The Bulgarian Community for Liberal Democracy (BOLD) is an\nassociation of citizens that aims to increase public support for democracy,\nhuman rights and fundamental freedoms, and to help consolidate liberal\ndemocracy in Bulgaria. With this position, BOLD participates in the formation\nof public attitudes and public policies in the field of hate speech. This is an\narea of \u200b\u200bconflicting legitimate interests in which international standards are\nunderdeveloped. The problem has been particularly acute in Bulgaria in recent\nyears, in where hate speech against various vulnerable groups has risen sharply\namid growing nationalist, xenophobic, extremely conservative and populist\nattitudes. Hate speech is used particularly intensely for political mobilization\nduring elections. Bulgarian legislation and law enforcement related to hate\nspeech has serious deficits. Due to all this, the liberal-democratic community\nin Bulgaria needs to clarify its attitude to this complex phenomenon and its\nmanifestations in Bulgaria, as well as to formulate recommendations on public\npolicies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In recent years, Bulgaria has been repeatedly criticized by a\nnumber of international human rights bodies and institutions for the widespread\nand unpunished commission of crimes motivated by prejudice, also known as hate\ncrimes, as well as for the unjustified tolerance of hate speech affecting\nvarious vulnerable groups in Bulgarian society. According to one of the\nfindings in the most recent report on Bulgaria of the European Commission against\nRacism and Intolerance (ECRI) from 2014:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cRacist and intolerant hate speech in political discourse is\nincreasing; now its main target is refugees. Manifestations of racism and\nxenophobia against foreigners, Turks and Muslims are common in the media and on\nthe Internet; the same is true of offensive language in respect to Roma. There\nis also a significant amount of hate speech related to sexual orientation.\nThere are more and more ultranationalist\/fascist groups and political parties\nin Bulgaria.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similarly, in its concluding observations following the November\n2018 review of Bulgaria\u2019s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil\nand Political Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Committee is concerned about\nreports of increased acts of hate speech and hate crimes, particularly against\nthe Roma community, members of religious minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual,\ntransgender and intersex persons, migrants and asylum seekers, including racist,\nxenophobic and intolerant speech on television, the media and on the Internet,\nfrom persons at the highest levels of government and in election campaigns.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These grim findings are complemented by several studies\nconducted by the Open Society Institute, dedicated specifically to the\nprevalence, objects and effects of hate speech in Bulgaria. They show high\nlevels of hate speech and a tendency for it to increase until 2016, with a\nslight decrease in 2018. Its targets are mainly Roma, LGBTI, Turks, Muslims and\nforeigners. In 2018, negative speech towards women, as well as towards people\nof different sexual orientations, intensified in the context of the campaign\nagainst the ratification of the Istanbul Convention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A number of international treaties, practices and\nrecommendations of international bodies and organizations require states to\ncombat hate speech, in some cases by means of criminal law, as it constitutes\nan encroachment on human dignity, democratic rule of law and the right to\nprivacy of the persons affected by it. Some international legal acts even\nrequire the criminalization of some of its forms. This struggle generally\ninvolves restricting the right to freedom of expression, another fundamental\nhuman right that is highly respected in the liberal-democratic community. How\nto balance these two important interests? This is a question to which the\ninternational human rights community, including the European Court of Human\nRights, has not yet offered a clear answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most up-to-date and perhaps most comprehensive definition of\nhate speech at the international level is given in the Explanatory Memorandum\nto General Policy Recommendation \u2116 15 of ECRI:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHate speech [\u2026] entails the use of one\nor more particular forms of expression \u2013 namely, the advocacy, promotion or\nincitement of the denigration, hatred or vilification of a person or group of\npersons, as well any harassment, insult, negative stereotyping, stigmatization\nor threat of such person or persons and any justification of all these forms of\nexpression \u2013 that is based on a non-exhaustive list of personal characteristics\nor status that includes \u201crace\u201d, colour, language, religion or belief,\nnationality or national or ethnic origin, as well as descent, age, disability,\nsex, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The definition covers a wide range of forms of expression. They\nmust be understood not only from a functional point of view, as what they\ncause, but also from a formal point of view \u2013 as covering both expressive forms\ndirectly related to words and those related to gestures, images, music and\nmore. Many personal characteristics are included in the definition. This in\nitself raises a number of questions related to the equality of forms and the\nhierarchy of characteristics. Adding to the criminalization obligations, these\nissues become even more so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Liberal democracy, a system of government based on ideological\nand political pluralism, majority rule and the guarantee of fundamental human\nrights and freedoms, recognizes the detrimental effect of hate speech and\nallows the restriction of other fundamental rights, such as freedom of\nexpression, peaceful assembly, association and religion in order to limit these\neffects on the person and their free development. No one\u2019s freedom can be\nexercised at the expense of the freedom of others. The victim of hate speech,\neven when not mentioned in person, should have the right to be constituted as a\nvictim in criminal proceedings, as well as to make an individual complaint in\nother types of proceedings against persons or groups that are the authors of hate\nspeech. In all cases, the victim should be entitled to an effective domestic\nremedy to protect their infringed rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time, recognizing the detrimental effects of hate\nspeech on personal dignity and the right to privacy, as well as the\ndiscriminatory nature of hate speech, a mature democracy, with its inherent tolerance,\nbreadth of views and respect for all human rights requires a differentiation of\nforms of social control over all kinds of deviant behavior, including hate speech.