Monday, 3 October 2016

AKEED, AMMAN

 

Since June 2016; that is, for the past three months, the expressions produced by Jordanian society in the public sphere have witnessed a clear change. These shocking transformations have been marked by the intensive presence of hate speech and its exclusionist expressions, which lay the groundwork for polarization and social division. The unfamiliar expressions of hate in the Jordanian public sphere have escalated through digital media, specifically on social media networks. Through a series of events, hate speech has grown in a society that was not familiar with it previously. It reached its peak when the first crime of assassination was committed, driven by this speech in these outlets.

 

The rise in hate speech and incitement threatens the social fabric of Jordanian society and creates sharp polarizations against cultural-religious backgrounds, which are sometimes based on political positions and interests. Besides, this phenomenon threatens freedom of expression in Jordan and might prompt measures and legislation that curb freedom of the media. This necessitates treating it based on a new perspective. The most dangerous thing that could happen is to regard this phenomenon as normal.

 

Sudden and Shocking Growth of Hate

 

Jordanian society has safely withstood the events of Arab transformations "Arab Spring" and all the huge political marketing that they included and the largest wave of hate witnessed by contemporary Arab societies. The expressions of the Jordanian popular movement continued to revolve within the sphere of political, economic, demand-driven, and protest expressions.

 

Since the end of 2014, the Jordanian Media Credibility Monitor "AKEED" has begun to monitor the manifestations of hate and incitement speech in the Jordanian media. It has issued five reports in this connection. The results of these reports were optimistic as they indicated that this speech is limited and almost negligible and that it is confined to social media and in specific expressions. The media coverage of the affairs of Syrian refugees in Jordan was the main field of these phenomena. However, this speech has begun to grow rapidly. This was observed by another study issued by the Media Monitor in the Middle East and North Africa and the Jordanian Commission for Democratic Culture in 2015. It concluded that hate speech in the Jordanian daily press is still within its minimum limits and that it is the lowest in the Arab media.

 

Within a period of 20 months since the beginning of the monitoring, hate speech has reached serious stages in fueling conflicts, fabricating positions, and influencing public opinion. It has provided clear indications vis-à-vis issues that affect cultural and religious dimensions in Jordanian society, whether in the expressions related to cultural or political values or direct religious and sectarian dimensions, which reached their peak in the implications of the assassination of writer Nahed Hattar, which is considered the first crime of hate speech committed based on the incitement of digital media and against religious-cultural backgrounds.

 

This has happened within the span of almost three months in a phenomenon that has grown rapidly and is still growing. It is almost confined to virtual space on social media (Facebook) networks and the applications and platforms of digital and social media and electronic news sites.

 

Over the past three months, AKEED has monitored a number of issues that have contributed to the growth of hate and the aggravation of the emergence of expressions indicating it, key of which are the following:

 

• The detention of academic and Islamic preacher Dr. Amjad Qourshah on 14 June 2016 against the background of material he published on social networks (YouTube), described as calling for extremism. This incident generated broad discussions on the same networks, which included different patterns of hate and mutual incitement.
• The death of Jordanian guitarist Shadi Abu Jaber in a car accident. In this case, the monitoring showed that a part of the debate on social media sites focused positively on the loss of a young Jordanian talent in the field of art and music. On the other hand, other segments engaged in a debate on whether it is permissible to invoke God"s mercy on the young man because of his (Christian) faith. This was the spark that ignited a clear hate speech.
• The case of writer Nahed Hattar against the background of sharing a post on Facebook, which was considered to be offensive to the Divine. He was subsequently detained, released, and then assassinated. Over the course of around 25 days, between 12 August and 24 September, this case had witnessed incitement of hate and mobilization against him personally on social media sites and some electronic news sites and radios.
• A news story that the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Group had prevented female employees from wearing jilbab. The Group explained its position on this issue. However, the machine of hate had already begun operating.
• A news story about an advertisement stipulating that applicants for the position of a translator who speaks Korean language must be Christian. It turned out that this was not accurate, especially attributing this to the Korean Embassy.  
• The case of revisions to school curricula and the debate that followed and that witnessed reciprocal accusations of hate. In this instance, writer Zulaikha Aburisha was particularly targeted against the background of an article she wrote in the daily newspaper Al Ghad.
• The violence that accompanied a football match between Al Wahdat and Al Ramtha in one of the local championships in early September 2016.
• The inflammatory speech witnessed by some election campaigns in the elections to the 18th Lower House of Parliament.  
• The case of Zain Karazon, an activist on social media sites.

