Tigrayan ethnic group. Reports show that both online and offline channels have been used to incite hostility, with social media platforms like Facebook amplifying harmful rhetoric, often due to algorithms that prioritize inflammatory content. Amnesty International. (2023, October 31). Ethiopia: Crimes against humanity in Western Tigray zone. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/ethiopia-crimes-against-humanity-in-western-tigray-zone/

[20] Ayn Rand Institute. (2021, January 29). Nadine Strossen on ‘Hate Speech’ Laws vs. Free Speech [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJTRDSTa8D0

[21] Ronald Dworkin, “Foreword,” in Extreme Speech and Democracy v (Ivan Hare & James Weinstein eds., Oxford University Press 2009)

[22] Human Rights Watch’s submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression. (2024, July 31). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/31/human-rights-watchs-submission-united-nations-special-rapporteur-freedom-opinion#:~:text=Human%20Rights%20Watch's%20submission%20centers,of%20journalists%20and%20press%20freedom

[23] Molnar P. Responding to “Hate Speech” with Art, Education, and the Imminent Danger Test. In: Herz M, Molnar P, eds. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press; 2012:183-197.

[24] UN Story. (2022, June 17). Hate speech explained | Where does it start? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xvx_ZTWNd8

[25] Addressing hate speech through education: A guide for policy-makers, (2023), e United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 7 (P-34-41), place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France, and the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, United Nations, 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017, United States of America

[26] Gordon, Gregory S., Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition -- Introduction. "Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition” by Gregory S. Gordon, (Oxford University Press), 2017, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2018-12, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3230050

.

Bibliography

Miklos Haraszti, Adam Liptak, Parekh, B., Baker, C. E., & Kenan Malik. (2012). The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking regulation and responses (M. Herz & P. Molnar, Eds.; pp. ix–81). Cambridge University Press. http://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/91098/frontmatter/9780521191098_frontmatter.pdf

Ng, K. (2024, May 29). North Korea drops balloons carrying trash in South. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nn2p32zrzo

Michaelson, R. (2022, October 19). “Fake news” becomes tool of repression after Egypt passes new law. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jul/27/fake-news-becomes-tool-of-repression-after-egypt-passes-new-law
Laub, Z. (2019, June 7). Hate speech on social media: global comparisons. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons

Pérez, Ana Laura (2021), UNESCO Office Montevideo and Regional Bureau for Science in Latin America and the Caribbean, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNESCO & IPSOS. (2023). Survey on the impact of online disinformation and hate speech (M. Gallard, Ed.) [Report]. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-11/unesco-ipsos-online-disinformation-hate-speech.pdf

Addressing hate speech through education: A guide for policy-makers, (2023), e United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 7 (P-34-41), place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France, and the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, United Nations, 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY, 10017, United States of America

Molnar P. Responding to “Hate Speech” with Art, Education, and the Imminent Danger Test. In: Herz M, Molnar P, eds. The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses. Cambridge University Press; 2012:183-197.

UN Story. (2022, June 17). Hate speech explained | Where does it start? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xvx_ZTWNd8

Gordon, Gregory S., Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition -- Introduction. "Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition” by Gregory S. Gordon, (Oxford University Press), 2017, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2018-12, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3230050

Should we hate hate speech regulation? The argument from viewpoint discrimination1 | The Philosophical Quarterly | Oxford Academic

Antisemitic and Anti-Muslim Hate Speech Surges Across the Internet - The New York Times
Disinformation and online political violence against women in Brazil. (n.d.). Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/disinformation-and-online-political-violence-against-women-brazil

Pakistan: Authorities must end escalating attacks on minority Ahmadiyya community. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/06/end-escalating-attacks-on-minority-ahmadiyya-community/

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/04/ethiopia-crimes-against-humanity-in-western-tigray-zone/

https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2024/05/experts-committee-elimination-discrimination-against-women-praise-brazils-maria-da

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/30/russia-supreme-court-bans-lgbt-movement-extremist

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/india/report-india

https://theconversation.com/putins-russia-first-arrests-under-new-anti-lgbt-laws-mark-new-era-of-repression-226864

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/content-and-context-of-hate-speech/responding-to-hate-speech-with-art-education-and-the-imminent-danger-test/93F77287AEE7930F2B50D2FEAD294D9E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJTRDSTa8D0

https://www.un.org/en/outreach-programme-holocaust/hate-speech-%E2%80%98dehumanizes-individuals-and-communities%E2%80%99-guterres

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/what-you-need-know-about-new-guide-addressing-hate-speech-through-education?hub=70287

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/uganda-supports-unescos-call-consider-teachers-voices-education-policy

https://un-dco.org/stories/combating-hate-speech-lessons-asia

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/01/palestine-us-activism-firings-speech

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/06/un-human-rights-chief-hate-speech-has-no-place-our-world

https://www.coe.int/en/web/kyiv/combating-hate-speech-in-ukraine

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4411126-rabid-hate-speech-against-jews-isnt-a-matter-of-interpretation

Nadia Alexander

Homeschooled, South Africa

3rd Prize

HANDLING HATE SPEECH: ‘US AND THEM’

WHAT IS HATE SPEECH?