\nWhere a necessary and sufficient response to such behavior is to ignore it or\nto reply back, there is no need to resort to formal social control, much less\nto criminal sanctions. For example, this could be the case when in the company\nof Bulgarians only, someone refers to \u201cGypsies\u2019 inclination to steal\u201d.\nInternational standards for combating hate speech require formal sanctions only\nwhere it affects the key identity of the victim and when hate speech is\nparticularly harsh and virulent, e.g., when a party leader said from the\nparliamentary rostrum in a live broadcast on national television that Roma\nwomen had \u201cthe instincts of a street bitch\u201d and called for their child benefits\nto be stopped. The choice of an appropriate means of combating hate speech should\nbe subject to the assessment of any sanction or restriction in the light of a\nnumber of factors, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In all cases where there is a need to sanction hate speech, an\nassessment is needed in the light of the specific context. In addition to the\nabove factors, the personal characteristic affected by hate speech should also\nbe assessed. Current international legal standards limit criminal sanctioning\nof hate speech to nationality, race, ethnicity, religion and birth. These are\nthe characteristics that the international community has, on the one hand,\npresumed to be elements of the key identity of the person or group that are particularly\nsensitive, on the other hand, accepted that they are a basis which, when\naffected by in a particularly aggressive and virulent way, can lead to serious\nbreaches of public order, violence and even mass killings, as the recent\nhistory of Europe and the world has repeatedly demonstrated in the last\ncentury. Notably, genocide, the most serious among the crimes defined by\ncriminal justice systems, is limited to these characteristics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today, however, this approach is outdated. The list of characteristics\nthat should be presumed to affect a person\u2019s key identity needs to be expanded.\nThere is no reason to exclude, for example, gender, sexual orientation or\ngender identity. Moreover, whether an identity is key or not should be assessed\nin the light of the specific circumstances of the case. One cannot a priori\nrule out the possibility that even political beliefs, a characteristic in view\nof which international law generally allows sharp and offensive verbal attacks,\nin some cases constitute a key identity of a particular person or group of\npeople as important as religious beliefs or even ethnicity. Legislation\ngoverning the sanctioning of hate speech should, therefore, take a flexible approach\nto the definition and provision of remedies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Bulgarian legislation contains a number of deficits in the\nregulation of criminal sanctions for hate crimes and hate speech. On the one\nhand, it makes it possible to impose such sanctions even when hate speech is\nnot made public. On the other hand, it limits the grounds on the basis of which\nsuch speech can be sanctioned only to race, nationality, ethnicity and\nreligion. There is no possibility of a criminal sanction for hate speech based\non other features related to key identities. Administrative and civil remedies\nallow such protection on much broader grounds, as set out in the Protection\nagainst Discrimination Act. But even there, some characteristics, e.g. gender\nidentity and professional affiliation, are missing. The Bulgarian criminal law\ndoctrine treats crimes related to hate speech as \u201cformal crimes\u201d, which are\nprosecuted only by the state, thus not allowing the victim to be a party to the\ncase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An even more serious problem is law enforcement. The practice of\nboth criminal justice and the protection against discrimination have failed to\nrecognize hate speech, tolerated aggressive racist, xenophobic and homophobic\nincitements, applied a double standard to minorities and the majority and thus\ncontributed to maintaining a toxic environment for vulnerable groups in\nBulgarian society. Media regulation of hate speech is weak, extremely rare and\nalmost never applied against people in power. In violation of Article 4a of the\nInternational Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial\nDiscrimination, the Bulgarian state funds political parties that systematically\nincite racial\/ethnic hatred and discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Law enforcement issues affect the media environment, which, free\nfrom the threat of sanctions and restrictions, often provides a platform for\nmessages inciting hostility, discrimination and violence on various grounds.\nThis is particularly concerning in respect to multiple Internet-based\nplatforms, which provide anonymous individuals with almost unlimited freedom of\nhate speech. Such a social environment severely limits the ability of liberal\ncivil society to resist prejudice and incitement. Moreover, its representatives\nare often insulted and stigmatized, and in some cases even subjected, with impunity,\nto physical aggression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a liberal community, we are convinced of the need to strike a\nbalance in upholding two groups of fundamental human rights in a democratic\nsociety \u2013 the right to freedom of expression, on the one hand, and the right to\nprotection from discrimination, privacy, honor and dignity, on the other.\nRecognizing that a developed democracy based on the values of tolerance,\nbreadth of views and respect for all human rights requires the differentiation\nof forms of social and institutional control over all forms of aggression\nagainst these values, including hate speech, we make the following\nrecommendations for combating hate speech at the civil and institutional level:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMBATING HATE SPEECH<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bulgarian Community for Liberal Democracy (BOLD) is an association of citizens that aims to increase public support for democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to help consolidate liberal democracy in Bulgaria.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5374,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[101],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n