While it is difficult to monitor the media content that advocates hate, according to scientific definitions, on social media sites and sometimes on news sites, AKEED monitored around 311 items that contain hate and incitement on 26 officially registered sites in the case of writer Nahed Hattar between the publishing of the cartoon and up until 25 September 2016. These items contained hate and counter-hate. They also contained all patterns of expressions, which go under hate speech, such as incitement, labeling, stigmatization, stereotyping, defamation, libel, swearing, slander, and discrimination.

 

In the case of the death of Shadi Abu Jaber, AKEED counted 22 posts on 4 August 2016 published by 19 accounts between 29 July and 3 August. There were around 7,800 comments on these posts. Most of these electronic interactions, by around 90%, were positive and invoked mercy for the deceased and agreed with human and common national values. However, a minority of activists soon steered the discussion to a different direction, which prompted a counterattack by posters. 

 

New Media "Demonizes" Society

 

It seems that the changes witnessed by the expressions produced by Jordanian society during this limited period are directly and indirectly linked to the performance of the media, specifically digital media, given the huge potential that these outlets provide for political and ideological usage. This leads to more intense debates on these pages whenever a certain event occurs and to categorizing and linking it to a context that is connected to hate and incitement. This speech has become a worrying phenomenon, which threatens social and national fabric and civil peace and threatens the community of tolerance that people have preserved for many decades. This phenomenon is feeding on exclusionist rhetoric that spreads chaos and undermines the values of tolerance, pluralism, and coexistence.

 

How does this speech demonize society? Is it indeed true that what was debated reflects the reality of society? Does society have contradictions and conflicts over values and principles, as the situation appears in virtual reality? What is the role of the media in bringing about these changes?

 

Within the framework of monitoring and analyzing this phenomenon, AKEED is trying to follow the phenomena that are linked to the performance of the media. This is within the context of three links: Media outlet, message, and audience. As for matters that are related to changes in society, these are outside the scope of the work of AKEED. In this framework, the following phenomena have been observed:

 

• 1.The continuation of the phenomenon of the loud minority, which turns into a leading minority with strong influence. When the speech reaches its peak, the power of the speech of this minority declines as the scope of participation and the numbers of actors increase. This minority is linked to most events associated with hate speech, with a small number of activists on social media sites, or some news sites that adopted specific positions toward the event in question. It is the one leading to the creation of the phenomenon of the prevailing trend in public opinion. The monitoring noted that this phenomenon was present in most cases involving hate speech over the past few months.

 

• 2.The phenomenon of fear of the prevailing trend. German scholar Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann observed a phenomenon in the middle of the seventies concerning the relationship between the public and mass media, which she called "spiral of silence." It posits that "when media outlets adopt certain opinions or trends during a period of time, most individuals will move in the direction supported by these outlets." As for "individuals who hold opposing views, they remain silent either out of fear of social isolation or to avoid oppression or social conflicts. Therefore, if they believe in views that differ from what media outlets offer, they suppress these views and tend to not express them."

 

 

The phenomenon of fear of the prevailing trend appeared in some cases of the hate speech, which emerged in recent months, specifically in the case of writer Nahed Hattar, and in the case of the revision of school curricula, while taking into consideration that there is another minority of a different kind, which was not known when Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann developed her theory in the seventies; namely, the loud minority, which can create public opinion on digital and social media. Although some researchers go in other directions when applying this theory to new social media, others argue that social media could be subject to organized and unorganized direction, which turns minority into majority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.Framing Incitement and Hate  

 

Framing is one of the most sophisticated and compound methods in political and cultural propaganda. Over the past three months, hate and incitement speeches have been characterized by the presence of most of these frames, which usually shift the trend and make it a general and prevailing trend, thus increasing the level of concern in society and prompting it, through the power of suggestion, to transform a trend into behavior.

