ya-

CREDITS

Research and writing: Jahanzaib Haque

Data collection/analysis: Ema Anis, Ferya Ilyas,
Manzar Elahi, Ismail Sheikh, Talat Haque, Zehra Nabi
Layout and design: Essa Malik Taimur
DISCLAIMER: THE STUDY INCLUDES EXAMPLES OF HATE SPEECH THAT ARE OFFENSIVE IN NATURE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 OVERVIEW
1.0 SCOPE OF STUDY
1.1 DEFINITIONS
1.1.1 LOCAL AND GLOBAL DEFINITIONS
1.1.2 DEFINITIONS USED IN THE STUDY
1.2 METHODOLOGY
1.2.1 FACEBOOK & TWITTER ANALYSIS
1.2.2 ONLINE SURVEY ANALYSIS

4
4
4
4
5
6
6
7

2.
2.0
2.1
2.2

VIEWS ON HATE SPEECH

OVERVIEW
UNDERSTANDING HATE SPEECH
EXPERIENCING HATE SPEECH

8
8
8
9

3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
4.

TARGETS OF HATE SPEECH

SHIAS
MUSLIMS
AHMADIS
INDIANS/HINDUS
ATHEISTS/UNBELIEVERS
PILLARS OF THE STATE
FEMALES
LGBT
JEWS
LOCAL ETHNICITIES
AMERICANS
PAKISTANIS
ADDRESSING ONLINE HATE SPEECH

11
11
11
12
13
14
14
16
17
18
18
19
19
20

ANNEX ONE: FACEBOOK ANALYSIS

21

ANNEX TWO: TWITTER ANALYSIS

27

ANNEX THREE: ONLINE HATE SPEECH SURVEY

33

PREFACE
We have undertaken this study on hate speech in Pakistan as a natural extension of the regional dialogue on freedom of expression for
civil liberties organized by us in Bangkok in November 2013. The
dialogue was held under the stewardship of Mr. Frank La Rue, UN
Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to
Freedom of Opinion and Expression.
We often see Freedom of Expression, an inviolable fundamental human right, being fettered in false paradigms of morality, security,
national interest, or obscenity etc. For the reason that speech is regularly gagged in Pakistan under these pretexts, we felt it important to
study online hate speech in Pakistan to identify it as something quite
distinct from the excuses often used to muzzle free expression. We
believe that hate speech is the only real threat to free expression in
Pakistan. This study, therefore, attempts to define hate speech based
on Mr. La Rues recommendations and obtain some idea of its incidence in the country.
It is important that hate speech is clearly defined, and not confused
with subjective ideas such as national security, religious sentiment,
morality or decency etc.
We are proud to say this research study is the first in Pakistan on this
subject, and will form the basis for many more such studies to take
this important work further. A lot of work in the coming years needs
to be done in this area to ensure that the threat of hate speech does
not impinge upon the fundamental rights and freedoms we hold so
dear.
Bytes for All, Pakistan extends its sincere gratitude to Jahanzaib
Haque for leading this research, and to the B4A team for its support
and invaluable input. We must also thank Annie Zaman and Rahma
Mian for helping to review this report. Lastly, and most importantly,
we are thankful to Global Partners Digital for their wholehearted
support in making this critical study possible.

Shahzad Ahmad,
Country Director,
Bytes for All, Pakistan
June 2014

A SOCIAL MEDIA SHARE TARGETING A SHIA COMMUNITY MEMBER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Urdu text says a terrorist involved in the Rawalpindi riots has been
identified with his name and home address provided

Pakistans Internet penetration has expanded to an estimated 20 million users1, and has gained increasing socio-political relevance. From
online political campaigns in the 2013 general elections, to social
media-led protests such as that over the murder of Shahzeb Khan2,
to political leadership joining Facebook and Twitter en masse, the
impact of the Internet has been profound. For a country that has a
mobile teledensity of 73.9%3 , this influence is set to grow exponentially with 3G/4G services launched in 2014, coupled with cheap
internet-enabled mobile phones flooding the local market4.
At the same time, this groundswell of online activity has seen the
emergence of a dangerous trend that of unchecked hate speech,
sometimes in the form of organized campaigns. This trend first came
under the spotlight in 2011 through mass media coverage of online hate speech after the killing of Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer
by his guard, Mumtaz Qadri for defending a Christian woman accused of blasphemy5. At the time, hundreds of Facebook pages were
launched celebrating the assassination and thousands of online Pakistanis joined in a campaign of hate against Taseer6.
Since then, an increasing number of instances of radicalized, xenophobic, racist and sexist discourse with threats of harassment and/
or violence have been seen in local cyberspace, with targets ranging
from religious groups and minorities such as Shias, Ahmadis, Hindus
and Christians, to local ethnic groups, women, homosexuals, hatred
of Americans, Jews, Indians, and Afghans among others. Specific to
Pakistans ongoing war against terrorism, the online space has also
seen a sharp increase in hate speech, often framed in extreme religious or ultranationalist rhetoric, that targets the pillars of the state
i.e. politicians, members of the judiciary, media and the armed forces.
Given Pakistans lack of cyber laws and lack of implementation of
existing hate speech laws to the online space, the countrys online
space is becoming an unchecked breeding ground for extremism, intolerance and hate. Although very little research or documentation
has been undertaken with regards to this phenomenon, with each
passing crisis such as the negative role social media played in fueling
sectarian conflict during the Rawalpindi riots7 the threat this poses
to the country is increasingly clear.
This study is an attempt to understand and quantify hate speech online in a Pakistan context by examining the actual content produced
in Pakistans cyberspace in high impact, high reach areas, and build a
first quantitative snapshot of the extent to which hate speech occurs
online, who is being targeted and what forms of hate speech are being
created by whom.

1.

1. (Haque, 2013)
2. (Shahzebs murder: Online movement enters real world, 2012)
3. (Telecom Indicators, 2014)

Through a detailed data collection process and analysis (see section

1.2 for methodology and limitations of research), a first snapshot
of hate speech has been developed. Two independent phases of the
research included an online survey on hate speech (See Annex 3)
responded to by 559 Pakistani Internet users, as well as detailed content analysis of published material and comments both textual and
iconographic on high impact, high reach social media and accounts
frequented by local audiences (See Annex 1,2).
Results from the online survey indicated that Pakistani internet users
were largely unaware of hate speech laws in Pakistan, but were, in
general, largely able to identify hate speech correctly.
One trend observed in the survey results was the impact of income
on views, attitudes and understanding of hate speech. In almost all
cases, respondents in the high income bracket had progressive views
on hate speech, expressed a greater understanding of the issue, and
were better at identifying hate speech correctly, as compared to all
other demographic groups. Conversely, respondents in the low income bracket showed the least understanding of hate speech and
were markedly worse at identifying hate speech correctly as compared to all other groups.
Worryingly, 92% of total respondents replied yes to having come
across hate speech online, while over half (51%) indicated they had
been the target of hate speech online.
In terms of platforms, Facebook was highlighted as the most problematic, with 91% of respondents indicating they had come across

4. (Pakistan raises $1.1 billion with 3G, 4G licence auction, 2014)

5. (Punjab Governor Salman Taseer assassinated in Islamabad, 2011)
6. (AFP, 2011)

7. (Saqib, 2013)

hate speech on the social network. It is unclear whether this is the

result of Facebooks immense popularity in Pakistan, or the result of
an endemic problem on the platform.
ARE YOU AWARE OF PAKISTANS LAWS REGARDING
HATE SPEECH?

56%

27%
17%

Yes

No

Not Sure

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

In the detailed analysis of high impact, high reach social media accounts, the 30 Facebook pages analyzed (3,000 shares and related
comments) contained 10,329 counts of hate speech, which translates to more than three counts of hate speech on every single share.
This high count of hate speech corresponds to a vast majority of
respondents in the online survey indicating they had come across
hate speech on Facebook.

