There is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law

United Nations statement on the occasion of the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, 18 June

***

Hate speech: Turning the tide

The devastating effect of hatred is sadly nothing new. However, its scale and impact are amplified today by new technologies of communication, so much so that hate speech, has become one of the most frequent methods for spreading divisive rhetoric and ideologies on a global scale. If left unchecked, hate speech can even harm peace and development, as it lays the ground for conflicts and tensions, wide scale human rights violations.
The United Nations has a long history of mobilizing the world against hatred of all kinds to defend human rights and advance the rule of law. The impact of hate speech cuts across numerous UN areas of focus, from protecting human rights and preventing atrocities to sustaining peace, achieving gender equality and supporting children and youth.
In response to the alarming trends of growing xenophobia, racism and intolerance, violent misogyny, antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred around the world, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech on 18 June 2019.
The Plan of Action 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.
However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.
Online hate speech might seem like an unstoppable tide, but strategies are being employed by governments, civil society, and individuals, to fight back.

The preventive role of education

As history has shown, genocide and mass atrocities begin with words of hate. This underscores our collective responsibility to address hate speech today to prevent potential harm tomorrow. But countering hate speech effectively requires a holistic approach that goes beyond legislation. It must also focus on prevention.
The United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech emphasizes the transformative power of education as a tool to address this phenomenon’s root causes and drivers. It seeks to promote peaceful, inclusive and just societies for all, in line with the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals.
Tackling the issue of hate speech from an educational perspective involves strengthening educational policies and programmes with specific measures to address and counter hate speech. It can draw on Global Citizenship Education and media and information literacy initiatives. It can include approaches targeting multiple stakeholders, disciplines and all members of society. And it can harness activities to help young people engage with media and information, develop critical thinking and life-long learning, and become active citizens who support peace and human rights.
As online environments have become echo chambers for hateful rhetoric, strengthening digital literacy as part of global citizenship education has become ever more important than ever. Audiences need to know how to critically analyse and counteract hate speech – both offline or online. In the digital world, media and information literacy is a key tool to build our resilience against hate speech. It empowers citizens with critical thinking skills to assess information and develop a sense of responsibility for one’s online behaviour.
Building digital citizenship requires fostering knowledge and an understanding of human rights and freedom of expression. This can be done through human rights education and social and emotional learning, - powerful tools to address and counter harmful social norms and practices, including in crisis situations.

Comments

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman* In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor* Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.

Search This Blog