 

AKEED has monitored the development in hate speech in the media, specifically in social and digital media, which followed the detention of writer Nahed Hattar until the assassination crime took place. Since a decision was issued imposing a ban on publishing because the case is now being examined in court, our treatment will take this into consideration and will not publish the relevant links.

 

AKEED observed the existence of two types of coverage vis-à-vis this case during the two stages of its development (detention and then assassination). It observed that coverage by licensed electronic sites was more cautious and sensitive in the second stage after the assassination. They stopped reporting what is being said on social media as sources of news and reports. However, in the first stage, the sites published many items that were classified as part of hate speech.

 

Of course, hate speech does not refer to items that leveled criticism, including abusive criticism, at the writer himself as this could be classified as defamation and libel. Hate speech manifested itself in labeling the writer and his positions and dealing with them as a religious or political/cultural group or identity, such as focusing on his Christian faith or secular positions after redefining them as the identity of a particular group. It should be noticed that there is some sort of integration between personal attack and labeling.

 

The key frames that were monitored in the case of writer Nahed Hattar on news sites, which number 26, are the following:

 

1. The frame of labeling and stigmatization: This frame emerged with the beginnings of coverage of the event, which started with a number of descriptions that turned into a label by both sides of the debate. Then, this frame tended to turn description and labeling into stigmatization. This frame dominated most of the coverage; it involved more than 69% of the monitored items.   
2. The frame of swearing and insults: The frame of swearing and insults prevailed in social media posts more than the content published on news sites. Around 18% of items included direct or indirect insults.
3. The frame of incitement and suggestion: The frame of incitement was used on different levels in around 40% of the items that handled the case of Nahed Hattar and that used inflammatory coverage. Many direct and indirect methods were used, including selectivity, description, and direct call for incitement.
4. The frame of escalating the conflict: In general, most of the coverage leaned toward escalating the conflict directly and indirectly by around 80% of the content that was monitored during this period. This is due to the nature of the subject of the coverage and the trends of media outlets.
5.  

 

 

 

4.The cultural-political complex: The inflammatory and hate speeches monitored during this period proved the existence of a cultural-political complex in a dominating fashion by combining the religious-cultural position and the interest-based political position.

 

Other Examples

 

Media coverage over the past three months has included other issues, which were interspersed with hate speech, apart from the major issues that were directly given a religious character. This includes what was published during election campaigns as the coverage saw some labeling, which had a factional or cultural aspect. For example, while the third electoral district in Amman witnessed a loud and sharp debate (this is normal and happens in all election campaigns) between the list of Reform/Islamists and Ma"an/Civil State, discussions on social media and some media outlets classified the two teams into groups, each of which having attributes that imply offenses and negative stereotyping. The words and concepts used in the discussion, such as secular, liberal, Islamic, and others, turned into descriptions that affect the social behavior and ethical aspects of the targeted group.

 

Meanwhile, as another example, the debate over school curricula and their revision, which is supposed to be legitimate and healthy, was permeated by rhetoric that turned the parties to the debate into "groups" that not only differ over curricula, but also differ over faith, traditions, and customs. The two teams exchanged insults, such as moral and family decadence on the one hand or backwardness, ignorance, and closed-mindedness on the other.

 

In other examples, waves of hate speech spread vis-à-vis issues that concern some figures, such as Dr. Amjad Qourshah, who was held in prison, and writer Zulaikha Aburisha, who wrote about controversial issues. Supporters and opponents were divided into teams that exchanged collective descriptions.

 

Organized Noise of Hate

 

Social media allows for posting material in the form of a mix of ideas in a single case, especially through the technique of hashtags. The poster of a hashtag links a number of words that are carefully chosen; each word connects to a network of subjects. Usually, activists or interested entities seek to find and follow these hashtags, until they become like a snowball.   

 

For example, the most prominent 15 hashtags that contributed to fueling hate speech during the period from June until the end of September were monitored as follows:

 

#Zulaikha_Abu_Risha

#Amjad_Qourshah

#Shadi_Abu_Jaber

#Naheq_Hattar

#Nahed_Hattar

#Batul_Haddad

#Yes_For Trying_Hattar

#When Will_Worshipers_Pilgrims_Fasting Persons Act

#If_They Do Not_Act Now?