The question[i] posed implies a conflict between freedom of expression and hate speech. Though the right to freedom of expression is granted by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[ii], the definition of both terms is widely contested[iii].   Nonetheless, we may seek definitions of the two, so that their potential to conflict may be made clear. Freedom of expression is “the right to speak, to be heard, and to participate in political, artistic, and social life. It also includes the ‘right to know’: the right to seek, receive, and share information through any media”[iv].  Hate speech, on the other hand, is “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”.[v] When the right to communicate crosses a hazy line into prejudice or incitement to violence, hate speech has reared its’ ugly head.

I agree with Antonio Guterres’ identification of hate speech as “as formidable threat to human rights”. It is exactly that, by itself and especially in its relation to more egregious human rights violations.

HISTORY, HATE SPEECH AND HUMAN RIGHTS

South Africa’s Apartheid - one of the greatest crimes against humanity[vi], perpetrated from 1948 to 1994 - was fuelled by hate speech. The ruling National Party of the time spewed discriminatory notions of difference – inferiority and superiority between the so – called ‘races’ to sustain their iniquitous oppression of the working, ‘non-white/black’ population[vii]. Dr Hendrik Verwoerd, the ‘architect of Apartheid’, once proclaimed that: “Natives [blacks] must be taught from an early age that equality with Europeans [whites] is not for them.”[viii] and that “there is no place for [the Bantu] in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour.... What is the use of teaching the Bantu child mathematics when it cannot use it in practice”[ix] to try to justify his governments’ discriminatory Bantu Education Act of 1953 (now repealed)[x]. Without this toxic discourse, disguised as valid reasoning, apartheid may have never persisted as it did, for 46 long years. But with it, countless human rights violations were committed by the state, including forced removals[xi] that directly infringed upon the right to “freedom of movement and residence” (UDHR, Article 13)  and the enforcement of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949[xii] such that South African men and women did not “without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family” (UDHR, Article 16).  Indeed, without racist prejudice, cemented in the nations’ mind by state and media[xiii] hate speech, the National Party would likely never have had any ground upon which to exploit and humiliate ‘non whites". This is just one historical example of the symbiotic relationship between hate speech and the violation of human rights, exhibited also in the Holocaust and the 1994 Rwandan genocide[xiv]. Many violations, and thus the threat of state-wide hate speech, persist in their intergenerational reach: my great grandmother was dispossessed of her small holding[xv], in direct violation of our family’s right to not be arbitrarily deprived of our property (Article 17, UDHR), an injustice for which my grandmother received only R600 in reparations.  Descendants of apartheids’ victims thus lack the wealth of their ‘white’ countrymen[xvi] and, with the ruling governments’ preservation of racial classification the right to be ‘born free and equal’ is continually strained[xvii].

HATE SPEECH TODAY

It seems that humanity has not yet shirked the threat of hate speech to human rights and there are countless modern – day instances of our failure to do so.

A case – study in hate speeches’ threat may be found in the United States of America. In his recent presidential election campaign, the now president, Donald Trump and his proponents may be quoted spouting numerous tid-bits of hate speech, many xenophobic in nature[xviii]. Of Haitian immigrants, he made the baseless claim that “…they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, … they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”[xix] Such a claim is arguably in direct infringement of immigrants’ right to have no “attacks upon [their] honour and reputation” (Article 12, UDHR). Such discriminatory rhetoric may also be correlated to the increase in the incidence of hate crimes against immigrants[xx] in the US. Even before 2024, a notable case of a hate crime, catalysed by  anti – immigrant hate speech, is the 2019 El Paso Walmart mass shooting. Threatened by what he believed was a ‘Hispanic invasion of Texas’ and believing in the impending ‘replacement’ of ‘white people’ (by people ‘of colour’), Patrick Crusius shot dead 23 people at a Walmart Superstore, many of whom were Hispanic.[xxi]

The Israeli army’s human rights violations committed in Gaza[xxii] - from the withholding of aid[xxiii] to the bombing of the tents of displaced peoples, both egregiously violating the Palestinians civilians’ right to “life, liberty and security of person” (Article 3, UDHR) - have been intertwined with the divisive hate speech of government officials[xxiv]. It cannot be that former defence minister Yoav Gallants’ reference to Palestinians’ as ‘human animals’[xxv] and prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s invocation of Amalek[xxvi] to justify the treatment of civilians in Gaza does not erode the humanity of Palestinians[xxvii] and the rights they are thus entitled to. Such is the way hate speech can threaten human rights.

Anti – Muslim hate speech has pervaded Indian social media[xxviii] and even made its’ way up to a, now removed, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) election campaign video, wherein an apparently Muslim family takes over the home of a Hindu family[xxix], implying that the presence of Muslim Indians threatens the livelihood of other Indians. During an election rally on 21 April 2024, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi referred to Muslim Indians’ as ‘infiltrators’[xxx], further spurring the notion that their presence is a threat to India.  The increase in instances of anti – Muslim hate speech may, unsurprisingly, be associated with increasing hate crimes against Indian Muslims, including the vandalism of Muslim – owned shopfronts and cases of Muslims being physically attacked[xxxi][xxxii].