Hate speech on Facebook that could fall under criminal offense

based on the studys definitions (see section 1.1) was negligible (less
than 1%), suggesting that a solution to the problem does not lie in
greater state action in catching and prosecuting individuals/groups,
but through alternate means (see Section 4). The amount of hate
speech published by the pages themselves was also less than 1% of
the total, indicating, in general, that the top Facebook pages are not
generating hate speech content as much as failing to regulate it on
their pages. The fact that eight out of the top 10 Facebook pages were
administered by traditional media groups or personalities and online
media-related entities suggests that a part of the solution to the issue
is better regulation by media, who are themselves one of the biggest
targets of hate speech (see Section 3.6).
The 30 Twitter accounts analyzed (15,000 tweets, replies, mentions)
contained 350 counts of hate speech i.e. only 2.3% of total updates
examined, showing a remarkably different landscape compared to
Facebook. Hate speech on Twitter that could fall under criminal offense based on the studys definitions was negligible (less than 1%)
similar to Facebook. The amount of hate speech published by the accounts themselves was 2% of the total, indicating that top accounts
were not necessarily spreading hate speech as much as being targets
of attack.
The top 10 Facebook pages analyzed formed the bulk of all hate
speech recorded in the complete analysis of social media accounts.
In terms of language, hate speech recorded on Facebook was largely
in Roman Urdu (74%) followed by English (22%) and Urdu script
(4%). Hate speech collected on Twitter was largely in English (67%),
followed by Roman Urdu (28%) and Urdu script (5%). This key
HATE SPEECH: TOP 10 FACEBOOK PAGES

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THE TARGET OF HATE SPEECH ONLINE?

FACEBOOK PAGE

38%

11%

Yes

No

Not Sure
TOTAL RESPONDENTS

AVG COUNTS OF HATE

SPEECH PER SHARE*

1. Zem TV
2. Imran Khan
3. Zaid Hamid
4. Siasat.pk
5. Dunya TV
6. Express News
7. Hasb-e-Haal
8. Pakistan Zindabad
(I Love Allah)
9. Samaa
10. Youth Campaign
Against Jew TV

51%

CATEGORY

Media
Politics
Media/Politics
Media/Politics
Media
Media
Media
Religion

25.5
11
10.2
10.1
7.5
5.7
5
4.3

Media
Media

3.3
3

*The average number of hate speech records on a single published share by the page

2.

finding highlights the dire need to engage and work with the social
networks, and Facebook in particular, on the issue of stemming hate
speech that appears in Roman Urdu or Urdu script. Mechanisms
need to be developed for blocking words in the Urdu script, as well as
the ability of social networks to accurately review and remove reports
of hate speech in Urdu.
The two largest groups that were a target for hate speech on Facebook
were politicians (38% of all hate speech) and members of the media/media groups (10%). These attacks on politicians and the media
formed nearly half of all hate speech on the Facebook pages analyzed.
On Twitter, 20% of total records were targeted at pillars of the state,
with attacks on politicians (11%) and media (7%) registering highest. This high level of hate speech is especially worrying given the
context of the ongoing war against terrorism and the real-life threats
to life both politicians and those working in the media face.
Such unchecked hate speech creates an environment where actual
violence against politicians or journalists is not only condoned, but
also celebrated, giving those carrying out such attacks greater space
and encouragement to act.

A SOCIAL MEDIA SHARE TARGETING MEDIA PERSONS WHO FACED DEADLY VIOLENCE
The Urdu text questions why media persons are not killed in attacks, but
civilians are

3.

1. OVERVIEW

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Local and global definitions

1.0 Scope of study

The aim of this study was to examine the actual content produced in
Pakistans cyberspace in high impact, high reach areas, and build a
first quantitative snapshot of the extent to which hate speech occurs
online, who is being targeted and what forms of hate speech are being created by whom. All potential targets of hate speech, whether
social or political, overtly or covertly referenced, were included in
the analysis. The study did not however examine low impact, low
reach areas of local cyberspace, which have been noted to contain
extremists and terrorist elements. The reason for the exclusion of this
highly problematic area is twofold: such individuals and groups have
a temporary presence online due to frequent blocks, bans and deletion which does not allow for an accurate quantifiable snapshot, and
secondly, as indicated by UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
Frank la Rue:
Any contextual assessment must include consideration of various
factors, includingthe means of disseminating the expression of
hate. For example, a statement released by an individual to a small
and restricted group of Facebook users does not carry the same
weight as a statement published on a mainstream website8.
In carrying out this analysis, the study aims to highlight key problem
areas and fuel discourse, monitoring, further research and action
against online hate speech, keeping in view that any recommended
legislation or action should never result in censorship of legitimate
views and curtail the fundamental human right to freedom of information and freedom of speech as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Pakistan is a signatory9.
As such, one of the aims is to distinguish between criminal hate
speech that should be criminalized and acted against, and hate speech
that falls outside the parameters that justify legal action, as outlined
by the UN Special Rapporteur.
He emphasized the need to distinguish between three types of expression: expression that constitutes an offence under international law
and can be prosecuted criminally; expression that is not criminally
punishable but may justify a restriction and a civil suit; and expression that does not give rise to criminal or civil sanctions, but still
raises concerns in terms of tolerance, civility and respect for others.
He underlined that those different categories posed different issues of
principle and called for different legal and policy responses10.
The larger goal of this study is to work towards a decrease in the levels
of discrimination, hatred and intolerance in Pakistan.
8. (Rue, 2012)
9. (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
10. (Rue, 2012)

Within the law, defining hate speech and legislating against it has
been a complex, often controversial exercise globally. Consequently,
ranges of definitions exist, varying greatly from country to country.
Along with multiple definitions of hate speech, each state also has its
own standards for measuring and prosecuting those accused of hate
speech, ranging from prosecution under criminal law and/or civil
law,to the protection of hate speech as an extension of free speech,
a fundamental human right enshrined inArticle 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights11.
In Pakistans Constitution, Article 19 titled, Freedom of speech provides the overarching framework for what constitutes free speech in
the country, along with its limitations: Every citizen shall have the
right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom
of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in
the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence
of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign States,
public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court,
or incitement to an offence12. Additionally, Article 31 of the Constitution titled, Islamic way of life says that the state shall endeavor,
with respect to the Muslims of Pakistan, to promote unity and the
observance of the Islamic moral standards, which may be interpreted to apply a restriction on religious hate speech specific to Islam.
The Pakistan Penal Code also addresses hate speech in Article 153-A
titled Promoting enmity between different groups that states:
Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by
visible representations or otherwise, promotes or incites, or attempts
to promote or incite, on grounds of religion, race, place of both,
residence. language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities; or
(b) commits, or incites any other person to commit, any act which
is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or
any group of persons identifiable as such on any ground whatsoever
and which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquility; or
(c) organizes, or incites any other person to organize, and exercise,
movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in any such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force
or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in any
such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or
participates, or incites any other person to participate, in any such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence

11. (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

12. (Fundamental Rights and Principles of Policy - Pakistan Constitution)

4.

or knowing it to be likely that the participants in any such activity

will use or be trained, to use criminal force or violence, against any
religious, racial, language or regional group or caste of community or
any group of persons identifiable as such on any ground whatsoever
and any such activity for any reason whatsoever cause or is likely to
cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of
such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community. shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to five years and with fine.
Article 153-A also contains an explanation which clarifies that, It
does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section
to point but, without malicious intention and with an honest view
to their removal, matters which are producing, or have a tendency
to produce, feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
The Penal Codes articles 295-298, collectively known as the blasphemy laws, also contains very harsh punishments for religion-based
hate speech, specifically against Islam.Article 295-B which relates to
anyone who, wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the
Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory
manner or for any unlawful purpose, carries a life sentence. Article
295-C related to, whoever by words, either spoken or written, or
by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) carries the death sentence or life imprisonment13.
The Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance also legislates against
speech that causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public
or to any section of the public or is likely to further any activity
prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order with
a sentence of imprisonment of up to three years, with a fine14.
The Anti Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997 prohibits speech that is intended to, or likely to stir up sectarian hatred: A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior; ordisplays, publishes or distributes any written material which is threatening, abusive
or insulting: or words or behavior; or distributes or shows or plays a
recording or visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive
or insulting: or has in his possession written material or a recording
or visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting with a view to their being displayed or published by himself or
another, shall be guilty of an offence if: he intends thereby to stir up
sectarian hatred; or having regard to all the circumstances, sectarian
hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby15.
The states media watchdog, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory
Authority (PEMRA) has a code of conduct for media broadcasters
5.

