Other treatment?

Hate speech

Summary

Participants reflect about hate speech from their own experience. After that, they explore different case studies of hate speech and discuss reactions strategies, including how they can react when the source of hate speech is someone we know.

Materials

Posters and markers, pens/pencils, printed tables (annexed), cards with situations (annexed)

Procedure

Part one

1. Tell the group that this activity is about hate crimes and hate speech.

You can ask participants what ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ means to them. You can write down two terms on the board/poster and ask participants for their understanding of the terms. At the end of this part of the activity, summarise the discussion and give definitions of

‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’. 2. Then, tell the participants that you will ask them some questions. If the answer to the question is yes, they should stand up and if the answer is negative, they should stay seated. Ask them to answer according to their own knowledge and experience. The answers should not be consulted with the group. During this part of the activity everyone should keep quiet. The questions: • Have you encountered hate speech on the Internet?

Has any of your friends ever become a victim of hate speech?

Has anyone around you ever been a victim of physical, verbal or psychological violence because of who they are? (e.g. has a different skin colour, is a foreigner, body shape, etc.)

Have you heard about cases of hate crimes?

Have you heard of cases of hate crimes from the media?

Have you ever reacted when you have seen violence against another person?

• Have you ever reacted when you have seen hate speech on the

Internet? • Has a person who has committed violence against another person, because of who they are, been punished? 3. After this part of the activity you can briefly discuss what happened.

Ask participants how they felt when answering the questions and what surprised them. Was it difficult for them to answer? Why?

PART TWO

4. Divide the group into several smaller groups (each small group should have between five and ten people). Give each group a sheet of paper with a table (below) and two or three cards with situations. 5. Each group must decide together what they would do in each of the described situations if it concerned a person they know well and if this person was unknown to them. Give the groups about fifteen minutes to do this. Ask them to write the answers in the table. Tell the participants that all people in the group do not have to agree on a common answer; they can give several answers for each situation. 6. Invite the participants to present their results in plenary, particularly their ideas on how to react. After the presentation of each small group, ask the rest of the participants: Do you like the ideas presented? Do you think that the reactions are appropriate to the act? Do you have other ideas? After all presentations, move to debriefing.

Debriefing questions

• Was it difficult for you to find ideas on how to react in these situations?

If so, why? • Did your ideas overlap or were they very different? Why? • Did you find examples that are not hate speech or a hate crime according to you? Which ones and why? • Should our reaction be different in situations where the perpetrator of the act is a person we know and when we do not know the person?

Have you encountered or heard about similar situations in the media? What was the public reaction then? Can ignoring be a form of reaction to such situations? In what cases and why? Should you always react in similar situations? Why? What human rights are violated in case of hate speech? Why are so few hate crimes reported or qualified as hate crimes? What can you do to prevent hate speech and hate crimes?

Annex: Table

Situation 1 HOW WOULD YOU REACT IF THIS PERSON… was well known to you (colleague, friend)? was unknown to you?

2

3

The PERSON posts a very offensive joke about black people on Facebook.

The PERSON is laughing in the hallway at a boy who is from Chechnya. He calls him ‘dirty’ and ‘nigger’. He comments on his poor knowledge of language sharply, mimicking his statements.

You are at a party with a group of people. The PERSON is offending the refugees. He/she says they are terrorists and that they should all be in prison. He/she says they came here only to take ‘our’ jobs and use our welfare system.

The PERSON provides a socio-political analysis of contemporary migration on their blog. The article is full of statements, such as: ‘The reason for contemporary migration is our forced acceptance of multiculturalism. Another faith, especially Islam... threatens us all. We should do everything to prevent immigrants and refugees from settling down in our country. Everything!’

The PERSON beats a guy in the toilets who is rumoured to be gay.

In your class, the PERSON destroyed the backpack of a girl who is Muslim. She was told she should not go to your school because there is only room for ‘real X’. (X is your nationality)

The PERSON took part in a demonstration against the reception of refugees in your country. During the demonstration, a puppet representing a refugee was set on fire.

The PERSON makes fun of people with disabilities at school. He/she says about them: “these cripples should be put in some kind of closed facility, not in a normal school.”

The PERSON posted the following post on their Facebook page: ‘Killing a Muslim is not a sin!’

The PERSON, when visiting a pub, says the following words: ‘These Jews are everywhere. Look at this guy at the bar, look at his nose - surely a Jew.’

The PERSON does not want to subscribe to the German language class. He says that he/she will not learn the Nazi language and that all Germans are pigs.

The PERSON wants to enrol in an organization that openly admits its xenophobic and racist views. It is said that last week members of this organization took part in beating up a foreigner in the city.