Returning to my home country, the recent 2024 National Election has passed, with a few campaigners using xenophobic rhetoric in an appeal to the ‘identity’ of South Africans[xxxiii]. The political party who has been most prolifically on the rise[xxxiv], the Patriotic Alliance, has a slogan of ‘Abahambe’, which translates, from IsiZulu, to ‘they [foreign nationals] must leave/go’. The party’s leader, and now Honourable Member of Parliament (MP), Gayton Mckenzie, has continually uttered anti – immigrant sentiments[xxxv]. A criminal complaint was recently made against him for ‘incitement of xenophobic violence, hate speech and intimidation’ because he told eNCA, a major news network, that “If there is a South African, Zimbabwean and Mozambican patient on oxygen and I see a SA [South African] patient born and bred in SA, I will turn the oxygen off so that the South African can live”[xxxvi]. A nation already strained by xenophobia and anti – immigrant attacks[xxxvii] has seen, by what is likely no coincidence, an uptick in displacements of immigrants from South Africa by an almost two-fold increase in reported incidents from 2019 to 2024[xxxviii]. Such displacements may threaten the right of immigrants to not be subjected to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ (Article 5, UDHR) and the widely held sentiment that immigrants, particularly African immigrants, are harbingers of criminality and a burden on resources threatens their right to reputation (Article 12, UDHR) as individuals.

Considering how clear hate speeches’ threat is to human rights, we must seek solutions with an acute fervour.

SEEKING SOLUTIONS

THE ROOT OF HATE SPEECH: US AND THEM

In the case – studies demonstrating hate speech’s threat to human rights, the observant eye notices a common notion, that of difference – white and non -white, immigrant and native, ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘you’ people, ‘our’ people, ‘their’ people. This notion of differences (othering), however arbitrary those differences may be, seems to overtake the similarities we share[xxxix] – in our humanity and the universal needs that thence arise, in our mortality, in our ignorance of what happens after life.

Given this inordinate sense of difference, we can no longer, so acutely, identify our humanity with those that we deem to be ‘other’, and thus, with this alienation, arises fear[xl]. Hate speech, I conjecture, is both bred out of this fear of ‘other’ and feeds on it, particularly in its’ capacity to threaten human rights – the mouth speaks, and the hand, fearful yet wanting to protect its’ own perceived identity, follows, often led to violence.

The Apartheid notion of ‘swartgevaar’ (black danger)[xli] may be evidence to my claim. Believing that they were outnumbered by a majority ‘non – white’ population, ‘white’ South Africans were fearful that the country would be taken over by what they believed was ‘other’; dark – skinned people of a ‘primitive’ disposition[xlii]. It was within this fear that the Apartheid government could carry out the crimes that it did, supported by people who believed they thus were being shielded from ‘black danger’.

Therefore, for us to eradicate hate speech’s threat to human rights, we must neutralise the divisive notion of ‘us and them’, and the threat individuals feel from what they perceive to be ‘other’ groups. We must focus instead on the needs common to all; to eat, to be housed, to be clothed, to not be abused, humiliated and excessively traumatised. We must place unity over division, similarity over difference. In believing we are, together, one organism of humanity; our nose would not so quickly be cut to spite our face.

Governments, in their paternal role[xliii], can play a major part in this transition. In my own country, such a change can manifest itself in the end of racial classification that distinguishes South Africans along the non- scientific, constructed lines of race[xliv][xlv]. Broadly, the threat of hate speech to human rights ought to be dealt with in two ways; by the proper enforcement of legislation against hate speech and, more crucially, by correcting the reception of hate speech via education.

LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT

In the US, there are no official laws against hate speech[xlvi]. This could be contributing how widespread hate speech is there, making its’ way up even to the oration of statespeople. To reduce the threat of hate speech, some legislation should be implemented against it -when it poses a ‘real danger’[xlvii] - and enforced by fines. An example may be taken from the way South Africa has punished some instances of hate speech. In 2016, Penny Sparrow produced a grossly racist diatribe on social media – of so- called black people she said: "From now on I shall address the blacks of South Africa as monkeys as I see the cute little wild monkeys do the same, pick and drop litter". She was consequently fined R150 000 by the country’s Equality Court[xlviii]. Such punishment limits the proliferation of hate speech in South African media and the nation has been thus somewhat successful in curbing the threat of post – apartheid racist rhetoric - though has not completely abolished it, the root cause of otherness remains. Therefore, it may be that people are just being more careful as to what they openly say on social media – hate may yet be alive in the consciousness of our nation, though not openly expressed.

Laws against hate speech will likely be subject to due criticism and may be passed under great resistance. One may look at Scotland’s’ new Hate Crime and Public Order Act[xlix] - that makes it an offence to “stir up hatred with threatening or abusive behaviour on the basis of characteristics…”, for which the offender can spend up to 7 years in prison – as an example of hate speech law that has come under great scrutiny.[l]  Duly argued claims might be made that laws infringe on free speech[li] and given the hazy definition of both terms, a careful line must be trod. Therefore, I propose that legislation be not the permanent solution and that it is enforced conservatively, also,, because it does not address (what I think is) the root cause of hate speech.