13. (Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860))

14. (The Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960)
15. (The Anti Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997)

and cable operators that prevents the airing of any program that,
passes derogatory remarks about any religion or sect or community
or uses visuals or words contemptuous of religious sects and ethnic
groups or which promotes communaland sectarian attitudes or disharmony. The code of conduct also places a ban on content that is
obscene or indecent and contains an abusive comment that, when
taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a
group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of
race or caste, national, ethnic or linguistic origin, colour or religion
or sect, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability16.
Additionally, the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 states that all media
broadcast licensees will, ensure that all programmes and advertisements do not contain or encourage violence, terrorism, racial, ethnic
or religious discrimination, sectarianism, extremism, militancy, hatred, pornography, obscenity, vulgarity or other material offensive
to commonly accepted standards of decency17. Violation of these
terms can include fines and imprisonment.
In the online context, monitoring hate speech, measuring its impact
and implementing meaningful ways of regulating it poses an even
greater challenge, as the rapid growth of the online space and continuous technological advancements make it very hard to qualify and
quantify the phenomenon.
The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) is responsible for
regulating the internet in Pakistan. The Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 legislates against speech in section
31, Offences and penalties extending to whoever, unauthorisedly
transmits through a telecommunication system or telecommunication service any intelligence which he knows or has reason to believe
to be false, fabricated, indecent or obscene, or commits mischief18.
This vague use of language in the Act has been criticized for being
open to misinterpretation and abuse.

1.1.2 Definitions used in the study

In this study, hate speech is viewed as two distinct categories hate
speech that should be regulated and/or prohibited by law, and hate
speech that is problematic but falls outside parameters requiring state
action and regulation.
In common use, the term hate speech is defined as, speech that
attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or
sexual orientation. In the study, both ethnicity and nationality were
examined under the term race.While one of the features that define
hate speech is the targeting of vulnerable individuals or groups, in
Pakistan, politicians, members of the armed forces, the judiciary and
the media have been included in this study, given the context of over
a decade of terrorism that has specifically targeted individuals and
groups that form the pillars of the state.

16. (Code of Conduct for Media Broadcasters or Cable TV Operators)

17. (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002)
18. (Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996)

19. (Haque, 2013)

In such a volatile environment, the labeling of a politician, a member

of the armed forces, judiciary or media person/organization as the
enemy working against either Islam or Pakistan has consequences
that extend from harassment and threats to actual violence.
Hate speech that should be prohibited by law is determined in the
study through the recommendations of Frank la Rue, based on the
work of ARTICLE 19, a non-governmental organization, which proposed a seven-part test using the following elements20:
(a) Severity of hatred, which should amount to the most severe and
deeply felt form of opprobrium, including an assessment of the severity of what is said, the harm advocated, magnitude and intensity
in terms of frequency, choice of media, reach and extent;
(b) Intent of the speaker to incite discrimination, hostility or violence;
(c) Content or form of the speech, including form, style, nature of
the arguments deployed in the speech, magnitude or intensity of the
speech, background of the inciter and the degree to which the speech
is provocative or direct. Artistic expression should be considered with
reference to its artistic value and context, given that individuals may
use art to provoke strong feelings but without the intention of inciting violence, discrimination or hostility;
(d) Extent of the speech, in terms of its reach and the size of the audience;
(e) Likelihood or probability of harm occurring. While incitement
by definition is an inchoate crime and the action advocated through
incitement does not have to be committed for the speech to amount
to a crime, a high degree of risk of resulting harm must be identified;
(f) Imminence of the acts called for by the speech;
(g) Context, including consideration of the speaker or author, audience, intended harm, existence of barriers in establishing media
outlets, broad and unclear restrictions on content of what may be
published or broadcast; absence of criticism of Government or wideranging policy debates in the media and other forms of communication; and the absence of broad social condemnation of hateful statements on specific grounds when they are disseminated.
All content was analyzed based on characteristics and elements of
hate speech as outlined in the common definition of hate speech,
Frank la Rues recommendations, as well as keeping in view past international studies, and in specific, Media Watch on Hate Speech &
Discriminatory Language May - August 2013 Report21 a study of
hate speech undertaken in Turkey from which the following guide20. (Rue, 2012)
21. (Foundation, 2013)
22.(Facebook Statistics - Pakistan, 2013)

lines were derived:

Exaggeration/Attribution/Distortion: Any discourse that features
negative generalization, distortion, exaggeration or negative attribution targeting a community as a whole, based on a specific individual
or event (e.g. Homosexuality is what caused the earthquake in Pakistan)
Insult/Degradation: Any discourse that contains direct swearing,
insult or denigration (e.g. use of words such as treacherous, traitor,
dog, slut, kaafir etc.).
Enmity/War-mongering: Any discourse that includes hostile, warmongering expressions about a community (e.g. framing Shias as
traitors following an Iranian agenda)
Use of inherent identity as an element of hate or humiliation/
Symbolization: Any discourse that uses various aspects of ones natural identity as an element of hate, humiliation or symbolization. For
example, use of phrases such as Women are not intelligent enough
to do this job or Is his name Khan? He probably likes young boys
with negative connotations.

1.2 Methodology
1.2.1 Facebook & Twitter analysis
This section of the study (see Annex 1,2) of online hate speech used
content analysis of published material and comments both textual
and iconographic on social media. The criteria for recording hate
speech was based on high reach areas of the local online space where
the spread of hate speech would have the most impact, and be most
harmful.
All content containing hate speech was captured using software tools
and saved for record by a data collection team. The entire archive of
saved content was then reexamined by a second independent team to
double check, verify and confirm the content was correctly analyzed
and labeled.
Data gathering and analysis was carried out on 30 Facebook pages,
chosen based on their high ranking in Pakistan as determined by
social media analytics site Social Bakers22, with a further narrowing
down of selection based on engagement levels (the Talking about
this metric) and category (brands, media, entertainment etc.).
One hundred public shares and their associated comments were examined on each of the 30 Facebook pages, totaling an analysis of
3,000 shares and their comments. Each Facebook page was examined
from a specific date backward, up to the specified count of shares to
be examined.
6.

The study also looked at 30 Twitter accounts, chosen based on their

high ranking in Pakistan as determined by Social Bakers23, with
further additions based on number of followers from lists of top
Pakistani accounts cited in news reports24. Five hundred Twitter updates, associated replies and mentions were examined for each of the
Twitter accounts, totaling an analysis of 15,000 updates, replies and
mentions. Like Facebook, each Twitter account was examined from
a specific date backward, up to the specified count of published updates to be examined.
Each record of hate speech was analyzed keeping targets of attack as
the primary means of segmentation. Each record could contain more
than one target of attack based on the criteria identified in section
1.1.2, for example, a politician could be called a Jewish agent as
well as a Fag in a single comment or tweet, which would be counted as three attacks on different groups politicians, Jews and the
LGBT community.

1.2.2 Online survey analysis

An anonymous online survey of Pakistani internet users was conducted in January 2014 to build a snapshot of the extent to which
online hate speech is understood and perceived locally, as well as to
capture user experience of hate speech in cyberspace (see Annex 3).
The survey, which consisted of a set of multiple-choice questions, was
made available online on the Bytes For All website and was circulated/promoted through social media. Targeted Facebook ads were also
used to calibrate audience demographics to make the survey more
representative of the overall population, particularly in the case of
ratio of males to females.
The following formula was used to develop as representative a sample
of Pakistani Internet users:

N
(1 + N*e2)
Where N= the size of the entire population to be represented, and e=
the set acceptable percentage margin of error. With Pakistans Internet population reported at 20 million users, a total of 559 survey
responses were collected, bringing the margin of error to 6-7%.

7.

23. (Twitter Statistics in Pakistan, 2013)

24. (Twittistaan: Pakistanis worth following on Twitter, 2013)

laws regarding hate speech. Males expressed significantly greater confidence (23%) in being aware of hate speech related laws as compared
to females (12%).

2. VIEWS ON HATE SPEECH

2.0 Overview

A snapshot of Pakistani Internet users views on online hate speech

was constructed using an online survey of 559 respondents (see Section 1.2.2 for survey methodology and Annex 3 for full survey).
Respondents were roughly evenly divided between those aged 0-25
(45%) and those over 25 (55%). The ratio of males (47%) to females
(53%) was also roughly even.
A large majority of respondents (78%) were Pakistanis living in urban areas of the country. This corresponds with past surveys of Pakistans online population, which is heavily concentrated in urban areas
due to a variety of factors including a lack of infrastructure, high
costs and low benefits for ISPs to provide services in rural areas along
with cultural barriers and low literacy rates in the rural population25.
In terms of monthly household income, a little more than half (51%)
of respondents fell in the medium income range (Rs50,000-200,000),
while 25% were in the high income bracket (over Rs200,000) and
24% were in the low income bracket (below Rs50,000).
Male respondents were slightly overrepresented in the over 25 age
group, which was 58% male, 42% female, and slightly underrepresented in the low income group, which was 44% male and 56%
female.

