Professional Documents
Culture Documents
au
Copyright 2013 Online Hate Prevention Institute Islamophobia on the Internet: The 3.0 growth of online hate targeting Muslims NonCommercial-NoDerivs Unported License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
P a g e | ii
Published in Melbourne by: Online Hate Prevention Institute 306 Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield South, Vic, 3162 Ph: (03) 9272 5594 E-mail: ohpi@ohpi.org.au Website: http://www.ohpi.org.au
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Oboler, Andre, author. Islamophobia on the internet : the growth of online hate targeting Muslims / by Andre Oboler ; foreword by Ghaith Krayem. ISBN: 9780987429445 (ebook) Islamophobia. Online hate speech. Internet -- Moral and ethical aspects. 305.697091821
2013 Online Hate Prevention Institute This publication is copyright. Other than for the purpose of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of this publication may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquires should be addressed to the publishers. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. This notice serves as prior written permission to the extent covered by the license.
Page |i
The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) is an Australian Charity on the Register of Harm Prevention Charities maintained by the Australian Government. We aim to be a world leader in combating online hate and a critical partner who works with key stakeholders to improve the prevention, mitigation and responses to online hate. Ultimately, OHPI seeks to facilitate a change in online culture so that hate in all its forms becomes as socially unacceptable online as it is in real life. OHPI is a charity that accepts public donations; within Australia donations over two dollars are tax deductible. Non-financial contributions to support our work are also greatly appreciated. Please see the next page for details of how you can help OHPI, or visit our website: www.ohpi.org.au for more information.
P a g e | ii
Contribute to support our work OHPI is reliant on donations from the public for our funding. Your financial support helps ensure we can continue to operate and to expand our work. Donations are accepted from around the world. In Australia we are a Registered Harm Prevention Charity and all donations over $2 are tax deductible. Credit Cards: Donations can be made online via credit card: http://ohpi.org.au/donate/ Cheques: We also accept cheques payable to the Online Hate Prevention Fund which can be mailed to: OHPI, 306 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield South, Vic 3126, Australia.
Non-financial support You can also assist us by joining our mailing list, our Facebook page, and following us on Twitter @onlinehate. This shows your support for the work we do and will keep you informed of new reports, projects, campaigns and opportunities to take a stand against online hate. OHPI is also looking to connect with other experts in the field, foundations that may support our work and journalists that may be interested in reporting on future stories related to our work. If this is you, please contact us: http://ohpi.org.au/contact-us/
Acknowledgements
This report was produced in consultation with the Islamic Council of Victoria. The work has been supported in part by two research projects at the University of Technology Sydney: the Making Multicultural Australia Project (http://multiculturalaustralia.edu.au), and by Cyber Racism and Community Resilience Research Project (funded by the Australian Research Council - data from this research contributes to the development of an ecology of anti-Islamic hate in cyber-space). OHPI thanks our donors for their assistance in making work like this possible. OHPI would also like to acknowledge the support we receive from our professional advisers Logicca Chartered Accountants and Frankel Lawyers. Andre Oboler thanks the Directors of OHPI for the important role they play, as volunteers, in overseeing and helping to develop this important charity. Mutual respect for people other faiths and an open dialogue that creates friendship, knowledge and empathy is needed to combat religious vilification. Andre Oboler thanks the Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre for creating such an environment, the Islamic Society of Lancaster University for their support of it, and Amro Ebbiary for the significant role he played in fostering meaningful relations between Muslims and people of others faiths BOTH within the inter-faith setting and more broadly in public life.
Contents
Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Public responses to this report .......................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 7 Recommendations to mitigate against the spread of hate against Muslims ................................................ 7 General recommendations to mitigate against the spread of Hate Speech ................................................. 7 An Overview of the Problem ............................................................................................................................. 8 The Nature of Anti-Muslim Hate Speech....................................................................................................... 8 Anti-Muslim Hate Speech in Social Media .................................................................................................. 10 The danger of hate pages for extreme political parties .............................................................................. 13 The Types of Hate Speech Explored in this Report ......................................................................................... 14 Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety (Category A) ........................................................ 14 Muslims as a Cultural Threat (Category B) .................................................................................................. 15 Muslims as an Economic Threat (Category C) ............................................................................................. 16 Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims (Category D) .................................................................... 17 Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims (Category E) ....................................... 18 Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers (Category F) ............................................................................ 19 Other Forms of Hate (Category G)............................................................................................................... 20 Additional Observations .................................................................................................................................. 21 Halal Certification ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Pro-Israel Content on Anti-Muslim Pages ................................................................................................... 23 The Clash of Civilisations and Allegations of Collective Guilt ...................................................................... 24 The English Defence League ........................................................................................................................ 25 Technical Matters Contributing to the Problem ............................................................................................. 26 The danger of hate pages as a free for all ................................................................................................... 26 The Problem of Duplicate Instances of Hate Speech Images ...................................................................... 27 The Flawed Reporting System that puts Victims at Risk ............................................................................. 28 Hate Speech Manifest ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Australias contribution ............................................................................................................................... 33 Examples of Anti-Muslim Hate ........................................................................................................................ 34 Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety (Category A) ........................................................ 34 Muslims as a Cultural Threat (Category B) .................................................................................................. 56 Muslims as an Economic Threat (Category C) ............................................................................................. 73 Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims (Category D) .................................................................... 79 Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims (Category E) ....................................... 99 Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers (Category F) .......................................................................... 109 Other Forms of Hate (Category G)............................................................................................................. 117
Page |1
Foreword