THE RECEPTION OF HATE SPEECH AND EDUCATION

I propose that, to strike hate speech’s threat at the heart, state education must be reformed.[lii] It must be reformed such that greater emphasis is placed on the similarities, not differences, between ‘real and perceived’ groups in society, such that the fallacy in many instances of hate speech[liii] can be identified by the layman, such that hate speech may thus be dismissed as the often divisive hogwash it is and such that individuals are not so easily ‘stirred up’ and brought to violence by hate speech and the fear it thrives upon.

Such reforms may practically manifest themselves in the review and amendment of school curricula – does the language used in history textbooks, for example, ingrain ideas of ‘us and them’ as opposed to ‘we, the human race’? (i.e., if there exists divisive or discriminatory discourse in learning materials and the correction thereof)[liv] In the USA, where the threat of hate speech is a pervading problem, there have been claims that the history curriculum is ‘racially biased’[lv]– these two issues are likely not unrelated. A school curriculum stressing the similarities within humanity, over our differences, would likely stand a better chance at defeating the threat of hate speech. There could also be implementation of programs teaching ‘information literacy’[lvi], so people may more easily identify hate speech, discrimination and misinformation. Non – governmental organisations, like UNESCO, have carried such programs out[lvii], but including information literacy in state education would spread it nation – wide would thus have a greater impact on reducing the threat of hate speech.  Lastly, I propose that the government include critical thinking skills; “thinking about thinking”[lviii], and media literacy in school curricula – if the average person were a critical thinker, they would not so easily let their convictions be swayed by hate speech[lix]. Education in Finland focuses on critical thinking and media literacy[lx] and the nation reported 90% fewer instances of hate crime in 2023 than the USA[lxi], where critical thinking and media literacy education is said to be lacking[lxii].

Though education reformation may take generations to trickle down into an entire population, it deals with what I propose to be the root cause of hate speech, the perceived ‘other’ and the consequent, often irrational, fear of ‘other’.

CONCLUSION

Lest the aim be to divide and to rule, governments can play a great role in reducing the formidable threat that hate speech poses to human rights. Though it may not occur in our lifetime, I hope that one day there exists a world of ‘we’, no longer of ‘us and them’, where hate speech can no longer divide our beautiful human race.

[i] I refer to the question posed; “Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.  Yet António Gueterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has identified hate speech as a formidable threat to human rights.   Do you agree and if so, how do you think governments should deal with that threat?  If you disagree explain the reason you disagree.”

[ii] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, December 10, 1948, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

[iii] Stephen J. Wermiel, “The Ongoing Challenge to Define Free Speech”, American Bar Association, Human Rights Magazine Vol. 43, No. 4, October 20, 2018, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/

[iv] “What is Freedom of Expression”, Article 19, Accessed 24 November 2024   - https://www.article19.org/what-is-freedom-of-expression/

[v] United Nations, United Nations Plan of Action on Hate Speech, 18 June 2019 -https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/advising-and-mobilizing/Action_plan_on_hate_speech_EN.pdf

[vi] Wikipedia, “Crime of Apartheid”, Accessed 24 November 2024 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

[vii] Talat A. Wizarat, “APARTHEID and RACIAL DISCRIMINATION in SOUTH AFRICA— an OVERVIEW of the CONTROL NETWORK,” Pakistan Horizon 33, no. 4 (1980): 84–87, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41403900.

[viii] “Youth Day,” Northern-cape.gov.za, 2020, http://www.northern-cape.gov.za/index.php/about-us/nc-dg/161-media-room/education/press-releases/87-youth-day.

[ix] Wikipedia, Bantu Education Act, 1953 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_Education_Act,_1953.

[x] Bantu Education Act, South African law, enacted in 1953 and in effect from January 1, 1954, repealed in 1979 by the yet – discriminatory Education and The Training Act. The former Act arguably threatened the proclamation of Article 26, UDHR that “education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality…” - https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/archive-files2/leg19531009.028.020.047.pdf

[xi] “Forced Removals in South Africa”, South African History Online, produced 25 May 2016

and updated 31 May 2024 - https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/forced-removals-south-africa

[xii] Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, South African Law, passed in 1949 and repealed in 1985 by the Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Mixed_Marriages_Act,_1949

[xiii] “THE ROLE OF THE PRINT MEDIA DURING THE APARTHEID ERA”, compiled by Edward Bird and Zureida Garda, Accessed 19 November 2024- https://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/images/uploads/trc.pdf

[xiv] United Nations, “Hate Speech and Real Harm,” United Nations, June 2019, https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm.