2.1 Understanding hate speech

In order to determine how well respondents were able to identify

hate speech, a list of statements (based on parameters defined in section 1.1.2) was presented, from which respondents had to check off
all the statements they personally believed constituted hate speech.
Respondents in the high income bracket correctly identified hate
speech more than all other demographic groups. Conversely, respondents in the low income bracket correctly identified hate speech less
than all other demographic groups. In terms of age, those over 25
identified hate speech correctly more than those aged 0-25. Females
correctly identified hate speech less than males, except in the case
of hate speech based on sex/gender. Male respondents also reported
coming across hate speech slightly more than females.
The four statements that were clearly not hate speech were correctly
skipped by a majority of respondents. Respondents in the high income bracket were significantly better at identifying and skipping
statements that were not hate speech. Females incorrectly identified
the four statements as hate speech more than males. Those in the
low income bracket incorrectly identified the statement, Pakistans
ideology is hopeless and broken as hate speech markedly more than
other demographic groups.
IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY
%TOTAL RESPONDENTS

When asked about Pakistans hate speech laws, a large majority (83%)
of total respondents indicated they were either unaware of laws related to hate speech (56%) or were not sure about the laws (27%).
Only 17% of respondents indicated they were aware of Pakistans

89%
73%

80%
72%

ARE YOU AWARE OF PAKISTANS LAWS REGARDING HATE SPEECH?

58%

54%

Pakistan was
made in the name
of Islam and only
muslims can live
in this country

30%
23%

Shias are kaafirs

- they should not be
allowed to protest
in the streets

Person X is a
blasphemer...this
is his address/
phone number

23%
12%

Yes

No

In all, the highest percentage (89%) of respondents correctly identified hate speech terming followers of Shia Islam kaafirs i.e. unbelievers/infidels.

Not Sure
MALE

25. (Haque, 2013)

If you seen an
Ahmadi pretending
to be a muslim, catch
him. He must be
punished severely

FEMALE

A majority of correspondents identified hate speech that targeted

8.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

74%

80% 79%

85%
75%

78%
66%

70%

74% 73% 72%

77% 75%

77%
60%

63%

69% 68%

64%

70%

47%
0-25
Over 25

17%

Female
Male
Over 200,000 (high income)

Women working in showbiz are all

of bad character

Women who dress in Western clothes are asking

to be raped

members of the minority Ahmadiyya religious group (80%), declared Pakistan a country for Muslims only (73%) and labeled an individual a blasphemer with his personal information attached (72%).
A majority of respondents were able to correctly identify hate speech
propagating that evil Jews were manipulating the media (71%), labeling an individual a US agent who should be targeted by terrorists
(70%) and to a lesser extent, labeling an NGO anti-Pakistan and an
enemy (60%).
Only a little over half (56%) of respondents identified terming someone an Indian agent as hate speech.
A majority of respondents (over 80%) were able to correctly identify
hate speech related to the Pakhtun and Baloch ethnic groups.
A majority of respondents correctly identified hate speech related to
women and homosexuals, however, there was a significant percentage (34%) of respondents who did not identify that saying homosexuals have a disease that makes them perverts was hate speech.

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Homosexuals have a disease of the mind that

makes them perverts

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

More than half (53%) of those in the low income bracket believed
calling homosexuals perverts with a disease was not hate speech.
In this one instance, female respondents were slightly better at identifying hate speech related to women and homosexuals as compared
to males.

2.2 Experiencing hate speech

In total, 92% of respondents replied yes to having come across hate

speech online, with 65% indicating they encountered hate speech
often. Only 5% of total respondents said they had not encountered
hate speech online. Male respondents reporting coming across hate
speech often (68%) slightly more than females (63%).
Over half (51%) of total respondents indicated that they had been
the target of hate speech online. Male respondents had the highest
percentage (57%) of those who indicated they had been the target of
WHERE HAVE YOU COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH?

HAVE YOU EVER COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE?

91%
65%

49%

49%

44%
37%

19%

13%
8%

Yes - often

Yes - sometimes

Yes - rarely

5%

3%

No

Not sure

Local hate site/

blog/forum
TOTAL RESPONDENTS

9.

Email

Facebook

Twitter

Video - sharing
sites

SMS/MMS
TOTAL RESPONDENTS

hate speech. The majority (85%) of respondents said those who targeted them did not face any consequences for the reported attack(s).
Only 3% of those respondents who indicated that they had been the
target of hate speech online said the person/group that targeted them
faced any consequences.
Of those respondents who indicated that they had been the target of
hate speech online, 42% said they were targeted for their religious
beliefs, 23% for their nationality, 22% based on race/ethnicity and
16% for sex/gender/sexual orientation. Male respondents had the
highest percentage of those who indicated they had been the target of
hate speech based on religion (48%) and nationality (31%). Women
(23%) and those in the low income bracket (23%) had the highest
percentages of those targeted for sex/gender/sexual orientation.

Among religious targets, total respondents indicated that hate speech

against Shias (70%) and Ahmadis (61%) was markedly high.
Among targets related to sex/sexual identity, more than half of total
respondents indicated that they had come across hate speech related
to women (56%) and the LGBT community (55%).
Among local ethnic groups, a majority of total respondents indicated
that they had not come across hate speech related to Sindhis, Punjabis, Baloch and Pashtuns.
Among targets related to nationality and race, over half of total respondents indicated that they had come across hate speech related to
Jews (57%), Americans (51%) and Indians (51%).
More than half of total respondents indicated they did not come
across hate speech related to Pakistans pillars of state. The highest
percentage of hate speech directed at an institution was the Pakistan
government (41%) followed by the media (36%).

WHO WAS THE HATE SPEECH TARGETING ONLINE?

70%
61%

43%

39%

45%

48%

27%

Sunnis

Shias

Ahmadis

Hindus Christians Muslims

Atheists/
unbelievers
% TOTAL RESPONDENTS

The vast majority of total respondents indicated they had come

across hate speech on Facebook (91%). Facebook was the only
network/medium where more than half of respondents indicated they had encountered hate speech. Respondents in the
low income bracket indicated that they had encountered hate
speech less than all other demographic groups for the networks/mediums listed, except in the case of SMS/MMS.
Those aged 0-25 encountered hate speech far less via email (9%)
as compared to those over 25 (17%). Those aged 0-25 also encountered hate speech less on Twitter (43%) as compared to those over 25
(53%). Conversely, those aged 0-25 indicated they encountered hate
speech more on video-sharing sites (48%) and SMS/MMS (41%) as
compared to those over 25.

A majority of total respondents indicated that they had not come

across hate speech related to NGOs, civil society organizations, human rights defenders/activists and liberal/secular thinking academics.
A small percentage of respondents (6%) indicated they had engaged
in creating/spreading hate speech online, while the majority (78%)
indicated they had not created/spread hate speech online. Male respondents had the highest percentage (10%) of those who indicated
they had engaged in creating/spreading hate speech online, followed
by those in the low income bracket (9%).
Over half (51%) of total respondents indicated that they had been
the target of hate speech online. Male respondents had the highest
percentage (57%) of those who indicated they had been the target of
hate speech online. Those in the high income bracket had the lowest
percentage (45%) of those who had been the target of hate speech
online.

Male respondents indicated they encountered hate speech more than

females in all the networks/mediums listed.

10.

3. TARGETS OF HATE SPEECH

On Facebook and Twitter, hate speech against Shias formed 2% of

total records in each case.

3.1 Shias

Millions in Pakistan practice Shia Islam, but the conflict with Sunni
Islam (which forms the majority of Muslims in the country) has been
a serious issue for decades. Over the years, the Shia community has
seen target killings of its members as well as large-scale violence in
the form of terror attacks, with some terming the current crisis Shia
genocide26.
The results of the conflict are very visible in Pakistans online space,
where aside from general abuse and discrimination, many individuals
and groups (some of whom have their roots in actual organisations)
actively generate propaganda and hate against the community, its religious leaders and its practices.

IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHO/WHAT

WAS THE HATE SPEECH TARGETING?

70%
61%

43%

39%

45%

48%

27%

In some instances, Shias have been identified, their personal information divulged online and calls have been made for violence against
them.

The anti-Shia narrative is both religious and political in nature. In

terms of religion, Shias are attacked for practicing the wrong form
of Islam and for some religious practices and beliefs different from
Sunni traditions. At its most extreme, Shias are termed Kaafir or
Non-Muslims and Anti-Islam.

On the political front, the narrative is largely focused on a Shia conspiracy to take control of positions of power with backing from
Shia-dominated Iran.

11.

26. (Ebrahim, 2012)

Sunnis

Shias

Ahmadis

Hindus Christians Muslims

Atheists/
unbelievers
TOTAL RESPONDENTS

In the online survey, the highest percentage of respondents correctly

identifying hate speech was for the statement terming followers of Shia Islam kaafirs i.e. unbelievers/infidels (89%).
Among religious targets, total respondents indicated
that hate speech against Shias (70%) was markedly high.

3.2 Muslims

Pakistanis are occasionally subject to hate speech emanating from

neighboring countries, particularly India. Such online exchanges
sometimes result in attacks on Islam, Muslims and the clergy in Pakistan.

Local Muslim clerics and religio-political leaders are also subject to

hate speech by Pakistani Internet users for their extremist viewpoints,
corruption and in some cases, for not being conservative enough on
key issues.

Attacks on Islam/Muslims were less than 1% of recorded hate speech

on Facebook. Total hate speech recorded on Twitter contained some
attacks on Deobandis (2%), Shias (2%), Muslim clerics (1%) and
general attacks on Muslims/Islam (1%).
Forty five per cent of respondents to the online survey on hate speech
indicated they had come across hate speech related to Muslims.
Respondents indicated that hate speech against Sunnis was lowest
(27%) among target groups related to religion. Of those respondents
who indicated that they had been the target of hate speech online,
42% said they were targeted for their religious beliefs. Male respondents had the highest percentage of those who indicated they had
been the target of hate speech based on religion (48%)

treme; members of the community are termed as heretics and enemies of Islam and are considered less-than-human. Vicious attacks
on the Ahmadi communitys religious leaders and practices are circulated, with a common theme being one of a conspiracy wherein
cunning or crafty Ahmadis are believed to be out to undermine
Islam by taking up positions of power or secretly converting Muslims. In many cases, Ahmadi or Qadiani (an alternate name for
the community) is used as a term of abuse, or a label to defame an
individual/group.
Hate speech related to Ahmadis formed less than 1% of records gathered on Facebook, while on Twitter, attacks on the faith formed 1%
of the total.

3.3 Ahmadis

The Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan has faced constant discrimination, hate and often deadly violence27 as they are perceived as
heretics, a viewpoint that has spread widely since 1974 when the
government under Prime Minister Zulifqar Ali Bhutto passed a constitutional amendment that declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims28.
Further amendments to the blasphemy laws in Pakistans Penal Code
(298-B and 298-C) made it illegal for Ahmadis to identify themselves as Muslims, practice their religion with terminology that may
identify it with Islam, proselytize in any manner or even outrage
the religious feelings of Muslims the penalties for which is imprisonment. In such a hostile environment, Ahmadis have found
themselves under constant threat and attack, and this is also the case
online.

In the online survey, respondents were asked to identify whether they

believed the statement, If you see an Ahmadi pretending to be
Muslim, catch him. He must be punished severely, qualified as hate
speech. Eighty per cent of respondents identified this statement as
hate speech. Those in the low income bracket identified this statement as hate speech markedly less than the average (58%). When
asked which group they had seen hate speech against online, 61%
of total respondents indicated they had seen hate speech related to
Ahmadis, second only to Shias (70%).

The narrative against Ahmadis in cyberspace is one of the most exIDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

77%
69%

84%

82%
73% 74%

76%

75%

90%
79% 81%

60%

27. (Jajja, 2013)

28. (Hamdani, 2012)

91%

88% 90%

94% 94%
73%

76%
68%

58%

Pakistan was made in the name of Islam and

only muslims can live in this country

0-25

86%

85%

If you seen an Ahmadi pretending to be a muslim,

catch him. He must be punished severely

Over 25

Female

Male

Over 200,000 (high income)

70%

75%

84% 78%
78%

49%
49%

Shias are kaafirs - they should not be allowed to

protest in the streets

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Person X is a blasphemer...this is his address/

phone number

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

12.

3.4 Indians/Hindus

India has remained a principle focus of hate in Pakistan, a reality that

has its roots in the partition of 1947, the resultant Kashmir crisis, war
in 1965 and 1971, as well as many other armed engagements along
the Line of Control that divides the two countries.

formed 7% of Facebook records the highest of any group outside

pillars of the state. On Twitter, 6% of total hate speech recorded was
against Indians/Hindus.

The consequence of decades of conflict and mistrust have fueled

multiple narratives that frame Indians, and by extension, Hindus
(including the local community) as the enemy in connection to national security, politics and religion.

India is perceived to be locked in constant battle with Pakistan: directly in the form of attacks along the Line of Control and alleged
terrorists attacks, as well as through aiding and financing non-state
actors to destabilize the country.

India and its activities in neighboring Afghanistan are looked on with

deep suspicion. The terms Indian, Indian agent and RAW agent
are used to attack individuals and groups to frame them as the enemy.

In terms of religion, India and Hinduism are directly connected in

the Pakistani narrative, breeding intolerance and hate for Indians as
well as those who practice Hinduism in Pakistan. In religious terms,
Hinduism is perceived as a primitive religion that is in direct conflict
with monotheistic Islam. Terms such as kaafir and hindu and are
often used as abuse.
Aside from personal attacks, hate speech against Indians/Hindus
13.

In the online survey, respondents were asked to identify whether the

statement, Person X is a confirmed Indian agent, qualified as hate
speech. Only a little over half (56%) of respondents identified this
statement as hate speech. The percentage for lower income bracket
respondents fell below 50% for terming someone an Indian agent.
Male respondents also fell below 50% in identifying this as hate
speech. Fifty one per cent of respondents indicated they had seen
hate speech against Indians online, while 43% said they had seen
hate speech related to Hindus.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

82%
74%
67%

71% 70%

75%
68%

65%

64%

67%

72%

77%

75%
63%
56%

59%

62%

66%

50%

The evil Jews/Zionists have control of our media.

They are poisoning us with their filth

0-25

Person Y is a US agent. I hope the Taliban take

care of him

Over 25

Female

Male

Over 200,000 (high income)

3.5 Atheists/unbelievers

In the Pakistani narrative of hate, atheists and unbelievers (also

termed kaafir) are lumped together as heretics, apostates (also
termed murtad), anti-Islam and subsequently, anti-Pakistan. Apostasy in Islam is generally considered an offence punishable by death,
and a 2010 poll by Pew Research Center showed that 76% of Pakistan respondents agree with the death penalty for leaving Islam .

Consequently, labeling an individual or group atheists and unbelievers is an extreme, dangerous act. In such an environment, this form
of hate speech is common wherever religious debate or even religious
tolerance is propagated. Individuals and groups are sometimes attacked by labeling them atheists or kaafirs or connecting such
individuals critique of religion as blasphemy.

65%

62%

44%

This NGO is anti-Pakistan, working on foreign

funding - they are our enemy

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

59% 60% 59%

53%

48%

44%

Person X is a confirmed Indian agent

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Hatred and attacks on atheists/unbelievers constituted 3% of total

Facebook hate speech records, and 1% of total Twitter records.
A total of 48% of respondents indicated they had seen hate speech
against atheists/unbelievers online.

3.6 Pillars of the state

While one of the features that define hate speech is the targeting of
vulnerable individuals or groups, in Pakistan, politicians, the military, the judiciary and the media have been included in this study
given the context of over a decade of terrorism that has specifically
targeted individuals and groups that form the pillars of the state. In
such a volatile environment, the labeling of a politician, a member of
the armed forces, judiciary or media person/organization as the enemy working against either Islam or Pakistan has consequences that
may extend from harassment and threats to actual violence.
In these narratives, the Pakistan armed forces are framed as antiIslam or Napak acting on the behest of foreign/western forces, and
as such, making its members Wajibul Qatl (liable to be killed).