Todays Australia is committed to the tenets of multiculturalism. The foundation of our national psyche has this at its core. Prejudice, however, continues to exist and together we must do more to overcome discriminatory perceptions in Australian society. The Muslim community is one of the segments of society that has been affected by misrepresentation and at times vilification. This report highlights some of the messages of hate about our community that can be found online. We may either choose to ignore such messages, or we may choose to challenge and correct them. We believe no community in Australia should be subjected to the sorts of attacks highlighted in this report. Such attacks are at odds with Australia's proclaimed ideals. In speaking out against this hate speech, we also recognise that there is a balance to be struck between freedom of expression and freedom from hate. Preventative measures that safeguard our peaceful coexistence without overly restricting self expression are needed. It is not enough for individuals to try and overcome such challenges alone, laws that protect against hate speech are needed and send a message about the values of our multicultural society. Victoria is one step ahead of the rest of the country in this regard, as religious vilification has been declared unlawful Australias newly elected coalition Government has expressed interest in reworking the Commonwealth Governments stance on the Racial Discrimination Act. We would like to emphasise the importance of this law, and any amendments that reduce the scope of this law could detriment the efforts of the community in upholding our multicultural ideals.. As the peak Muslim body in Victoria, the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) believes it is vital that the Federal Government extends greater protection to religious minorities under the laws of the Commonwealth to prevent vilification and discrimination on the basis of religion. The type of vilification that is documented in this report undermines the substantial efforts of Muslims, alongside other faith groups and organisations, to challenge prejudice in society. The content of this report is integral to furthering our understanding of the hate that continues to spread through social media platforms like Facebook. It shows the hate our community is exposed to, especially young adults who are often left to grapple with the aftereffects of viewing such hate directed against them and their community. Like all hate speech, such content creates a sense of alienation and exclusion from society for those targeted. Facebook must recognise its responsibility for rectifying this problem. It must take action in a timely manner as the damage that such material causes can spread when the messages are left online. A failure to take action also has the potential of appearing to exonerate those who publish and endorse such hate speech. The Islamic Council of Victoria believes that this report has opened an important discussion about a topic of great concern and would like to thank the Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) for their efforts in producing this report; it has become vital in our appreciation of the severity of this issue. We would like to thank the other religious, ethnic and cultural organisations and community groups who we work with in efforts to strengthen multiculturalism and tackle the persistent issue of hate directed against minority groups. While this report focuses on online hate against our community, the problem of online hate affects all of us. Previous reports we have seen from the Online Hate Prevention Institute show how other groups such as Indigenous Australians and the Jewish
Page |2
Community have been similarly targeted by online hate. Tackling such hate is not only a concern for each of our communities individually, it is also a concern for us collectively, and for Australian society more generally. The Islamic Council of Victoria is pleased to have been consulted throughout the production of this report, and in seeing the final report, we are pleased to endorse it and to play a part in ensuring its dissemination. We hope this report provides a basis for further discussion, and that we are able to work with other well meaning Australians to better tackle the problems of hate speech in general, religious vilification in particular, and of online religious vilification as a particularly dangerous manifestation of this problem.
Page |3
The Hon John Brumby, Premier of Victoria (2007-2010) and Australian Member of Parliament (19831990): Addressing racial and religious discrimination involves more than just changing laws. It requires a concerted effort to challenge behaviours and transform culture and attitudes. In my time in Government, I strongly supported this goal. We initiated an education program for children and parents around issues of cyber-bullying and safety; ran a state-wide multicultural policy to strengthen and promote harmonious community relations; endorsed legislation to protect against racial vilification and engender social cohesion; and introduced the nations first Respect Agenda to address discriminatory behaviour and foster difference and diversity. In light of these initiatives, I commend the Online Hate Prevention Institute for their work against online vilification. This report is a pointed reminder of the significance of this problem and an important call for ongoing work to highlight and address hate speech. Moreover, it emphasises the important message that combating discrimination and vilification not only advances equality and human rights, but it also supports diversity, community strength and overall inclusion within society.
Ghaith Krayem, Secretary, Islamic Council of Victoria: This report has opened an important discussion about a topic of great concern it has become vital in our appreciation of the severity of this issue The Islamic Council of Victoria is pleased to have been consulted throughout the production of this report, and in seeing the final report, we are pleased to endorse it and to play a part in ensuring its dissemination. We hope this report provides a basis for further discussion, and that we are able to work with other well meaning Australians to better tackle the problems of hate speech in general, religious vilification in particular, and of online religious vilification as a particularly dangerous manifestation of this problem. (Extracted from the foreword to this report)
Page |4
Prof. Andrew Jakubowicz, Principal Investigator, Cyber racism and community resilience research project (CRaCR), University of Technology Sydney: At a time that the Australian government has announced it intends
to legislate to reduce the constraints on hate speech by amending if not repealing section 18C of the Race Discrimination Act, this OHPI report on anti-Muslim hate speech on Facebook demonstrates to the wider community what is further at stake if these protections are withdrawn. As the report notes, all the material reported here is in breach of Facebook's own code of conduct, but Facebook, based in the USA, has done little if anything to control it. As with much hate speech, the majority of its targets and victims are vulnerable and unable or unwilling to respond through the legal system. Organisations like OHPI play a crucial role in helping our wider society understand exactly how racism works in cyberspace, by exposing its tactics, reporting its instances, and charting its supporters. The heat that is generated by these sites might well drive customers towards Facebook's advertisers, but we need to ask to what extent commercial profit should be permitted to overwhelm social decency. OHPI must be commended once again for its detailed, sustained and courageous research, on which Australia will increasingly depend for the truth about the nastier side of the hate industry. As OHPI shows, the creators and supporters of these pages are not "mistaken" people who can be educated to be nice; they are deeply committed racists whose goal is to inflame society and turn Australian against Australian at great social cost to us all.
Dr Hass Dellal OAM, Executive Director, Australian Multicultural Foundation: One of the growing challenges that we face today is cyber hate within our society. Social media sites such as Facebook have provided a platform where people can easily spread messages of hate and bigotry. This report highlights how we cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to matters such as online vilification. The widespread access to online hate speech targeting specific groups has a negative impact on the community as whole, not to mention many physical and emotional health implications for individuals. Freedom of speech is a democratic value that we all respect and protect. However, there are also moral limits to freedom of speech; discrimination, racism and hate campaigns based on ones ethnicity, race, religion or gender cannot be and will not be accepted. I congratulate the Online Hate Prevention Institute for their important work against online hate campaigns. The recommendations in this report clearly highlight how we as an Australian community can work together to educate people and tackle online hate.
