The
NCIC Guidelines for Media Monitoring Hate Speech in electronic Media in Kenya
is a well thought out and effective treatise if objectively implemented. However
there are a few loopholes that may be self-defeating if overlooked.
To
begin with, these ‘guidelines developed in consultation with members of fourth
estates offer
a reference point to presenters, editors and all persons working in the media
when assessing for and guarding against hate speech perpetration in their work’.
There are two defects in
the statement. Firstly, ‘ all persons’ should be an assumptions that even those
millions of young Kenyans blogging every minutes in social media and do not work
for any media house are included. Secondly, social media is also electronic media with such subtle tools
like, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace et cetera. In this way, ignoring the commercial aspect
of the Fourth Estate, every citizen with a blog, Facebook or Twitter accounts,
is a media person. The variable in this case is the number of followers.
It should be noted that some ordinary citizens
have so much active social media presence so that those viewing their blogs every
minute are more than listeners of a remote community FM station every second.
Majority of these are people with little or no journalistic training at all. To
this lot, the NCIC Guideline, does not equip with know-how ‘when assessing for
and guarding against hate speech’ in their daily blogging. The media guideline
should also include social media aspect for ordinary citizens’ consumption
guarding against unintended perpetration of hate speech as a result of little
or no awareness.
“It is caused mainly by the lack
of awareness....... there is need to guard against perpetration of such speech,
even where hate may not be the primary intention......”
Inability to conduct effective
civic education regarding social media participation defeats the first specific
objective of the guidelines which is to impart knowledge of the provisions of
the National Cohesion and Integration Act in relation to hate speech.
In case
these hapless wananchi inadvertently
perpetrate hate speech in their massive daily blogging, they are left in the
hands of law enforcing agencies that operate within the strictures of Police
Training Manual on the Enforcement of the Law on Hate Speech. In other
words, the NCIC must find mechanism of enhancing citizens participation in
‘assessing for and guarding against hate speech perpetration in their work’ in
social (electronic) media –not to be left to the maxim that ignorance is no
defence. The approach here should be proactive and not reactive.
Most importantly, all media houses are in
business whose sole end is commercial gains. The purpose of media monitoring is
two-fold as depicted in the preface by Dr.Mzalendo Kibunja.
“Firstly,
provides valuable information on media performances in guarding against
perpetration of hate speech. thereby offering additional contribution to the
overall assessment of the process of guarding against the spread of the vice in
Kenya.”
Again, this information and assessment is more
useful to the state than the media house whose business is making money. The
state needs cohesive nation but the media needs to make profit. It is right to
say that the media motivation is non-existent, except that a peaceful nation
provides conducive business environment. My suggestion would be that media
needs incentives as motivation to do this work.
The Fourth Estate has been repeatedly
accused for their role in the escalation of 2008 PEV following a disputed
presidential poll result. In their pursuit to make more money, the country was
fed to inflammatory political adverts like ‘Domo Domo’ and 1982 failed coup.
Incentive is enough motivation for the Fourth Estate to take monitoring
processes seriously.
“Secondly, the monitoring serves
as a feed back to the media outlets themselves on their work and it may enhance
their reporting skills for action against perpetrators.”
“The media therefore
must continue to conduct its primary role while guarding out against action
that may expose it to liability.”
The second purpose is basically to circumvent
legal action by ‘enhancing reporting skills for action against perpetrators’.
It implies that if there were no legal frameworks for prosecuting media
house/personnel perpetrating hate speech, it would be unnecessary to ‘enhance
reporting skills’.
Discernibly,
definition of hate speech by the NCIC is consistent with the Constitution
which excludes sexual minority. But the constitution also protects the right of
minorities, which some pundits like Prof Makau Mutua, the chairman of Kenya Human
Rights Commission, opined, includes sexual minorities/homosexuals.
“......but even now hate speech
occurs very frequently in modern democratic societies
hurting ethnic,
racial or sexual minorities.......”
Whether the constitution denies gays right to
sexual expression is a subject of debate, however, if the sexual minority includes
or excludes hermaphrodites (people with both male and female genitals) then
there is ‘a natural’ constitutional problem. If that be the case, are kenyans
at liberty like their counterparts in Uganda and South Africa to exercise
‘correctional rape’ perpetrated by contunued hate speech against gays?
In another
perspective, regarding hosting, airing, or publishing utterances of persons
known to be ‘racist’, the guidelines is cognizant of the fact that a presenter
or live TV/Radio host may not anticipate verbatim what exactly the interviewee
will say. In that way, distancing the media house from the comments or ‘considering
the views offensive or against public policy; or even when the media house or
presenter cautions the ‘tribalist’ against using the platform for purposes of
spreading such propaganda’ is sufficient.
In that light, Section 62(2) of Kenya’s National Cohesion
and Integration Act, provides that any media house that publishes utterances intended to incite ethnic hatred, violence,
hostility or discrimination commits an offense. The operative word is
‘publishes’, implying that media house may not ‘gag’ or anticipate what an
interviewee will utter in live radio or TV show –they just don't have to
‘publish’ it.
When it comes to
characterizing what constitutes hate speech, the guidelines rightly consider
all factors in totality to form a composite whole in the context applied. For
example, the actual language or tone of the language or expression when considered
exclusively may be misleading, unless all contextual factors are brought into
play. For instance, if one considered only the tone, he/she is more likely to
realize that some people have consistent air of nonchalance.
In summary, both the
NCIC Act 2008 and the Media Monitoring Guidelines are reactive measures which
were invented after (and not before) the 2008 Post Election Violence. Were it
not for that strife, there would be no NCIC. Our national policy makers could
have learnt from the role of media during the Third Reich in Nazi Germany and
the Rwandan genocide in 1994 to formulate policy on hate speech long before the
2008 debacle. Nonetheless, we now have a policy framework to guard against hate
speech.
SHEM OTOI SAM