29. (Concern About Extremist Threat Slips in Pakistan, 2010)

14.

Qatl (liable to be killed).

Similarly, individual politicians and political parties are termed, Unislamic while democracy as a governing force is seen as a western
system of control that needs to be overthrown, with violence if necessary. Character assassination of politicians using racist and homophobic slurs or depictions as animals are also common.

The media in particular is said to be working on a Jewish, American

or Indian sponsored agenda to destroy Pakistan.
The two largest groups that were a target for hate speech on Facebook
were politicians (38% of all hate speech) and members of the media/
media groups (10%).

These attacks on politicians and the media formed nearly half of all
hate speech on the Facebook pages analyzed.

On Twitter, 20% of total records were targeted at pillars of the state,

with attacks on politicians (11%) and media (7%) registering highest.

Members of the judiciary and the media are also considered complicit in this anti-Islam agenda and are similarly considered targets
of abuse, defamation and in the most extreme cases, labeled Wajibul

15.

More than half of total respondents in the online survey indicated

they did not come across hate speech related to Pakistans pillars of
state. The highest percentages indicated were attacks on the government (41%) followed by the media (36%).

Labels such as anti-Pakistan or anti-Islam are common online as are

suggestions of dishonor, disobedience and vulgarity aside from
more typical derogatory and discriminatory remarks and other forms
of character assassination.

3.7 Females

Gender is a major principle upon which Pakistani society is organized, with females being subordinate to men in a conservative, patriarchal setup. As described in a Country Briefing Paper initiated by
the Asia Development Bank, An artificial divide between production and reproduction, created by the ideology of sexual division of
labor, has placed women in reproductive roles as mothers and wives
in the private arena of home and men in a productive role as breadwinners in the public arena low investment in womens human
capital, compounded by the ideology of purdah (literally veiled),
negative social biases, and cultural practices; the concept of honor
linked with womens sexuality; restrictions on womens mobility; and
the internalization of patriarchy by women themselves, becomes, the
basis for gender discrimination and disparities in all spheres of life.30
In the online space, discrimination and hate speech related to females
reflects this same intolerance found in society. Attacks consist of vilifying and shaming females and individuals or groups that support
womens rights and any attempt to change or challenge the status
quo. Women are attacked for working in the media, working in
any profession, and given that the Internet is an extension of public
space, they are attacked for sharing/posting photos or videos, engaging in discussions, blogging etc.

Attacks on women are often made by females themselves, reflecting

the internalization of patriarchy within society.

Hate speech against females formed less than 1% of Facebook records, and 3% of Twitter records.

In the online survey, respondents were asked to identify whether the

statements, Women who dress in Western clothes are asking to
be raped and, Women working in showbiz are all of bad character qualify as hate speech. In the case of the former, 77% of
IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY
77%
72%

Women who dress in

Western clothes are
asking to be raped

Women working in
showbiz are all of bad
character

66%

Homosexuals have a
disease of the mind that
makes them perverts
TOTAL RESPONDENTS

30. (Ejaz, 2000)

16.

respondents identified the statement as hate speech, and 72%

said the same of the latter. Fifty six per cent of total respondents
indicated they had come across hate speech related to women.

3.8 LGBT

Given Pakistani societys conservative nature and coupled with the

fact that homosexuality is considered a sin in Islam, the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender community in Pakistan faces intense ha
tred and discrimination. Pakistan has laws that criminalize unnatural
offences including homosexuality in its Penal Code31, while specific
to the Internet, the state blocked the first gay website for Pakistani
homosexuals, queerpk.com32.

In the online survey, respondents were asked to identify whether,

Homosexuals have a disease of the mind that makes them perverts
qualified as hate speech. A total of 66% of respondents believed this
statement to be hate speech. Respondents in the low income bracket
had less than half (47%) the statement as hate speech. Fifty five per
cent of respondents said they had encountered hate speech related to
the LGBT community.
IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHO/WHAT
WAS THE HATE SPEECH TARGETING?

In such an environment, any individuals who declare themselves homosexuals become the target for vicious attacks online.

56%

55%

Women

LGBT

16%

The taboo against the LGBT community runs so deep that any individual or group that speaks in support of LGBT rights is also a potential target for hate speech. Homophobic slurs in both English and
Urdu are commonly used as a means to vilify an individual or group.

A total of 4% of Facebook hate speech records contained hate against

the LGBT community, while 1% of Twitter records contained the
same.

17.

31. Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860))

32. (Reuters, 2013)

Men

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

3.9 Jews

Hatred against Jews, Judaism and Israel stems from both religious
and political contexts in Pakistan. Judaism is perceived to be in direct
conflict with Islam based on the popular interpretation and teaching
of Islamic history, while the existing conflict between Israel and Palestine/the Middle East continues to fuel this perception.

3.10 Local ethnicities

Pakhtuns or Pathans who come from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, FATA

and parts of Balochistanare generally labeled terrorists, extremists,
illiterate or stupid and are also commonly attacked using homophobic slurs and innuendo.

Pakistan does not recognize the state of Israel and the popular narrative frames Jews as an occupying force in the Holy land.

From this stems further conspiracy theories regarding the influence

of Jews on global media, the West and even inside Pakistan to hurt
or destroy Islam.
Phrases such as Jew, Yahoodi, Jewish agent, Mossad agent are
used as derogatory terms to attack individuals and groups, particularly local media.

The Baloch are also labeled as terrorists but are also commonly
called anti-Pakistan or traitors given the political context of a local
insurgency in the province that calls for secession from the state.

On Facebook, hate speech against Baloch ethnic groups was less than
1%, while it was 1% in relation to Pakhtuns. On Twitter, hate speech
against Pakhtuns was recorded at 1% respectively, and less than 1%
for Baloch.
IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY
82%

81%

Pathans are brainless

- we should only hire
them for low level jobs.

All Baloch are

traitors to Pakistan.

Hate speech on Facebook and Twitter that was anti-semitic in nature

formed 3% of total records on both social networks respectively.
In the online survey, respondents were asked whether, The evil Jews/
Zionists have control of our media. They are poisoning us with their
filth qualified as hate speech. Seventy one per cent of respondents
identified the statement as hate speech. Over half of total respondents
indicated that they had come across hate speech related to Jews (57%).

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

18.

In the online survey, respondents were asked whether Pathans are

brainless - we should only hire them for low level jobs and All Baloch are traitors to Pakistan qualified as hate speech. A majority of
respondents (over 80%) were able to identify the statement related
to Pakhtuns and Baloch ethnic groups as hate speech. A majority
of total respondents indicated that they had not come across hate
speech related to Punjabis (only 27% of total), Baloch (31%) and
Pakhtuns (38%).

In the online survey, 70% of respondents identified Person Y is a US

agent. I hope the Taliban take care of him, as hate speech. Respondents in the low income bracket were well below the average, at only
50% identifying the statement as hate speech. Fifty one per cent of
respondents said they had come across hate speech related to Americans online.
IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

3.11 Americans

In the backdrop of the war on terror, troubled Pak-US ties and the
perceived global conflict between Islam and the West, the US and
Americans are at par with India as Pakistans enemy number one.
According to a 2012 report published by the Pew Research Centre,
approximately three out of four Pakistanis (74%) consider the US an
enemy up from 69% in 201133.
The popular narrative that breeds hatred and intolerance of Americans focuses on a US-led conspiracy to damage or even divide
Pakistan through military, economic, political and cultural means,
ostensibly due to Pakistans geo-strategic significance or, in the religion-based narrative, as a part of the battle against Islam.

57%
51%

51%

38%
24%
18%

Jews

Africans

Americans

Other
Westerners

20%

Afghans

16%

Indians

19%

Iranians Bangladeshis Pakistanis

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

3.12 Pakistanis

Individuals or groups are often attacked by labeling them American

agents, CIA-funded or any other link (symbolic, cultural etc.) to
the US as an identification of the enemy.

Given the open nature of cyberspace, hate speech related to Pakistanis is not uncommon, particularly on social media. Such hate
speech usually comes in the form of labels such as terrorist, extremist and attacks on the Islamic faith.