Peter Wertheim AM, Executive Director, Executive Council of Australian Jewry: The freedom to express ones views freely is rightly regarded as fundamental to democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. After centuries of struggle, criticism of theological doctrines and religious beliefs has come to be accepted in western societies as a legitimate exercise of that freedom. Such criticism also necessarily implies a degree of criticism of adherents of those doctrines and beliefs. The ECAJ as the peak body representing the Jewish community in Australia takes the view that such implied criticism must also be accepted as legitimate in a free society, provided that it does not go further and incite hatred or violence against them. There is an ongoing need for research to inform policy discussions about what our society should consider to be reasonable and justifiable limits on freedom of speech, and the contribution made by OHPI is to be welcomed. The instances this report has documented illustrate how the internet and social media have sometimes provided a megaphone to individuals and groups motivated by racism and other forms of bigotry. In the past such people had a far more limited audience to which to promote their hateful messages, which go well beyond what might reasonably be regarded as a genuine contribution to the contest of ideas. The ECAJ commends OHPI for its work.
Priscilla Brice, Managing Director, All Together Now: It seems as though online hate increases each year. Yet the response of authorities including Facebook has not kept up with the wider community's demands for appropriate policing of content and enforcement of policies designed to remove hateful content and punish perpetrators. Thanks to the work of OHPI there is now a robust and well-documented process for monitoring hate online and holding social media platforms accountable. The recommendations in this particular report clearly show how we can all play a part in reducing online hate and I hope that authorities like the Australian government and social media platforms listen up and take action!
Page |5
Dr Dvir Abramovich, Chair, Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation Commission: For more than three decades, The Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation Commission has been vocal in raising awareness and in exposing and fighting anti-Semitism and discrimination in all its forms. As this important and meticulously researched report by OHPI reveals, there is a disturbing rise of anti-Muslim bigotry on the internet in variety of platforms and fora such as Facebook. Such religious vilification is unacceptable, and the ADC supports the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and The Racial Discrimination Act that make such egregious racial abuse illegal. As the Jewish community well knows, the sheer volume of hatred pervading cyberspace is staggering, and online hate is not just a growing problem, it is an insidious epidemic. While the communication revolution has had a wonderful impact, it has also provided a super highway for hatemongers to peddle their lies and distortions. Today, there are more people and more organisations, emboldened by anonymity, who are propagating this immoral assault on human rights and personal dignity. Jewish History teaches us that all too often expressions of hate can turn into acts of violence, and so we all have a shared responsibility to address this danger. The ADC recognises that it is a challenge for our society and government to reconcile the demands of freedom of speech and the need to deal with the threat that this inexcusable and unregulated flow of bigotry poses. The ADC has repeatedly called on internet users to be aware and alert, and to report such material to the police, as well as lobby internet providers and government. The ADC believes that public involvement , concern, and when needed, outcry, are vital in countering the purveyors of hate. The OHPI should be congratulated for important report.
Craig Rowley, Chief Executive Officer, LeadWest: Hate speech has no place in communities, and today that also means hate has no place online. Whatever form it takes, hate is dangerous. It damages individuals and their physical and emotional health. Hate tears apart the social fabric. Hate damages our society as a whole. Remarkable work is being done by the Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), Australias first Harm Prevention Charity entirely dedicated to the problem of Internet based antisemitism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, hate against other groups and the cyberbullying of individuals. Furthering the good work it has already done, OHPI has now released the Anti-Muslim Hate Report, which examines online hate against Muslims, including Muslim Australians, primarily on Facebook. It is a timely and significant contribution to the elimination of hate in our communities.
Nina Bassat AM, President, Jewish Community Council of Victoria: Freedom of speech is an accepted norm in our society, but much is said and written under the rubric of free speech which clearly crosses all accepted borders of decency and respect for others. This meticulously researched and well thought through Report by the Online Hate Prevention Institute of the problem of religious vilification against Muslims and the Muslim community, demonstrates graphically just how frequently and viciously one mans freedom of speech is another mans humiliation and degradation. Whilst hate speech against a religious group is in clear violation of Facebooks terms of service, there seems to be scant will by Facebook to prevent or even contain hate speech, and the lack of action constitutes an odious participation in this type of activity. This Report sets out with clarity its findings and recommendations and I commend Dr Andre Oboler and the Online Hate Prevention Institute for exposing, as he has done in previous reports relating to other communities, the range and viciousness of the hatred which Facebook enables and allows. The Jewish Community Council of Victoria is only too aware of how insidious and dangerous is the phenomenon of hate speech and how such speech can lead to violence, violence which must be prevented if we are to lay claim to being a civilized society. The Report is not only an expos; it is a call to action, and one can only hope that positive action will follow.
Page |6
Executive Summary
In this report the Online Hate Prevention Institute examines the problem of religious vilification against Muslims and the Muslim community. The report focuses on content on the Facebook social networking site. More specifically, we examine anti-Muslim hate that occurs publically on Facebook pages which are to some degree dedicated to this purpose. The presence of such Facebook pages, particularly those whose sole purpose is to promote hate speech against a religious group in violation of Facebooks terms of service, is deeply concerning. Theological debate and criticism of religion should be protected under freedom of expression principles, however, the vilification of a group of people on the basis of their religious belief or practise, or of individuals on the basis of membership of such a group, is a fundamental affront to human dignity. This report documents 50 Facebook pages which contain examples of vilifying speech. A further two examples that do not contain vilifying speech but whose purpose is anti-Muslim are also included. From these pages we document 349 instances of hate speech. Given some content reoccurs in multiple places, these instances represent 191 different examples of hate speech. We have divided these examples into seven categories: Category A, Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety, 42 examples Category B, Muslims as a Cultural Threat, 29 examples Category C, Muslims as an Economic Threat, 11 examples Category D, Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims, 37 examples Category E, Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims, 24 examples Category F, Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers, 12 examples Category G, Other Forms of Hate, 36 examples