[xv] Though I cannot find an online report of this dispossession, I can find other cases that occurred in the same area of Grassy Park in the Western Cape. See “GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 27 FEBRUARY 2015

NOTICE 159 OF 2015”, South African Government - https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201502/38492gen159.pdf and “GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 9 OCTOBER 2015 DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM NOTICE 977 OF 2015”, South African Government - https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201502/38492gen159.pdf

[xvi] “Inequality in South Africa since 1960”, Joshua Whitcomb, MA History & Economics Student of Universitat Bayreuth, Accessed 19 November 2024 - https://www.eh-exhibition.uni-bayreuth.de/en/cs/South-Africa/index.html

[xvii] “South Africa’s Enforced Race Classification Mirrors Apartheid”, Martin Plaut, Fair Observer, 11 March 2022 - https://www.fairobserver.com/region/africa/martin-plaut-south-africa-racial-groups-minorities-south-african-history-apartheid-23801/#

[xviii] Mark Follman, “Trump Is Amplifying His Dangerous Hate Speech against Migrants,” Mother Jones, September 30, 2024, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/trump-hate-speech-migrants-campaign-rallies-incitement/.

[xix] MIKE CATALINI, JULIE CARR SMYTH, and BRUCE SHIPKOWSKI, “Trump Campaign Falsely Accuses Immigrants in Ohio of Eating Pets,” AP News, September 11, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/haitian-immigrants-vance-trump-ohio-6e4a47c52b23ae2c802d216369512ca5.

[xx] Anna Fleck, “Infographic: FBI Sees Upward Trend in Reported Hate Crimes,” Statista Daily Data (Statista, October 21, 2024), https://www.statista.com/chart/33302/timeline-of-hate-crime-incidents-reported-to-the-fbi/.

[xxi] Robert Moore, “Man Who Killed 23 at El Paso Walmart Pleads Guilty to Hate Crimes,” The Texas Tribune, February 9, 2023, https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/08/el-paso-walmart-shooting-pleads-guilty/.

[xxii] Human Rights Watch, “Israel’s Crimes against Humanity in Gaza,” Human Rights Watch, November 14, 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/14/israels-crimes-against-humanity-gaza.

[xxiii] Daniel Estrin and Aya Batrawy, “Israel Threatens to Starve out Northern Gaza, U.N. Aid Agencies Say,” NPR, October 15, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/10/15/nx-s1-5154065/israel-north-gaza-food-aid-block.

[xxiv] Tia Goldenberg, “Harsh Israeli Rhetoric against Palestinians Becomes Central to South Africa’s Genocide Case,” AP News, January 18, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724.

[xxv] Ramzy Baroud, “Opinion,” “‘Human animals’: The sordid language behind Israel’s genocide in Gaza”, Jordan Times, last updated 24 October 2023, https://jordantimes.com/opinion/ramzy-baroud/%E2%80%98human-animals%E2%80%99-sordid-language-behind-israels-genocide-gaza.

[xxvi] Noah Lanard, “The Dangerous History behind Netanyahu’s Amalek Rhetoric,” Mother Jones, November 3, 2023, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/.

[xxvii] Halil İbrahim Medet, “Israel Paints Palestinians as ‘Animals’ to Legitimize War Crimes: Israeli Scholar,” www.aa.com.tr, October 23, 2023, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-paints-palestinians-as-animals-to-legitimize-war-crimes-israeli-scholar/3030278.

[xxviii] Mohan J Dutta and Mahuya Pal, “Experiences of Muslims in India on Digital Platforms with Anti-Muslim Hate: A Culture-Centered Exploration,” Frontiers in Communication 9 (September 2, 2024), https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1205116.

[xxix] Namita Singh, “Modi’s Party Told to Take down Campaign Ad Targeting Muslims,” The Independent, November 20, 2024, https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/jharkhand-election-bjp-campaign-video-muslims-b2650443.html

[xxx] “India Opposition Criticises Modi for ‘Hate Speech,’” BBC, April 22, 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-68872003.

[xxxi] Apoorvanand, “Hatred and Violence against Muslims Have Spread like an Epidemic in India,” The Wire, September 5, 2024, https://thewire.in/communalism/hatred-and-violence-against-muslims-have-spread-like-an-epidemic-in-india/?mid_related_new.

[xxxii] Parth M.N, “Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Are on the Rise in India. Meet the Trackers,” Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2023, https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-10-30/india-anti-muslim-hate-crimes-speech-rising.

[xxxiii] “South Africa: Toxic Rhetoric Endangers Migrants | Human Rights Watch,” Human Rights Watch, May 6, 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/06/south-africa-toxic-rhetoric-endangers-migrants.

[xxxiv] The Patriotic Alliance, has increased its’ proportion of votes in the South African National elections by a staggering 5000% - from 0,04% in the 2019 elections to 2,06% in the most recent 2024 National elections - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Alliance (see ‘Election Results’)

[xxxv] Lunga Simelane, “Gayton McKenzie Says He’s ‘Here to Stop the Rot’, Doubles down on His ‘Abahambe’ Stance,” City Press (Citypress, August 31, 2024), https://www.news24.com/citypress/politics/gayton-mckenzie-says-hes-here-to-stop-the-rot-doubles-down-on-his-abahambe-stance-20240901. (See ‘IMMIGRATION STANCE’)

[xxxvi] “‘Hate Speech’ Criminal Complaint Laid against New Minister - Juta MedicalBrief,” Juta MedicalBrief, July 10, 2024, https://www.medicalbrief.co.za/hate-speech-criminal-complaint-laid-against-new-minister/.