Much of the hate speech appeared to come from neighboring India,

or supporters of the Baloch separatist movement.
A total of 2% of Facebook hate speech records were directed at Pakistanis, while 10% of Twitter hate speech was against Pakistanis. In
the online survey, 38% of total respondents said they had encountered hate speech related to Pakistanis.
Hate speech against Americans/US registered at 3% on Facebook
and less than 1% on Twitter.

19.

33. (Pakistani Public Opinion Ever More Critical of U.S., 2012)

4. ADDRESSING ONLINE
HATE SPEECH
The need to counter the spread of hate speech in Pakistans online
space is a pressing concern that needs to be addressed through a
multi-pronged approach that educates, creates awareness and discourages hate and intolerance, prohibits and criminalizes the most
extreme and dangerous forms of hate speech by law, yet guarantees
that fundamental human rights to free speech and information are
safeguarded.
In order for such a multi-pronged approach to work, a plan of action
that has multiple stakeholders involved would be necessary to maintain checks and balances, particularly to ensure that the issue of hate
speech in cyberspace is not manipulated and used to further political
agendas, increase censorship and/or target and discriminate against
vulnerable individuals/groups.

While regulation of the most extreme forms of online hate speech

would be one course of action, the nature of the Internet lends itself
to another solution to the issue: counter-speech i.e. collective, organized efforts by society and the state to create positive, progressive
narratives to gain back any space occupied by hatred and intolerance.
Such efforts could further extend to responding to individuals and
groups spreading hate and engaging with them in high impact, high
reach areas of cyberspace.
Finally, a much broader program to counter hate speech outside of
the online context is needed in Pakistan, beginning from the education sector, to state-level campaigns and programs, civil-society led
initiatives and more. One of the biggest challenges to such a broad
effort is the lack of data collection and research (online-specific and
otherwise) on hate speech in the country. The need for investment on
research in this area by both the state and private enterprise would be
critical in stemming the spread of hatred, intolerance and regressive
narratives in Pakistan.

The government would need to address the lack of legislation with

regards to the Internet in general, and online hate speech specifically.
Given the range of hate speech definitions and online regulatory efforts worldwide, a model that works for Pakistan could be developed
building on best practices in collaboration with other states/state
agencies or other global organizations working on the issue. Institutional support (both state and private) would be critical in any such
effort. Major stakeholders that would need to work on the issue of
hate speech include Internet service providers, the telecom industry,
media groups, the IT sector, NGOs working in this area and other
civil society groups. Institutions and bodies such as the Federal Investigation Agency, PTA, Ministry of IT, Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan and the Pakistan Software Houses Association
could all play a key role here.
The media in particular would need to look at its role in the spread
of online hate speech, as many of the high impact, high reach areas
of local cyberspace are operated/administered by them. The administrators of social media accounts, particularly Facebook, where hate
speech is spread need to be engaged and educated to follow codes of
conduct and best practices with regard to online community engagement and set up word-block lists for common hate speech terms in
English and Roman Urdu where possible.
There is also a great need to develop better, closer relationships with
online companies that own and operate the online space where hate
speech is spread such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. Such companies would need to be educated on problems specific to Pakistan,
and critically, would need to work with local stakeholders to address
the issue of hate speech being spread in Roman Urdu and the Urdu
script.
20.

REFERENCES

AFP. (2011, January 5). Taseer killer turns hero on Facebook. Retrieved May 1,
2014, from Hindustan Times: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/
taseer-killer-turns-hero-on-facebook/article1-646647.aspx
Code of Conduct for Media Broadcasters or Cable TV Operators. (n.d.). Retrieved
December 16, 2013, from Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority: http://
www.pemra.gov.pk/pemra/images/docs/legislation/Code_of_Conduct.pdf
Concern About Extremist Threat Slips in Pakistan. (2010, July 29). Retrieved May
1, 2014, from PEW Research: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/07/29/concernabout-extremist-threat-slips-in-pakistan/
Ebrahim, Z. T. (2012, August 27). If this isnt Shia genocide, what is?. Retrieved
May 1, 2014, from DAWN: http://www.dawn.com/news/744925/if-this-isnt-shiagenocide-what-is
Ejaz, D. S. (2000). Gender Discrimination and the Role of Women in Pakistan.
Retrieved May 1, 2014, from academia.edu: http://www.academia.edu/267659/
Gender_Discrimination_and_the_Role_of_Women_in_Pakistan
Facebook Statistics - Pakistan. (2013, December 22). Retrieved December 22,
2013, from Socialbakers: http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/
pakistan
Foundation, H. D. (2013, August). Media Watch on Hate Speech & Discriminatory
Language. Retrieved from nefretsoylemi.org: http://nefretsoylemi.org/rapor/
may-august2013_reportfinal.pdf
Fundamental Rights and Principles of Policy - Pakistan Constitution. (n.d.).
Retrieved December 15, 2013, from pakistani.org: http://www.pakistani.org/
pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html
Hamdani, Y. L. (2012, September 6). Do Ahmadis deserve to live in Pakistan?
Retrieved May 1, 2014, from The Friday Times: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/
beta3/tft/article.php?issue=20120831&page=8
Haque, J. (2013, November). Pakistans Internet Landscape. Retrieved from Bytes
for all Pakistan: http://content.bytesforall.pk/sites/default/files/MappingReportFinal%20-%20Published.pdf
Hate speech - Define Hate speech . (2013). Retrieved December 15, 2013, from
Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech

Jajja, S. (2013, May 28). Three years on, no justice for 86 dead Ahmadis .
Retrieved May 1, 2014, from DAWN: http://www.dawn.com/news/1014484
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance. (2002). Retrieved
December 16, 2013, from Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority: http://
www.pemra.gov.pk/pemra/images/docs/legislation/Ordinance_2002.pdf
Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860). (n.d.). Retrieved December 16, 2013, from
Pakistani.org: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1860/actXLVof1860.html
Pakistan raises $1.1 billion with 3G, 4G licence auction. (2014, April 23).
Retrieved from The News: http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-145530-Pakistancompletes-3G,4G-license-auction--Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act. (1996, October 17). Retrieved
December 16, 2013, from Pakistan Telecommunication Authority: http://www.
pta.gov.pk/media/telecom_act_170510.pdf
Pakistani Public Opinion Ever More Critical of U.S. (2012, June 27). Retrieved
from Pew Research Centers Global Attitudes Project: http://www.pewglobal.
org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion-ever-more-critical-of-u-s/
Punjab Governor Salman Taseer assassinated in Islamabad. (2011, January 4).
Retrieved May 1, 2014, from BBC NEWS: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-southasia-12111831
Reuters. (2013, September 26). PTA blocks countrys first gay website . Retrieved
May 1, 2014, from The Express Tribune: http://tribune.com.pk/story/609751/
pta-blocks-countrys-first-gay-website/
Rue, F. l. (2012). Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression. United Nations. United Nations.
Saqib, H. (2013, November 17). Rawalpindi Riots: How Social Media added fuel to
fire? Retrieved May 1, 2014, from All Voices: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/15970546-rawalpindi-riots-how-social-media-can-add-fuel-to-fire
Shahzebs murder: Online movement enters real world. (2012, December 31).
Retrieved from The Express Tribune: http://tribune.com.pk/story/486791/
shahzeb-khans-murder-online-movement-enters-the-real-world/

Telecom Indicators. (2014, January). Retrieved from Pakistan Telecommunication

Authority: http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
=269&Itemid=658
The Anti Terrorism Act (ATA). (1997, August 20). Retrieved December 16, 2013, from
Federal Investigation Agency - Government of Pakistan: http://www.fia.gov.pk/
ata.htm
The Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. (1960). Retrieved December
16, 2013, from Punjab Laws Online: THE PUNJAB MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER
ORDINANCE, 1960
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2013,
from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Twitter Statistics in Pakistan. (2013, December 20). Retrieved December 20, 2013,
from Socialbakers: http://www.socialbakers.com/twitter/country/pakistan/
Twittistaan: Pakistanis worth following on Twitter. (2013, January 20). Retrieved
December 20, 2013, from The Express Tribune: http://tribune.com.pk/story/496566/twittistaan-pakistanis-worth-following-on-twitter/

ANNEX ONE: FACEBOOK ANALYSIS

Total Facebook pages analyzed: 30

Total shares analyzed per page: 100
Total shares analyzed: 3,000 (including all comments on shares)
Date range of analysis: December 2010 - February 2014
Average date range for account analysis: 116 days
Total hate speech records: 9,494
Average hate speech records per share: 3
Total attacks on hate speech targets in records: 10,329*
Average count of hate speech per share: 3.4
Hate speech that could fall under criminal offense based on studys
definitions: negligible

*Each record of hate speech can contain more than one attack on more than one target

21.

