Incitement

The question being raised is whether or not the author of the Rwandan tabloid Kangura, Hassan Ngeze, is justified in his conviction by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for inciting genocide in Rwanda, the country of distribution, by publishing anti-Tutsi material that alluded to violence, symbols that referred to historical persecution, as well as individuals.

I claim that Hassan Ngeze is guilty as convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for inciting genocide. Furthermore, I claim that conviction of incitement to genocide should be decided upon intent of the speaker, the content of the speech, the power of the speaker among his audience, while also considering national history, the current state of the nation, and the extent of diverse media.

The First Amendment philosopher, William Blackstone, stated that speech that had a tendency to “create animosities” or “disturb the public peace” could be punished after publication. Ngeze's speech not only created animosities, but played upon them heavily by publishing such phrases as, “What weapons shall we use to conquer the inyenzi once and for all?”

The first element when considering cases of incitement to genocide is time and place. Many cases of genocide occurred in countries where there is national, civic and economic stress; the society is currently not stable. This is merely the tone and not the cause of such massacres, but it may shed light on the power and influence of a speaker's words during vulnerable times. Are they taking advantage of their audience's distress? Rwanda is occupied by two opposing ethnic groups and this is also part of their history and something to consider when judging the content of a message.

When also considering the national setting, one must consider the history of the nation on many levels. First of all there is the relevance of symbols and people and what they hold to the people in which they originated from. The U.S. Supreme Court banned cross burning when intended to intimidate because it is “inextricably linked...to sudden and precipitous violence.” Ngeze not only paired his comments with images of machetes but that of Kayibanda, a Rwandan president who was infamous for killing Tutsi's. Germany also has outlawed the swasitka unless it is being used for educational or historical reasons.

A few other issues to keep in mind when considering the setting. In the U.S. there is the theory that a public discourse will contain/manage hateful speech. This is why there is not a general fear at all times among Americans of the KKK despite their hateful and violent speech.

But in countries where mass genocide has occurred there is a general control of the airwaves. Ngeze was working with the government to disseminate hateful speech that was intended to stir a people full of unrest to anger and murder. This was also a mass media with a broad audience, unlike the Schneck case where he was distributing pamphlets or other cases where the medium is meager and the audience small. Considering the Brandenburg case: I do not believe that his speech was publically broadcast and if it was, the distributor most likely did not agree with the material.

Ngeze had the intent to incite to genocide. Not only did he invite, suggest, and/or command people to kill, he fully intended them to carry it out. He boasted that if he published someone's name that they would indeed be murdered. Furthermore, why would he publish someone's name if he did not intend for them to be harassed, attacked, or murdered? As the court also pointed out that foreseeability is an essential element in deciding someone's guilt for incitement to genocide.