Skip to main content

The price we pay for freedom is hate speech

Motor accidents killed 103 children and 1,363 adults in Nigeria within the first three months of this year. That’s according to Nigerian Bureau of Statistics (NBS). Total motor deaths in 2016 were 5,053 from over eleven thousand road accidents. But no one seems to be suggesting we ban cars to militate against road accidents. Perhaps we understand that a present danger with transporting ourselves in automobiles quicker, efficiently and comfortably is an accident. Likewise, when we use other machines, say, operate forklifts, or fly in airplanes, we are aware of the associated risks but understand the benefits outweigh the risks.

It’s the same with freedom of speech and its potential abuse: hate speech. It’s price we pay to live in a free society of equals where no one or idea is beyond criticism and reproach, even when done ignorantly. Indeed, no society is democratic where such freedom of thought, speech, and association are restricted. A quick survey of the world around us may even convince us that social progress is impossible without these freedoms intact. 

This is why recent proposals by the government of Nigeria to take a tough stand on ‘hate speech’, however good the intention, mirrors proposing a car ban to end road accidents or restricting airplanes from taking flight for fear passengers may die in a crash. 

Good intention isn’t enough reason to follow through with any action. Any responsible adult on finite resources knows to weigh up their competing needs, or unintended consequences, before parting with their money for any goods or services, thus answering the question: is this a price worth paying?

Limiting the number of live phone-calls into socio-political programs and imposing a N500,000 penalty won’t end ‘hate speech’ in Nigeria. Neither will subjectively categorising of individual Twitter and Facebook posts as ‘hate’, nor government hyperbolically classifying them as terrorism. 

The resurgence today of fascism in Europe and North America, a worldview that was assumed buried in Nazi rubbles of the Second World War, proves to police thoughts of citizens, again however good the intention, is to only push toxic ideas underground where, more dangerously, they’re taught to kids unchallenged, who thereby become brainwashed. 

People who believe another is inherently bad or is a loafer because of their religion, skin colour, disability, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation know no better. Restricting them from airing their ignorance isn’t the remedy. We’re better off debating them, if we feel our position on those topics is superior, in hope of broadening their horizon. And should their action or speech, or indeed ours, turns to ‘incitement to violence’, or ‘breach of public peace’, or ‘obscene publication’ or ‘discrimination’, which are all defined in the Criminal Code Act of Nigeria (as amended in 1990), we can mete out justice. Therefore, a hate speech law is a wasted effort. 

On considering unintended consequences of a draconian hate speech law. In countries bordering Nigeria: Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Togo or hitherto Burkina Faso and Senegal, where citizens are restricted from expressing their thoughts to keep the public peace, and in extension the press. This has meant stifled political discourse, hence, political change impossible for as much as four decades. Do we Nigerians, after securing our first defeat of an incumbent president at the polls in 2015, really think to return to such fate of ‘sit-tight’ rulers is a price worth paying to appear tough on a handful of persons nationwide issuing threats, which by the way the government can right now address with existing laws? If we do, then by same logic, let’s ban electricity generation we need to power our industries and homes for fear we might all get electrocuted.

Discordant impassioned-voices is proof a society is democratic. As responsible adults would, we Nigerians must reject this hate speech law the government is proposing, and instruct our representatives at both States’ and National Assemblies to do the same. And should do-gooders attempt to foist upon us what will lure us to a past we no longer inhabit, we should do what self-respecting citizens do worldwide, which is to pour out into the streets in protest. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Color of Water by James McBride review - race, identity and transcendence

I once encountered a novel in the African literature section of a London library. It was about an out-of-luck black Nigerian man, Furo Wariboko, who went to bed and woke up transformed into a white man. Nothing else about Furo changes (held the same undergraduate degree, spoke in  Pidgin English  and even retained a  Black ass ), yet his social interactions in the vibrant city of Lagos improved overnight: from offers of high remunerating jobs to excessive deference towards him from his fellow Nigerians; all because of his newly-acquired skin colour. I remember sliding that novel back into the library’s bookshelf, thinking the synopsis around Furo’s life was outlandish even for a work of fiction. Not until I immersed myself into James McBride’s demure memoir,  The Color of Water , in which the author unfurled the life-world of his mother, Ruchel Dwajra Zylska, did I realise that I’d been limited in my imagination to think back then that Furo’s story was outlandish, and that reality can,
Post a Comment
Read more

Bello, Zik and Awo: Youth, Ambition and Unintended Consequences of Independence.

Pointing finger of blame when looking into history is tempting. But, reading two or more accounts of same historical event, by different witnesses, it becomes clear that there are no absolute-truths in history: just points of view. And requires discipline on our part to piece together for better understanding of the past, to build upon the successes, learn from the mistakes, and where possible and desirable make repairs. From accounts of Ahmadu Bello (My Life), Nnamdi Azikiwe (My Odyssey) and Obafemi Awolowo (Awo), we know the slogan ‘Self-Government for Nigeria NOW’ was demand of the ‘politically conscious’ indigenes. Demand continuously watered since 1923-elections in Lagos and Calabar Provinces, when only Nigerian men who earned £100 annually were allowed to vote. People who constitute Nigeria were never consulted if they so desired to be a ‘nation,’ let alone, be independent. Action Group (AG) would go further, at its Owo Conference of April 1951, declaring ‘SGN in 195
Post a Comment
Read more

Tinubu and end of Village Tree Democracy

The market square humiliation of incumbent governor of Lagos, Akinwunmi Ambode, was excruciating to watch even for a non-supporter. It was a ‘power show’ by Bola Ahmed Tinubu. A demonstration that two decades after ‘great minds think alike’ billboards stood on major Lagos streets – a baseless comparison of himself to Awolowo and Gandhi, except for round-eyed glasses – his ability to steer voters in his preferred direction hasn’t waned. I’m mindful that it’s usually an overestimation when an individual is said to have such power over society. Nevertheless, it’s undeniable that Tinubu’s opinions hold sway in Lagos. Indeed, how Tinubu came about that political power, and how it can be brought to an end, is what I intend to interrogate. Majority of Lagos residents are Yoruba. Like many African sub-nationalities, they hold as ideal that, although individual need is self-evident, community need shall supersede. This is argued convincingly by Professor Segun Gbadegesin – what
Post a Comment
Read more