#Search_With_the Police Fugitive

#Naheq_Hattar

#I am_Wahdat Fan_Boycotting_Stands

#Except God Almighty, May He be Glorified Above Your Descriptions, You Hattar and People Like You Who Claim Respect for and Acceptance of Ideology of Others!

#Secularism and its Orphans

#Hattar Represents Atheist Secularists and Leftists

#Nahed_Hattar Victim of Religious Extremism

 

Tweets use inciting words, such as: # Zulaikha_Abu_Risha attacks one of the rituals of #Muslims

Writer in #Al Ghad_newspaper#secularist#dark#racist#Arabs#Jordan#Roya

Or the following tweets: #Shadi_Abu_Jaber died! Shall I invoke mercy for him or not? He used to play the guitar, so I should not invoke mercy! #Sa"id_Al Amr was martyred in#Jerusalem! I only hear people asking about #Zain_Karazon #Palestine#Jordan#wake up

 

The above sentences are a mix of words that are placed in a provocative manner next to each other. They leave a person who is browsing quickly to his imagination.

 

It was noticed, for example, that even political affiliations turned during the open debate on social media into identities with a cultural dimension. Today, concepts like liberal, secularist, Islamist, and leftist, have almost turned from legitimate political titles that reflect positive diversity into conflicting identities ethically, socially, and culturally.

 

The mechanisms of action on social media have served as suitable collective incubators that use symbols, signs, and tags for discrimination and to set conditions for others and label them.  

 

There is a key observation concerning the relationship between the registered and licensed electronic news sites and social media. Since it was decided in the Publications Law, in its articles and provisions, that all comments by readers in the designated places shall be included and the law considered them a part of the responsibility of the site, the sites removed the comments section or reduced attention to it, thus moving the discussion to the pages of social media by sharing the material itself from the site to the page of the site that carries its name.

 

Although many electronic sites started developing reservations or considering the sensitivity of some issues, their pages on social media have been opened wide. These sites free themselves from responsibility of monitoring comments. The public is expressing its rhetoric there with full freedom.

 

Hate Speech Within Jordanian Legal Framework

 

The concept of "hate speech" is relatively new. Therefore, it has not been defined in a clear and standardized manner. In Jordan, the concept has not been used directly in legal texts. However, Jordan has officially acceded, and adhered, to a number of relevant international documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

Jordanian legislation has not used the word hate, but there are many laws whose meanings and connotations included it, such as the Press and Publications Law and the Penal Code. There are references to the crime of inciting extremism and sectarian strife, as well as fueling sectarian and racist discord, instigating strife and dissent between sects and races, and insulting religious sentiments.

 

However, there are no texts that take new changes into consideration. Legislation addresses the question of hate within the context of individual relations. Meanwhile, hate speech has continued to grow between groups that classify each other in hierarchies and hold individuals accountable for their affiliations. In fact, they started creating new identities for others based on secondary cultural, or sometimes fabricated, elements.

 

Summary of General Indications  

 

AKEED will only publish some general indications, which show the speed and volume of changes witnessed by the social and digital media with regard to producing and promoting hate:

 

First, the growth in the volume of inflammatory and selective posts on social media networks, which have sometimes exceeded the phenomenon of the "loud minority" and become part of organized campaigns.

 

Second, digital media and some electronic sites have started to engage in incitement and spread hate. They have reversed the traditional formula and started feeding their inflammatory material from posts by social media.

 

Third, the increase in quantitative accumulation of the volume of sharp incitement, which has turned, qualitatively, into a tool for creating polarization and social division based on religious identities and cultural and political positions.

 

Fourth, weak control and use of law in the face of polarization and spread of hate amid a state of selective activation in the application of the law.

 

Fifth, the growing dissemination of hate and polarization by social and digital media has turned incitement into positions and trends, which were translated into criminal conduct; namely, action on the ground.

 

Sixth, the continuing accumulation of hate speeches leads to demonizing society and creating realities that might not agree with the reality of Jordanian society and the pluralism and coexistence that characterize it. This could cause irreparable damage to the rich spiritual heritage of the components of society and the prevailing patterns of cultural life.