Just amend current laws to curb hate speech, says ex-Bar chief

 Salim Bashir says there is no need for a new legal framework, but laws such as the Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 are rather ambiguous in their current form.

Former Bar Council president Salim Bashir said Parliament must amend and clarify the hate speech provisions of specific laws.

PETALING JAYA:

 A former Bar president has pushed back against calls for a new legal framework to tackle hate speech, arguing that amending existing laws would be better.

Salim Bashir said laws such as the Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 deal with hate speech, but are rather ambiguous in their current form.

“Parliament must amend and clarify the hate speech provisions of specific laws to balance them with the constitutional right to freedom of expression,” he told FMT.

Salim said inflammatory speech should be defined as expressions of hatred against a person or group, especially where the communication is likely to provoke violence, create disorder or cause psychological harm.

“The intention to cause harm or violence must be explicit, not incidental,” he said, adding that proof must show the words uttered were intended to cause harm or annoyance, judged by the standards of a reasonable, strong-minded person.

He said malicious expression referred to offensive language used to express hatred based on race, religious background or stereotyping, with the intention of causing irreparable harm or violence.

“Intentions can be deduced based on conduct and motive, but laws governing hate speech must be clearly defined without ambiguity to prevent arbitrary enforcement,” he said.

Last month, Indera Mahkota MP Saifuddin Abdullah called for an official definition and framework for hate speech. He said differing opinions had at times been acted upon “hastily, harshly and unjustly”, while the lack of a precise definition created room for broad interpretation under existing laws.

Suhakam chairman Hishamudin Yunus said the Federal Constitution did not expressly provide for restrictions related to issues on race, religion and royalty. The broad, undefined restriction had been misunderstood to mean people could not discuss such issues at all, creating a chilling effect on critical discourse.

“Such a prohibition violates freedom of speech,” he said, but added that a constitutional amendment was “not the primary concern”.

He said any definition of hate speech must protect legitimate discussion, criticism and public debate while preventing speech that incites violence, discrimination or hatred.

Hishamudin also called on the government to align Malaysian laws with international human rights standards, and to exercise restraint in using criminal laws against people expressing opinions online. - FMT