[xxxvii] Bastien Dratwa, “Xenophobia in Post-Apartheid South Africa | GJIA,” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, May 26, 2024, https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2024/05/26/xenophobia-a-pervasive-crisis-in-post-apartheid-south-africa/.

[xxxviii] “Statistics Dashboard”, “Xenowatch Dashboard: Incidents of Xenophobic Discrimmination in South Africa”, Xenowatch, https://www.xenowatch.ac.za/statistics-dashboard/.  See ‘Displaced’; 2019 to 2024. Accessed 24 November 2024.

[xxxix] John Powell and Stephen Menendian, “The Problem of Othering: Towards Inclusiveness and Belonging - Othering and Belonging,” Othering and Belonging, June 29, 2017, https://www.otheringandbelonging.org/the-problem-of-othering/. – See “The Mechanics of Othering: Classification Schemes and Categorical Reasoning”

[xl] Clint Curle, “Us vs. Them: The Process of Othering,” Canadian Museum for Human Rights, January 24, 2020, https://humanrights.ca/story/us-vs-them-process-othering. – See “The Process of Othering”

[xli] Wikipedia Contributors, “Swart Gevaar,” Wikipedia (Wikimedia Foundation, Last Edited September 18, 2024), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swart_gevaar.

[xlii] Anon, “Racist Ideas | Black and White in Britain | the Wider World | after Slavery | Bristol and Transatlantic Slavery | PortCities Bristol,” discoveringbristol.org.uk, accessed November 27, 2024, https://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/after-slavery/wider-world/black-white-in-britain/racist-ideas/.

[xliii] Gerald Dworkin, “Paternalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy),” Stanford.edu, September 9, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/.

[xliv] BBC News, “Race in South Africa: ‘We Haven’t Learnt We Are Human Beings First,’” BBC News, January 21, 2021, sec. Africa, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55333625.

[xlv] “There is no genetic basis that corresponds with any particular group of people, no essentialist DNA for black people or white people or anyone” - Adam Rutherford, “Why Racism Is Not Backed by Science,” the Guardian, March 1, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin.

[xlvi] “Hate Speech Laws by Country,” Wikipedia, December 5, 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country. – See “United States”.

[xlvii] Alberto Jose Ferrari Puerta, “The Real Danger of Hate Speech and Its Impact on Vulnerable Groups - Talk About: Law and Religion,” Talk About: Law and Religion, June 3, 2024, https://talkabout.iclrs.org/2024/06/03/the-real-danger-of-hate-speech/.

[xlviii] Kaveel Singh, “Penny Sparrow, Whose Racist Post Sparked Fury, Has Died,” News24, July 25, 2019, https://www.news24.com/news24/breaking-penny-sparrow-has-died-20190725.

[xlix] “Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act: Factsheet,” www.gov.scot, April 16, 2024, https://www.gov.scot/publications/hate-crime-and-public-order-scotland-act-factsheet/.

[l] Jill Lawless, “Scotland’s Government Says a New Law Will Tackle Hate Crime. Critics Say It Could Hurt Free Speech,” AP News, April 1, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/scotland-hate-speech-law-britain-61901dce3cff7c923d69095bd7019ea4.

[li] Lee Rowland, “Free Speech Can Be Messy, but We Need It | News & Commentary,” American Civil Liberties Union, March 6, 2018, https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/free-speech-can-be-messy-we-need-it.

[lii] Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Ilze Brands Kehris, “Role of Education to Address the Root Causes of Hate Speech and Advance Inclusion, Non-Discrimination, and Peace,” https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/06/role-education-address-root-causes-hate-speech-and-advance-inclusion-non.

[liii] For example, the Bibles’ Leviticus 19:19; “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”, was used, by racial segregationists,  as an analogy for the mixing of the different ‘races’ of humans; to justify the idea that intermarrying between the so - called races is wrong. Such an analogy is a false one of a fallacious reasoning.

[liv] Such an inquiry was done for South African textbooks, and some bias was found: Bongekile Macupe, “Textbooks Show Bias, Report Finds,” The Mail & Guardian, April 18, 2019, https://mg.co.za/article/2019-04-18-00-textbooks-show-bias-report-finds/.

[lv] American University School of Education, “The Problem of Bias in US History Textbooks and Curriculum,” soeonline.american.edu, May 24, 2021, https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/bias-in-history-textbooks/.

[lvi] Charles Sturt University, “Library Guides: Information & Research Literacies GLO: Why Is Information Literacy Important?,” Csu.edu.au, 2016, https://libguides.csu.edu.au/information_and_research_literacies/why – See “For Students”.

[lvii] “Media & Information Literacy: An Avenue for Youth to Combat Hate Speech, Misinformation & Disinformation,” Unesco.org, 2023, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/media-information-literacy-avenue-youth-combat-hate-speech-misinformation-disinformation.

[lviii] Ray Hibbard, “Schools Need to Teach Critical Thinking,” Edmondlifeandleisure.com, October 1, 2024, https://edmondlifeandleisure.com/schools-need-to-teach-critical-thinking-p24682-81.htm.