This report aims to highlight the existence of what is a serious hate speech problem on Facebook. To the extent that this content gives a window into the hate speech against Muslims that is currently circulating in society, we hope this report assists community leaders, policy makers, law makers and researchers in better understanding and responding to this threat to an inclusive and multicultural society. In democracies inclusiveness is regarded as a public good, as such, this hate speech is not only an attack on the Muslim community but an attack on society as a whole. As a society we must work together to tackle this problem. This report is also directed to Facebook. We hope this report will allow the specific pages listed to be reviewed and appropriately closed. We hope the examples provided allow for a meaningful discussion about anti-Muslim hate speech within Facebook and result in better guidelines and training for those staff who first review complaints. We hope the technical recommendations allow Facebook to improve their response and their systems to prevent more hate speech spreading and to better respond to it in the future. The Muslim community is by no means the only community targeted by hate speech on Facebook. Past reports by the Online Hate Prevention Institute have examined attacks on Indigenous Australians,1 the Jewish Community,2 Military Veterans,3 and others. Our briefings have covered content related to Holocaust denial,4 homophobia,5 misogyny,6 and attacks on individuals. While a wide range of groups are target, that doesnt in any way reduce the impact on each community, or on each individual, when they become a target. More needs to be done not only to remove the hate this report exposes, but to improve the systems at Facebook, and in society more generally, to prevent this hate spreading. Dr Andre Oboler CEO, Online Hate Prevention Institute Melbourne, November 2013
1 2
Page |7
List of Recommendations
Recommendations to mitigate against the spread of hate against Muslims
# 1 Recommendation Government agencies, researchers and others dealing with Racism should extend their work to include vilification of Muslims where this may be a proxy for racism or xenophobia against people of Middle Eastern and East Asian ethnicity The Australian Government should pass laws to make vilification on the grounds of religious belief or practise unlawful and expand the remit of the Australian Human Rights Commission accordingly. Facebook should develop an understanding of anti-Muslim hate based on the seven categories highlighted in this report and should ensure staff are provided with better guidance to recognise and respond to such hate speech Halal Certification Authorities need to be transparent and clear on their fee structures to help avoid hate spreading through ignorance. A dialogue is need between Jews and Muslims in relation to the Middle East. This dialogue need not reach solutions, provided it makes discussion of the topic possible. This will help build resistance against those seeking to drive a wedge between the communities in an effort to promote hate. Page 7
12
20
22
10
24
25
10 11
26 26
12
27
Page |8
Jerome Socolovsky, Islamic Nations Relinquish Demand for Defamation Laws, Voice of America News, 24 October 2012 online at http://www.voanews.com/content/islam-un-defamation/1532871.html 8 Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard University Press, 2012). 9 Ibid 4. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid 2. 12 Ibid 2-3.
Page |9
While some of the hate shown in this report is specifically related to those who follow the Islamic religion, in other cases the anti-Muslim hate could more accurately be described as racism with Muslim serving as a short hand for foreign looking people of Middle Eastern or East Asian appearance. Examples of this can be seen in Figure 2. We note the positive work of Australias Acting Racial Discrimination Commissioner in the national consultation on eliminating prejudice against Arab and Muslim Australians in 2004. In particular we endorse the Commissioners recommendation that federal law be introduced making unlawful vilification on the grounds of religion of belief.13 This position was also previously expressed by the commission in 1998.14 We recommend adding or practise to this recommendation.
Item A25
Item D34
Item B26
This report focuses on anti-Muslim hate, but past work by the Online Hate Prevention Institute has exposed similar attacks on Indigenous Australians, the Jewish Community, military veterans, and other groups. While the volume of content attacking Muslims is particularly significant, the Muslim community is by no means alone in facing such attacks. The Muslim community has an important role to play in responding to this hate, but this is not a Muslim community problem. An attack on the inclusiveness of our society, and on multiculturalism, is an attack on all of us. Governments and community groups must unite to better tackle the problem of anti-Muslim hate speech and of hate speech more generally.
Recommendation 1: Government agencies, researchers and others dealing with Racism should extend their work to include vilification of Muslims where this may be a proxy for racism or xenophobia against people of Middle Eastern and East Asian ethnicity Recommendation 2: The Australian Government should pass laws to make vilification on the grounds of religious belief or practise unlawful and expand the remit of the Australian Human Rights Commission accordingly. Recommendation 6: Social media platforms should interpret hate speech as including messages expressing hostility, violence, discrimination, or exclusion against a protected group.
13
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Isma Listen: National Consultations on Eliminating Prejudice against Arab and Muslim Australians (2003) 6. 14 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief (1998) iii, ix, ch 5.
P a g e | 10
Figure 3 Cover of the page People against Islam, item 27 in the Hate Speech Manifest
A number of pages examined in this report use the same approach. The page People against Islam,18 for example, describes itself as: [a] page that should instantly have over 1 million. No posts are to be racist, in any way. We all want islam out of our countries and need to group together for this cause, it goes on to say Use this page as the international gateway for eliminating islam [sic]. Like and share page as much as possible! The no posts are to be racist sentence is immediately followed by a call to expel those who are different, and then by a call for the total elimination of their culture. For those still in doubt, the cover image directly refers to hating Muslims. This is not about disagreement over an idea, it is about people, and ultimately could be interpreted as being pro-genocide.
15
Andre Oboler, Online Antisemitism 2.0. Social Antisemitism on the Social Web, Post-Holocaust and Antisemitism Series, JCPA, (April 2008, No. 67) 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 See item 27 in the Hate Speech Manifest in this report
Online Hate Prevention Institute Hate 2.0 is designed to make it harder for a reviewer of a complaint against the page to take the decision to close it. While individual images or posts may be removed, the page is persistently given the benefit of the doubt, and allowed to remain online. The fact it says it is against racism is given more weight than the fact it has been empirically shown to be posting a significant volume of hate speech. Figure 4 shows the page administrators response to Facebooks actions removing some images following reports by other users. Given the nature of this page, the removal should have triggered a review of the page as a whole. The pages very nature promotes a violation of Facebooks terms of service (by encouraging the promotion of hate speech), and the removal of some images will inevitably be an incomplete response.
P a g e | 11
Despite some images being removed, a range of hate images remained. Three of the images are shown below. The fact that this page was, and continues to, Figure 4 Complaint about Facebook Police inciting hate against people on the basis of their religion, specifically Islam, is grounds for complete closure. Reports of the page, however, were not successful.
Item D13
Item A31
Item B20
P a g e | 12
Facebooks refusal to remove the page (see Figure 5), and instead directing people to examine each item of content, is seriously flawed. To suggest that in the case of a hate page it would be more accurate to review each item individually is missing the point. Individual reports are unlikely to reflect the nature of the page as a whole. Facebooks message is in effect an admission of a failure to properly review the report.
Figure 5 Rejection message after reporting the page Muhammad Speaks (Item 31 in the Hate Speech Manifest)
Recommendation 7: Facebook should allow users to lodge a single complaint covering multiple items of content from a single page and to then additionally request that the page as a whole be reviewed.
