Internet technology has become one of the most significant and quintessential transformations of modern civilization – providing light and more hope for the future, connecting people and enhancing livelihoods for millions today. Yet life without internet as seen through internet shutdown by repressive and totalitarian regimes around the world is one of the most brutal and nasty experience to encounter.
But more importantly is the way in which internet technology enhanced via social media platforms have over the years generated cataclysmic outcomes – in regard to destruction caused and lives lost due to violence and violent resurgence during political periods.
Social Media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter have facilitated for instance anti-social abusive behaviors such as harassment, hate speech and trolling[1].In other instances, social media platforms are now increasingly being used to target particular personalities on the basis of their political views and association often violating the rights to free speech and expression. Moreover, the same platforms are also used to incite, promote and abet tribal sentiments against others.
A case in point is of individual utterances and political speeches that are quite dangerous and divisive in character especially those spoken during periods of political and electoral campaigns. While some statements are uttered offline, it’s often transferred to online spaces where it’s more than amplified. These speeches elicit negative emotions that some actors including political demagogues often use to mobilize groups into violence.
For example, before the 2007 election, Kenyans were subjected to steadily and increasing hateful speeches or languages delivered via media, public speeches, flyers, posters, radios, emails, SMS, internet directed against ethnic and tribal groups[2]. For example, the Kalenjin political leaders speaking to their rural constituents referred to members of the kikuyu tribe living in majority-kalenjin areas as ‘grass’ to be cut or as ‘roots’ to be removed ‘’so there would be only one tribe here’[3].
It’s of course important to be cognizant of the fact that while it’s difficult to know that a certain hate speech or dangerous speech caused violence except when people are forced by others to commit violence under a credible threat of being killed themselves[4], to say a speech is dangerous is to argue that its effects are likely to generate negative consequences to others.
Dangerous speech is therefore defined as any form of expression example, speech text or images that can increase the risk that its audience will condone or commit violence against members of other groups[5]. The central point is that it acts as an amplifier but does not necessarily cause violence. Violence are often propagated by politicians and actors to mobilize, and rally people to cause violence or violent resurgence[6].
President Museveni has been accused of using derogative terms against his political opponents – referring to them as “biological substance” or “pigs”. Yet critics believe these phrases would incite his supporters against his political opponents
Dangerous speech has hallmarks that contributes to the dehumanization of a particular group of individuals such as women, girls, sexual minorities or particular tribal groups. It often thrives on accusation in a mirror in which one party using terror accuses the enemy of using terror[7] (Des Forges, 1999.p66). Not only is it threatening to the integrity or purity asserting that members of a particular group can cause irreparable damage to the livelihood and existence of the other but also, such assertion attacks certain groups quite specifically. It also questions the loyalty of groups against other. It is these hallmarks that causes risk to mobilization of violence and resurgence of violent groups.
Uganda have had history of political sentiments and speeches perpetrated online before and during elections. Some of these speeches are uttered by individuals or politicians. The utterances are divisive and can be dangerous when examined.
Therefore, dangerous speech is a term for hate speech that under the right conditions can influence people to accept, condone and commit violence against members of a group[8].
[1] David J. et al (2019). A just and Comprehensive Strategy for using NLP to address Online Abuse
[2] Susan, B (2014)
[3] Ibid
[4] Benesch, S. (2013). Dangerous Speech: A Proposal to Prevent Group Violence. Dangerous Speech Project. Available at: https://dangerousspeech.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/Dangerous-Speech-Guidelines-2013.pdf.
[5] Ibid
[6] Owiny, M (2019). The impact of Political rhetoric and dangerous speech on mobilization of violence in Uganda. Accessed online https://thecfma.org/report/the-impact-of-political-rhetoric-and-dangerous-speech-on-mobilization-of-violence-in-uganda/
[7] Des Forges, 1999.p66
[8] Rachel H, Brown (2017). Defusing Hate Speech. A Strategic Communication Guide to Counteract Dangerous Speech. Accessed online https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20160229-Defusing-Hate-Guide.pdf