[lix] “The keys to address hate speech include critical thinking and quality information, rather than overly criminalized or censorship approaches.” - “Learn the Facts, Think Critically, Take Action: Stand Together against Hate Speech,” Unesco.org, October 25, 2022, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/learn-facts-think-critically-take-action-stand-together-against-hate-speech.

[lx] David J. Cord, “Educated Decisions: Finnish Media Literacy Deters Disinformation,” thisisFINLAND, June 22, 2022, https://finland.fi/life-society/educated-decisions-finnish-media-literacy-deters-disinformation/.

[lxi] https://hatecrime.osce.org/finland and https://hatecrime.osce.org/united-states-america - See and compare “OFFICIAL DATA REPORTED BY STATES” for 2023.

[lxii] “…a single criticism of public schooling in the United States: Not enough critical thinking is being taught in our classrooms.” - Alexander Nazaryan, “You’re 100 Percent Wrong about Critical Thinking,” Newsweek, August 14, 2015, https://www.newsweek.com/youre-100-percent-wrong-about-critical-thinking-362334.

.

Bibliography

United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, December 10, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.Stephen J. Wermiel, “The Ongoing Challenge to Define Free Speech”, American Bar Association, Human Rights Magazine Vol. 43, No. 4, October 20, 2018 - https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/

United Nations, United Nations Plan of Action on Hate Speech, 18 June 2019 -https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/advising-and-mobilizing/Action_plan_on_hate_speech_EN.pdf

Wizarat, Talat A. “APARTHEID and RACIAL DISCRIMINATION in SOUTH AFRICA— an OVERVIEW of the CONTROL NETWORK.” Pakistan Horizon 33, no. 4 (1980): 84–87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41403900.

Bantu Education Act, South African law, enacted in 1953 and in effect from January 1, 1954, repealed in 1979 - https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/archive-files2/leg19531009.028.020.047.pdf

“Forced Removals in South Africa”, South African History Online, produced 25 May 2016

and updated 31 May 2024 - https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/forced-removals-south-africa

Bird, Edward, and Zureida Garda. “THE ROLE of the PRINT MEDIA during the APARTHEID ERA Compiled by Edward Bird and Zureida Garda Aim,” 1996. https://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/images/uploads/trc.pdf.

United Nations. “Hate Speech and Real Harm.” United Nations, June 2019. https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-and-real-harm.

Plaut, Martin. “South Africa’s Enforced Race Classification Mirrors Apartheid.” Fair Observer, March 11, 2022. https://www.fairobserver.com/region/africa/martin-plaut-south-africa-racial-groups-minorities-south-african-history-apartheid-23801/#.

Follman, Mark. “Trump Is Amplifying His Dangerous Hate Speech against Migrants.” Mother Jones, September 30, 2024. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/trump-hate-speech-migrants-campaign-rallies-incitement/.

CATALINI, MIKE, JULIE CARR SMYTH, and BRUCE SHIPKOWSKI. “Trump Campaign Falsely Accuses Immigrants in Ohio of Eating Pets.” AP News, September 11, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/haitian-immigrants-vance-trump-ohio-6e4a47c52b23ae2c802d216369512ca5.

Fleck, Anna. “Infographic: FBI Sees Upward Trend in Reported Hate Crimes.” Statista Daily Data. Statista, October 21, 2024. https://www.statista.com/chart/33302/timeline-of-hate-crime-incidents-reported-to-the-fbi/.

Moore, Robert. “Man Who Killed 23 at El Paso Walmart Pleads Guilty to Hate Crimes.” The Texas Tribune, February 9, 2023. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/08/el-paso-walmart-shooting-pleads-guilty/.

Human Rights Watch. “Israel’s Crimes against Humanity in Gaza.” Human Rights Watch, November 14, 2024. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/14/israels-crimes-against-humanity-gaza.

Daniel Estrin, and Aya Batrawy. “Israel Threatens to Starve out Northern Gaza, U.N. Aid Agencies Say.” NPR, October 15, 2024. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/15/nx-s1-5154065/israel-north-gaza-food-aid-block.

Goldenberg, Tia. “Harsh Israeli Rhetoric against Palestinians Becomes Central to South Africa’s Genocide Case.” AP News, January 18, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-south-africa-genocide-hate-speech-97a9e4a84a3a6bebeddfb80f8a030724.

Lanard, Noah. “The Dangerous History behind Netanyahu’s Amalek Rhetoric.” Mother Jones, November 3, 2023. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/.

Ramzy Baroud. “Opinion.”, “‘Human animals’: The sordid language behind Israel’s genocide in Gaza  Jordan Times”, last updated 24 October 2023, https://jordantimes.com/opinion/ramzy-baroud/%E2%80%98human-animals%E2%80%99-sordid-language-behind-israels-genocide-gaza.

Medet, Halil İbrahim. “Israel Paints Palestinians as ‘Animals’ to Legitimize War Crimes: Israeli Scholar.” www.aa.com.tr, October 23, 2023. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-paints-palestinians-as-animals-to-legitimize-war-crimes-israeli-scholar/3030278.