The concept of hate 2.0 (specifically antisemitism 2.0) was created based on observations in Facebook, a platform that at the time was a little over three years old and had 60 million users. Today Facebook is used by over 1.5 billion unique users each month. With the rise in the number of users and the volume of content, the volume of hate has grown as well. This is exacerbated by a network effect. With more users producing hate speech, and creating more pages, there is an amplified feeling of acceptability for hate. More significantly, the volume of hate messages increases exponentially as more pages mean not only more original content, but also more sharing and cross-posting of existing content created by others. In the manifest to this report we identify all the example images a page includes. The examples are later listed with fbid numbers that would allow Facebook to easily remove each of the instances of these images. This data demonstrates that it is becoming faster and easier to spread hate on Facebook. The problem is growing and its about time there was a better response to it.
P a g e | 13
19
Glen Elmes, Media Statement: Same old One-Nation Racism, July 25, 2013. Online at http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/7/25/same-old-onenation-racism 20 Ibid.
P a g e | 14
The claim that Muslims are violent is aimed both at the community, claiming organised violence and an organised threat to society, and at the individual as an inherent part of being Muslim. The attribution of violent tendencies etc to Muslims is a form of racial vilification rather than religious vilification as it suggests these characteristics are inherent characteristics.
P a g e | 15
This theme suggests that Muslims do not want to integrate into our multicultural society, but to infiltrate and then sabotage it. This is fed by other themes that suggest Muslims are not to be trusted and that any appearance of integration or participation in multicultural activities is no more than pretence. This line of argument is particularly prevalent amongst the English Defence League (EDL) and its off-shoots in other countries including Australia. It follows the traditional racist arguments of the Far Right. Imagery associated with it often includes references to the crusades. Groups like the EDL will highlight they accept all comers, provided they are not Muslim. Former Muslims appear to be acceptable. The underlying basis to at least some of the cultural threat theme appears linked to religious warfare of centuries past.
In another approach, not based on religion, the cultural attack describes Islam as a cult. This approach aims to make the anti-Muslim cause acceptable to those on the left who would otherwise be opposed to it out of a belief in the right of freedom of religion. Under either approach, the underlying message of the Cultural Threat theme is that Muslims do not belong.
P a g e | 16
The Halal tax argument, depending on how it is phrases, would equally apply to other forms of food certification including: Kosher Certification; the Heart Foundations tick of approval; Australia Made Campaigns Australian Made, Australian Grown logo; Fairtrade certification; and many others. A note in this report discusses this topic further.
The Welfare argument in some forms suggests that government benefits are being used to fund what is seen as the problem of Islam, the accusation is that the government is supporting the enemy. This argument is perhaps aimed at the more affluent.
In another forms the argument suggests Muslims are not entitled to welfare because they arent real Australians. There is a link made between the cultural threat and the economic threat. This argument may be aimed more that those receiving benefits and suggests Muslims are a threat because they are taking benefits way from real Australians. This argument has a classical racist / anti-immigrant undertone.
P a g e | 17
In this newer form, there is an attempt to dismiss the human rights of some to freedom of religion by accusing the religion itself of being against human rights. The premise of the argument is that the target is evil and has therefore forfeited the right to peacefully exist in society. Demonization also take the form of collective allegations of criminality, immorality or evil. Some images provide large lists of crimes they attribute to Islam. Dehumanisation, by contrast, emerges from racism and suggests the target are inherently not worthy of the same rights as other people. Targets are often directly compared to animals and particularly vermin. A number of examples use a pig to represent Muslims in an attempt to add insult to injury. Others suggest becoming a Muslims is a form of devolution back to an ape like state.
P a g e | 18
Also included in this category are calls for genocide, in this context, the wiping out of Muslim culture by eradicating all Muslims. This sort of argument is grounded in racist propaganda.
Despite a lack of historical context, we also found a significant volume of far right propaganda, specifically swastikas and the promotion of Nazism. Tanks and weapons featured strongly as well, suggesting Muslims are the enemy that must be killed. This content largely speaks for itself and it surprising more of it wasnt immediately taken down by Facebook without the need for any further consideration.
P a g e | 19
P a g e | 20
Another theme was the idea that Muslims are not a race so the hate being directed against Muslims is not racist. While this may technically be true, racial vilification is not the only form of vilification against a group which is considered unlawful or a criminal offence in many parts of the world. This argument is promoted particularly strongly by the English Defence League and its various spin offs. The idea that being anti-Muslim is socially acceptable is also strongly promoted with slogans such as Im not Islamophobic, Im Islam-Aware!
Another theme is that of Muslims as untrustworthy or inherently deceptive. This merges the theme of moderate Muslims as enablers, and with the idea of Islam as a cultural threat.
