NOTED FROM THE NCIC GUIDLINES FOR MEDIA MONITORING HATE SPEECH IN THE ELECTRONIC MEDIA IN KENYA

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