Dutta, Mohan J, and Mahuya Pal. “Experiences of Muslims in India on Digital Platforms with Anti-Muslim Hate: A Culture-Centered Exploration.” Frontiers in Communication 9 (September 2, 2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1205116.

Singh, Namita. “Modi’s Party Told to Take down Campaign Ad Targeting Muslims.” The Independent, November 20, 2024. https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/jharkhand-election-bjp-campaign-video-muslims-b2650443.html.

Apoorvanand. “Hatred and Violence against Muslims Have Spread like an Epidemic in India.” The Wire, September 5, 2024. https://thewire.in/communalism/hatred-and-violence-against-muslims-have-spread-like-an-epidemic-in-india/?mid_related_new.

M.N, Parth. “Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Are on the Rise in India. Meet the Trackers.” Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2023. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-10-30/india-anti-muslim-hate-crimes-speech-rising.

Human Rights Watch. “South Africa: Toxic Rhetoric Endangers Migrants | Human Rights Watch,” May 6, 2024. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/06/south-africa-toxic-rhetoric-endangers-migrants.

Lunga Simelane. “Gayton McKenzie Says He’s ‘Here to Stop the Rot’, Doubles down on His ‘Abahambe’ Stance.” City Press. Citypress, August 31, 2024. https://www.news24.com/citypress/politics/gayton-mckenzie-says-hes-here-to-stop-the-rot-doubles-down-on-his-abahambe-stance-20240901.

Juta MedicalBrief. “‘Hate Speech’ Criminal Complaint Laid against New Minister - Juta MedicalBrief,” July 10, 2024. https://www.medicalbrief.co.za/hate-speech-criminal-complaint-laid-against-new-minister/.

Bastien Dratwa. “Xenophobia in Post-Apartheid South Africa | GJIA.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, May 26, 2024. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2024/05/26/xenophobia-a-pervasive-crisis-in-post-apartheid-south-africa/.

Powell, John , and Stephen Menendian. “The Problem of Othering: Towards Inclusiveness and Belonging - Othering and Belonging.” Othering and Belonging, June 29, 2017. https://www.otheringandbelonging.org/the-problem-of-othering/.

Curle, Clint. “Us vs. Them: The Process of Othering.” Canadian Museum for Human Rights, January 24, 2020. https://humanrights.ca/story/us-vs-them-process-othering.

Dworkin, Gerald. “Paternalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford.edu, September 9, 2020. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/.

BBC News. “Race in South Africa: ‘We Haven’t Learnt We Are Human Beings First.’” BBC News, January 21, 2021, sec. Africa. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55333625.

Rutherford, Adam. “Why Racism Is Not Backed by Science.” the Guardian, March 1, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/01/racism-science-human-genomes-darwin

Alberto Jose Ferrari Puerta. “The Real Danger of Hate Speech and Its Impact on Vulnerable Groups - Talk About: Law and Religion.” Talk About: Law and Religion, June 3, 2024. https://talkabout.iclrs.org/2024/06/03/the-real-danger-of-hate-speech/.

Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights Ilze Brands Kehris. “Role of Education to Address the Root Causes of Hate Speech and Advance Inclusion, Non-Discrimination, and Peace.” Presented at the High Level Event Commemorating the first International Day on Countering Hate Speech, June 17, 2022. https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/06/role-education-address-root-causes-hate-speech-and-advance-inclusion-non.

Lawless, Jill. “Scotland’s Government Says a New Law Will Tackle Hate Crime. Critics Say It Could Hurt Free Speech.” AP News, April 1, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/scotland-hate-speech-law-britain-61901dce3cff7c923d69095bd7019ea4.

Rowland, Lee. “Free Speech Can Be Messy, but We Need It | News & Commentary.” American Civil Liberties Union, March 6, 2018. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/free-speech-can-be-messy-we-need-it.

American University School of Education. “The Problem of Bias in US History Textbooks and Curriculum.” soeonline.american.edu, May 24, 2021. https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/bias-in-history-textbooks/.

Macupe, Bongekile. “Textbooks Show Bias, Report Finds.” The Mail & Guardian, April 18, 2019. https://mg.co.za/article/2019-04-18-00-textbooks-show-bias-report-finds/.

Ray Hibbard. “Schools Need to Teach Critical Thinking.” Edmondlifeandleisure.com, October 1, 2024. https://edmondlifeandleisure.com/schools-need-to-teach-critical-thinking-p24682-81.htm.

Ray Hibbard. “Schools Need to Teach Critical Thinking.” Edmondlifeandleisure.com, October 1, 2024. https://edmondlifeandleisure.com/schools-need-to-teach-critical-thinking-p24682-81.htm.

David J. Cord. “Educated Decisions: Finnish Media Literacy Deters Disinformation.” thisisFINLAND, June 22, 2022. https://finland.fi/life-society/educated-decisions-finnish-media-literacy-deters-disinformation/.

Alexander Nazaryan. “You’re 100 Percent Wrong about Critical Thinking.” Newsweek, August 14, 2015. https://www.newsweek.com/youre-100-percent-wrong-about-critical-thinking-362334.