P a g e | 21
Additional Observations
Halal Certification
There is a significant volume of vilification of Muslims on pages ostensibly about opposition to Halal certification. On these pages, the opposition to Halal certification is little more than an excuse for gathering an audience to share hate. There are, however, also two pages seriously pursuing opposition to Halal certification and without engaging in other overt hate. The grounds for opposition are: 1. An argument of increases prices as certification costs are passed on to consumers 2. A concern over the final destination of money raised from the certification process The price increase argument is supported by the additional argument that because Halal certification for some products relates purely to the ingredients used, which consumers can read on the packaging, there is no justification for requiring a license (and increasing the cost). This argument could be applied to any form of certification and ignores the value provided by an independent certification authority. Independent authorities manage a wide range of certifications, particularly for food products. In addition to Halal certification, other common forms of certification in Australia include: Kosher certification; the Heart Foundations tick of approval; Australia Made Campaigns Australian Made, Australian Grown logo; Fairtrade certification; and many others. Certification typically involves a licensee fee which companies pay in order to display a logo on their product which meet the criteria give by the certification authority. Certification authorities come under challenge, or risk devaluing their brand, when a gap emerges between public expectations and the impression given. An example is the damage to the Heart Foundations certification that resulted from secrecy around the process of certification,21 combined with the award of certification to products that made little sense to the public.22 The issue has since been resolved. The concern that certification imposes an additional cost is common across certifications. There are however two very different models to certification costing. In one, certification is based on the cost of inspecting processes, premises and raw ingredients and is undertaken on a cost recovery basis. This imposes a fixed cost that will usually become insignificant to the price the consumers pay as it is spread across a large volume of sales. An example of this is the Heart Foundation Tick of approval. The second model is where certification requires the payment of a percent. The second model creates a premium product which consumers are willing to pay a little extra to support. An example of this is Fairtrade certification. In the case of certifications based on a fixed fee, any cost that is passed on to consumers is no different to, and is likely to be swamped by, other fixed costs such as advertising and marketing. These fixed costs all decrease as the volume of sales increases. In the case of Halal certification, having a product certified opens up the Muslim market both locally and internationally. The ability to export Halal certified foods to Muslim countries can significantly increase volumes, which in turn may reduce the costs to consumers. A number of Halal certification authorities exist in Australia and the fee structures are bases on a fixed cost model.23 The fee may have different components such as some of the following: an initial application processing fee (ad administrative fee), premises accreditation fees (ensuring the physical premises are suitable to prevent non-Halal food getting mixed with Halal food), certification fees (this is based on
21
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/the-tick-that-broke-heart-of-foundation/story-e6freuy91226145340644 22 http://theconversation.com/fast-food-loses-tick-but-can-the-heart-foundation-regain-its-credibility-3475 23 Baw Baw Shire Council, The Halal Market: A Beginners Guide to Halal in Domestic and Export Markets (July 2008) 13. http://www.bawbawshire.vic.gov.au/files/4bed29c6-1b3d-4110-86479fd300dfc075/The_Halal_Market_A_Beginners_Guide_Rev10_July_08[1].pdf
P a g e | 22
understanding the product e.g. the ingredients used, the production process etc), inspection fees (this is to ensure what is happening in the ground matches what is expected based on the certification, multiple inspection fees may be required where certification covers multiple sites), and licensing fees (usually an annual fee). While the fees are variable, taking into account the complexities of manufacturing process, they are still typically based on a fixed cost model rather than a percentage of profits. Some comparisons: Kosher Australia makes the cost of certification publically available on its site and clearly states that the process is run on a not for profit basis with the money charged simply covering the cost of the certification process.24 The fee is based on the cost of inspecting the premises and the process. The Heart Foundation Tick of Approval is also paid for by participating food companies and outlets,25 and the process involves lab testing and random audits.26 The Heart Foundation is a charity and the Tick of Approval program runs on a cost recovery basis.27 The Australian Made Campaign has a minimum entry cost which rises in relation to the value of sales.28 The campaign is run on a not for profit basis and is self funded from the cost of the license fees.29 The Fair Trade movement is also growing in Australian with certification (managed by Fairtrade Australia and New Zealand a registered charity) appearing on a growing range of products.30 The cost of Fairtrade certification is typically about 2% of the net wholesale value of a companys Fairtrade sales.31
Recommendation 4: Halal Certification Authorities need to be transparent and clear on their fee structures to help avoid hate spreading through ignorance.
24 25
P a g e | 23
This image blatantly raises the issue of some people being pro-Israel purely as a way to be anti-Muslim. This may explain the presense of pro-Israel content, from those who otherwise have no affiliation or connection with Israel, on a number of the hate pages. The conceptualisation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a zero sum game, where any disadvantage to one side is seen as an advantage to the other, and visa versa, leads to a position where one is either proPalestinian or Pro-Israeli and therefore wholly against the other side. The premise of this argument is mistaken and runs counter to decades of peace negotiations in pursuit of a two state solution. Where Jews are associated with Israel, and Muslims are associated with the Palestinians, the zero sum game approach can lead to a build up of hate against both groups by various hangers on supporting the other side. That would typically be the left that slips into antisemitism in its support of Palestinians, or the right that slips into anti-Muslim hate in its support of Israel. There are also those who are deeply antisemitic who use the pro-Palestinian cause as a cover, and similarly, in the pages examined in this report, we see those with a hatred of Muslims bring in pro-Israel (and pro-Jewish) imagery and arguments as a cover or a means to try and attract support as shown in Figure 6. In Australia the Muslim Community and the Jewish Community typically enjoy mutual respect and leadership can and does cooperate on issues of mutual concern as well as on interfaith and multifaith dialogues. There is a danger that pro-Israel content on anti-Muslim pages, which may be entirely unrelated to the Jewish community, could trigger a response against the Jewish community while giving those responsible a free pass that avoid even mild condemnation.
P a g e | 24
Figure 7 Example A16 which seems to demonize all Muslims by holding them collectively responsible. The fact the girls are Jewish is specifically highlighted.
Recommendation 5: A dialogue is need between Jews and Muslims in relation to the Middle East. This dialogue need not reach solutions, provided it makes discussion of the topic possible. This will help build resistance against those seeking to drive a wedge between the communities in an effort to promote hate.
P a g e | 25
P a g e | 26
Fbid: 463462377046814
Figure 8 Examples of anti-Christian and antisemitic content from Item 44
Fbid: 689483431077614
Recommendation 8: Pages attracting a large volume of hate from fans should be closed if the Administrator cant or wont act to stop the problem.
P a g e | 27
P a g e | 28
Figure 10 A message received by a page administrator but intended for Facebook (from item 31 in the hate speech manifest)
Facebook needs to make the reporting system more intuitive, and to make it very clear when content is being set to a page administrator not to Facebook. In this case the page administrator removed part of the users name. They could have left the name visible or posted a link to the users profile which would have effectively marked the complainant as a target for others to troll or bully. This highlights the danger created by the flaw in the current system. The problem of a complex reporting system is exacerbated when the reporting may be undertaken by children. Recommendation 10: Facebook should improve the design and workflow of the reporting system. Recommendation 11: Messages that will go to the page administrator, rather than to Facebook, should be clearly marked and confirmation should be required before the message is sent.
P a g e | 29
483
504
1574
1561
A10, B5, B6, D3, E4, E5, E6, E8, E9, E10, F1, F2, F3
1248
1247
1694
1723
A8, B9, C1, C2, D6, D7, D8, G4, G5, G6, G7
Unpublished
Unpublished
D1, D2, A1
Unpublished
Unpublished
B1 (false flag)
43,964
106,566
A3, A6, A7, B7, B8, D4, D5, D8, F4, G1, G2, G19 *
P a g e | 30
Examples (item numbers)
263
279
776
1021
A13, C3, C4
10
1865
2210
A14, A15, B10, B11, B12, C5, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, E12, E13, F7, F8, G8, G9, G10, G11 A16, A17, B13, B14, D16, D20, D21, G12, G13, G15 A19, A26, B16, B20, D27, G21, G22 * A21, A22, A23, B16, B17, D22, D23, F9, G18 A12, A19, A20, A23, B8, B15, D2, D17, D18, D19, E14, G3, G9, G14, G15, G16, G17
11
299
373
12
https://www.facebook.com/GDLREVIVE
Page ID: 630090623669318
1845
4027
13
1494
1651
14
9301
9340
15
2322
2426
16
4604
4693
17
20914
22052
18
1648
1654
19
2638
4832
A15, B11,G11
20
682
712
P a g e | 31
Examples (item numbers)
21
13251
14825
22
931
1013
23
135
137
F10
24
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Australiansfirst/411328682283915
Page ID: 411328682283915 (Australian)
69
72
25
209
291
26
12290
13065
27
1236
1385
A2, A31, B20; D13, D23, E17, E18, G9, G26, A24, A31, B16, B17, D23, D30, G9 A2, A31, A32, A33, B10, B12, B16, D13, D30 (x2), G8, G9, G11, G18, G27 A23, B23, D8, D24, G28, G29
28
2711
3118
29
2965
3213
30
9033
9185
31
7476
7708
A19, A23, A34, A35,A36, C9, D12 (x2), E19, F11, G22, G30, G31 A12, A24, A31 (x 9), A37, A38, A39, B24 (x2), D31, E17, G16, G24, G32 A23, D2, D23, E20
32
34412
3842
33
5428
6554
P a g e | 32
Examples (item numbers)
34
1694
1749
35
28860
29290
A1 (x2), A33, A40, A41 (x2), B27 (x2), D8 (x2), D30 (x4), G3 (x2)
36
11635
13096
A2, A7, A12, A24, A42, B16, B20, D8, D17, D23, D28, D32, G3, G7, G16 (x3), G24, G33 A33, G9
37
https://www.facebook.com/pages/IslamDeceiver/563323410397371 Page ID: 563323410397371 (removed page which had ID: 130429177128944)
1010
Unpublished
38
1755
1836
39
Closed
G11
40
2192
3415
A1, A6, A39, B20, B26, B27 (x2), D8, D13, D23, D28, G3, G9, G12, G20, G31, G34 A31, E12, E16, E21, G35
41
412
532
42
8066
8,914
43
http://www.facebook.com/QuestioningIslam Page ID: 451735151589479 (mostly theological questioning which is not hate speech, but not entirely)
499
774
G10 (x2)
44
1992
2178
D8, D20, D24, D34, D35, E22, G14 A23, B2, D17, G3, G36
45
360
409
P a g e | 33
ID
Address
16 Sept
26 Nov
46
Closed
Closed
A19, A24, A31(x26), A42, B2, D17, D24, E14, E23, F12, G17 A1 (x2), A19, B16, D2, D8 (x2), D19, D23, E14, E19, G16, G24, G33, B11, D28, E23, G14,
47
2009
Unpublished
48
1230
1450
49
9219
9436
A2, A23, B2, B26, B27, D31, E24, G7 A18, A33, A40, B29 (x2), D6, D8 (x2), D36, D37 (x2), G3, G31, G35 (x2)
50
2640
3137
The following pages do not contain any hate speech, such as messages or imagery targeting Muslims, but may still be considered religious discrimination as they seek to prevent Halal options being made available. Where there is no reasonable explanation for seeking to prevent such options being available, the only conclusion is that it is part of an effort to make life more difficult for Muslims, and therefore to seek to exclude Muslim people or encourage them to move elsewhere.
ID 51
Page address
https://www.facebook.com/NonHalalWorld Page ID: 377261062322323
16 Sept
26 Nov
1425
1745
52
3493
3486
Australias contribution
The largest hate page, The Islamic Threat (ID 7) has 57,000 supporters when we undertook a country analysis of it. Of the 13 countries with people supporting this page, Australia was the 4th largest supporter. The first was the United States with 78%, then India and the UK with 4% each, then Australia with 2%. The second largest page, Women of the World United Against Islamic / Muslim Sharia Law (ID 35) had 26,400 when we undertook the country analysis. The page has support from 34 countries, however the same top four countries appear in the same order (US: 46%, UK 8%, India 7%, Australia 4%). Given Australia makes up just 1.08% of Facebooks global user base,32 it is significantly over represented on these larger pages and by the number of Australia specific pages in the manifest.
32
http://frankmedia.com.au/2013/05/01/social-media-statistics-australia-april-2013/
P a g e | 34
P a g e | 35
P a g e | 36
Item A4
Fbid: 488255391234978
The comment on the right reads: So there is NOTHING on the outside wrapper saying it is halal... Yet inside when I opened a package of COON cheese lo and behold what do my wondering eyes take in but a Halal symbol... Guess I just bought an AK-47 for those mirdering bastards eh?....
P a g e | 37
Item A6
P a g e | 38
Item A7
Item A8
Fbid: 444646722286765
P a g e | 39
Item A10
P a g e | 40
Item A12
P a g e | 41
Item A14
Fbid: 575888092450054
P a g e | 42
Item A15
Fbid: 698770660138600
Item A16
P a g e | 43
P a g e | 44
Item A19
P a g e | 45
Item A21
Fbid: 509823509049490
P a g e | 46
Item A23
P a g e | 47
Item A25
Fbid: 363751900369285
P a g e | 48
Item A27
Fbid:
P a g e | 49
Item A29
P a g e | 50
Item A31
Fbid: 456785757752867; 425777817535068; 421740237938826; 510348335726907; 502482179826441; 181178178721944; 551935431528592; 548392285216240; 546718765383592; 546069698781832; 545709615484507; 545320505523418; 539614026094066; 200688036652737; 606529309377896; 606117246085769; 604405909590236; 603999642964196; 602987799732047; 603618149669012; 602537203110440; 602148256482668; 601651569865670; 601256669905160; 600851736612320; 599763916721102; 599213243442836; 598792756818218; 598296486867845; 597901776907316; 596163847081109; 595772897120204; 595298470500980; 594884487209045; 594861910544636; 594514083912752; 594096483954512; 226977787453406; 226642437486941;
This is a sample image, the listed images are for different periods but all come from the site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
P a g e | 51
Item A33
P a g e | 52
Item A35
Fbid: 603438959675379
P a g e | 53
Item A37
P a g e | 54
Item A39
Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A40 Fbid: 485831758138362; 10150359240222772; 485078661555702; 210160185801833
P a g e | 55
Item A41
Item A42
P a g e | 56
This page was created by a non-Muslim as a false flag. It followed a series of earlier anti-ANZAC pages designed to cause distress to the Australian public in the lead up to ANZAC Day 2013. The previous hate content is document in OHPIs report Attacking the ANZACs on Facebook (ISBN: 9780987429438). Prior to creating this page they posted in Arabic on an earlier anti-ANZAC page to gauge the reaction. That post stirred up strong anti-Muslim sentiment an encouraged them to proceed to the creation of this page.
Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B2 Fbid: 499310253467234; 193892937441808; 603162163047944; 171780249653077
P a g e | 57
Item B3
Fbid:
P a g e | 58
P a g e | 59
Item B6
P a g e | 60
Item B8
P a g e | 61
Item B10
Fbid: 191494467690315
P a g e | 62
Item B12
Fbid: 190435144462914
P a g e | 63
P a g e | 64
Item B15
Fbid: 526774497393713
P a g e | 65
Item B17
P a g e | 66
Item B19
Fbid: 236343449772550
P a g e | 67
Item B21
Fbid: 536750536370617
P a g e | 69
Item B24
Fbid: 540509119337890
P a g e | 70
Item B26
P a g e | 71
The Kick Islam out of X meme exists for various countries as well as more generically for the west.
Item B28
Fbid: 224082204414348
P a g e | 73
Item C2
Fbid: 435153139902790
P a g e | 74
Item C4
P a g e | 75
Item C6
Fbid: 493125114112159
P a g e | 76
Item C8
Fbid: 431214026961784
P a g e | 77
Item C10
Fbid: 171622489681718
P a g e | 78
The text in the middle of the image reads: Muslims!... you just dont get it do you? Nobidy wants you here! ...nobidy trusts you!
P a g e | 79
P a g e | 80
Item D2
P a g e | 81
Item D4
Fbid: 296675923770720
P a g e | 82
Item D6
P a g e | 83
Item D8
Fbid: 1015037285320277; 418209298229266; 385805498191095; 631403140220198; 492323460822525; 10150412953457772; 367274970056944; 200561803441328; 10200541744443586; 547706445292923; 504399922956909; 216389755178876; 219849338166251
P a g e | 84
Item D10
Fbid: 577113452327518
P a g e | 85
Item D12
Item D14
Fbid: 10151575341931284
P a g e | 87
Item D16
Fbid: 530833216971995
P a g e | 88
Item D18
Fbid: 525866914151138
P a g e | 89
Item D20
P a g e | 90
P a g e | 91
Item D23
P a g e | 92
Item D25
Fbid: 537330659655138;
P a g e | 93
Item D27
Fbid: 656445681033812
Item D28
P a g e | 94
Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D30 Fbid: 370700016364589; 10200942962250328; 173412312831864; 10150412954732772; 10150361489132772; 10150354164072772; 10150348523662772
P a g e | 95
Item D31
P a g e | 96
Item D33
P a g e | 97
Item D35
Fbid: 1394405810780899
P a g e | 98
Item D37
P a g e | 99
Item E2
Fbid:
Item E3
Fbid:
P a g e | 100
The description of the page reads: The Muslim must be erraticated [sic]
Item E5
Fbid:
This post is in reference to Australia Day and suggests assaulting people (presumably Muslims given the nature of the page) would be an appropriate way to spend the day. Being a racist extremist, or at least joking about being one, is seen as a positive thing. Joking about killing Jews is also promoted.
P a g e | 101
Item E7
Fbid:
P a g e | 102
Item E9
Fbid:
Item E10
Fbid:
P a g e | 103
Item E12
Fbid: 477961098962388
Item E13
P a g e | 104
Item E15
P a g e | 105
Item E17
P a g e | 106
Item E19
P a g e | 107
The same images appears in one form speaking about Indians and in another speaklng about White British
Item E21
Fbid: 473775842714247
P a g e | 108
Item E23
Fbid: 610614948969332
P a g e | 109
P a g e | 110
P a g e | 111
Item F3
Item F4
P a g e | 112
Item F6
P a g e | 113
P a g e | 114
P a g e | 115
Item F10
P a g e | 116
Item F12
Fbid: 541016282636545
P a g e | 117
Item G2
Fbid: 402360933202218
P a g e | 118
P a g e | 119
P a g e | 120
Item G6
Fbid: 480505145367589
P a g e | 121
Item G8
P a g e | 122
Item G10
P a g e | 123
Item G12
P a g e | 124
P a g e | 125
Item G15
Fbid: 525080187563144
P a g e | 126
Item G17
Fbid: 604167539614073
P a g e | 127
Item G19
Fbid: 377271012377877
P a g e | 128
Item G21
P a g e | 129
Item G23
P a g e | 130
Item G25
Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G26 Fbid (cover image): 485152951559364
P a g e | 131
About text reads: A page that should instantly have over 1 million. No posts are to be racist, in any way. We all want islam out of our countries and need to group together for this cause.
Item G27
Fbid: 192419994264429
P a g e | 132
Item G29
P a g e | 133
Item G31
P a g e | 134
Item G33
This image is not hate speech (although the use of Muzzies would qualify as hate speech accoridng to Facebooks own definition in relation to slurs). That raises an interesting question of why Facebook removed a previous copy of this image, when they reject so many other complaints. Its possible the removal was related to the accompanying text rather than to the image itself. If not, this would be yet another example of inconsistency in Facebooks enforcement of policy.
P a g e | 135
Item G35
P a g e | 136
The posters comment shows the misuse of the argument that critisism of Islam is not hate speech in order to falsely argue that their attacks on Muslims are not hate speech.
Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G36 (cont) (The full image)
P a g e | 137
The text below reads: Every Ideology must be subject to open, free discussion in regard to its value or otherwise, without fear of reprisal. No exceptions. Islamophobia is not racism, any more than Communistophobia or Fascistophobia would be, because Islam is an idea, not a race. In a civilised society, no idea religious, political or philosophical can claim any special treatment, or be set beyond the reach of empirical evidence.