FACEBOOK HATE SPEECH RELATED TO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS

(% breakdown of 10,329 total attacks)

Other

5%

Personal attack

20%

Media

10%
38%

Politicians
Pakistani
Pakhtun
Jew/Israel

2%
1%
3%

LGBT

4%

Females

4%

Indian/Hindus
Shias

7%
2%

Athiests/Unbelievers

3%

Americans/US

3%

The two largest groups that were a target for hate speech on Facebook were politicians (38% of all hate speech) and members of
the media/media groups (10%). These attacks on pillars of the state formed nearly half of all hate speech on the Facebook pages
analyzed.Personal attacks formed another 20% of hate speech, while hate speech against Indians/Hindus formed 7% of the total.

22.

HATE SPEECH RELATED TO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS EXCLUDING PILLARS OF STATE

(% breakdown of 5,371 total attacks)

5%

Other
Personal attack

38%

Pakistani
Pakhtun

4%
2%
6%

Jew/Israel
LGBT

8%

Females

8%
13%

Indian/Hindus
Shias

4%

Athiests/Unbelievers
Americans/US

23.

6%
6%

HATE SPEECH: TOP 10 FACEBOOK PAGES

The top 10 Facebook pages analyzed formed the bulk of all hate speech recorded in the study. Eight out of the top 10 Facebook pages
were administered by traditional media groups/personalities and online media-related entities.
24.

FACEBOOK HATE SPEECH ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE/SCRIPT

4%

22%
74%

ENGLISH

ROMAN URDU

URDU SCRIPT

In terms of language, hate speech recorded on Facebook was largely in Roman Urdu (74%) followed by English (22%) and
Urdu script (4%).
25.

FACEBOOK PAGES ANALYZED

FACEBOOK PAGES
1.

https://www.facebook.com/arydigital.tv

16.

https://www.facebook.com/bilalkhanmusic

2.

https://www.facebook.com/etribune

17.

https://www.facebook.com/aly.zafar

3.

https://www.facebook.com/humtvpakistan

18.

https://www.facebook.com/ShaistaWahidiGeo

4.

https://www.facebook.com/expressnewspk

19.

https://www.facebook.com/ILoveALLAHFanPageOffical

5.

https://www.facebook.com/zemtv

20. https://www.facebook.com/zindabadpakistan

6.

https://www.facebook.com/siasat.pk

21.

7.

https://www.facebook.com/samaatvnews

22. https://www.facebook.com/Ideology.Identity

8.

https://www.facebook.com/nawaiwaqt

23. https://www.facebook.com/syedzaidzamanhamid

9.

https://www.facebook.com/thenewstribe

24. https://www.facebook.com/JewTVXposed

https://www.facebook.com/HasbEHall.Azizi

10. https://www.facebook.com/dunyatvnetwork

25. https://www.facebook.com/pakistan.usembassy

11.

26. https://www.facebook.com/AnsarAbbasiPage

https://www.facebook.com/AllamaMIqbal

12. https://www.facebook.com/AtifAslamOfficialFanPage

27.

https://www.facebook.com/draqkhanpakistan

13. https://www.facebook.com/AliAzmatOfficial

28. https://www.facebook.com/ImranKhan.Official

14. https://www.facebook.com/javed.chaudhry

29. https://www.facebook.com/gogreenpak

15. https://www.facebook.com/stringspage

30. https://www.facebook.com/sanamjungloverspage

26.

ANNEX TWO: TWITTER ANALYSIS

Total Twitter accounts analyzed: 30

Total tweets analyzed per account: 500
Total tweets analyzed: 15,000
Date range of analysis: June 2013 - February 2014
Average date range for account analysis: 43 days
Total hate speech records*: 273 (out of 15,000 analyzed)
Percentage of total hate speech records to total tweets: 1.8%
Total attacks on hate speech targets in records*: 350
Percentage of total attacks on hate speech targets to total tweets: 2.3%
Hate speech that could fall under criminal offense based on studys
definitions: negligible

*Each record of hate speech can contain more than one attack on more than one target

27.

TWITTER HATE SPEECH RELATED TO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS/GROUPSHATE SPEECH?

(% breakdown of 350 total attacks in tweets)

5%

Other

41%

Personal attack
Army

1%

Media
Judiciary

7%
1%
11%

Politicians
Pakistani
Saudi

10%
1%

Indian

5%

Pakhtun

1%

Punjabi

1%
3%

Jew/Israel
LGBT

1%

Females

3%

Athiests/Unbelievers

1%

Hindus

1%

Deobandis

2%

Shias

2%

Ahmadis

1%

Muslim clerics

1%

Muslims/Islam

1%

The majority of hate speech recorded on Twitter was personal attacks and abuse (41%). Other major targets included politicians (11%),
Pakistanis (10%), media persons/groups (7%), and Indians/Hindus (6%). Total hate speech recorded on Twitter contained some attacks
on Deobandis (2%), Shias (2%), Muslim clerics (1%) and general attacks on Muslims/Islam (1%).
28.

HATE SPEECH ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE/SCRIPT:

HATE SPEECH: TOP 10 TWITTER ACCOUNTS

TWITTER ACCOUNT

CATEGORY

% OF THE SPEECH IN TOTAL

TWEETS/RPLIES/MENTIONS

1. Zaid Hamid
2. Jamaat Ud Dawa
3. Hamid Mir
4. Mubasher Lucman
5. Kamran Khan
6. Nasim Zehra
7. Venna Malik
8. Radio Pakistan
9. PTI Official
10. Shahbaz Sharif

Media/Politics
Charity/Politics
Media
Media
Media
Media
Enterainment
Media
Politics
Politics

11.2%
8%
7.6%
7%
6.8%
3.8%
3.6%
3.6%
2.8%
2.4%

The top five Twitter accounts analyzed formed the bulk of total hate speech recorded from Twitter. Four of the top five Twitter accounts
featuring hate speech in tweets/replies/mentions were traditional media personalities.
29.

HATE SPEECH ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE/SCRIPT:

5%

28%

67%

ENGLISH

ROMAN URDU

URDU SCRIPT

Hate speech collected on Twitter was largely in English (67%), followed by Roman Urdu (28%) and Urdu script (5%).
30.

HATE SPEECH GENERATED BY ACCOUNTS VERSUS REPLIES/MENTIONS

2%

98%

IN REPLIES/MENTIONS

BY ACCOUNTS

The vast majority of hate speech recorded on Twitter was generated by users replying to/mentioning the accounts analyzed (98%) and
not by the accounts themselves.
31.

TWITTER ACCOUNTS ANALYZED

TWITTER ACCOUNTS
1. https://twitter.com/HamidMirGEO
16. https://twitter.com/realsanambaloch
2. https://twitter.com/AliZafarsays
17. https://twitter.com/TalatHussain12
3. https://twitter.com/MubasherLucman
18. https://twitter.com/PTIofficial
4. https://twitter.com/Shahidmasooddr
19. https://twitter.com/ExpressNewsPK
5. https://twitter.com/AajKamranKhan
6. https://twitter.com/itsaadee

20. https://twitter.com/etribune
21. https://twitter.com/dawn_com

7. https://twitter.com/CMShehbaz

22. https://twitter.com/thenews_intl

8. https://twitter.com/ImranKhanPTI

23. https://twitter.com/geonews_urdu

9. https://twitter.com/sanabucha

24. https://twitter.com/RadioPakistan

10. https://twitter.com/marvi_memon

25. https://twitter.com/usembislamabad

11. https://twitter.com/Maria_Memon

26. https://twitter.com/AamirLiaquat

12. https://twitter.com/NasimZehra

27. https://twitter.com/TahirulQadri

13. https://twitter.com/sherryrehman

28. https://twitter.com/ZaidZamanHamid

14. https://twitter.com/iVeenaMalik

29. https://twitter.com/JuD_Official

15. https://twitter.com/FauziaKasuri

30. https://twitter.com/ISPR_Official

32.

ANNEX THREE: ONLINE HATE SPEECH SURVEY

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

53%

45%

55%
0-25

47 %
MALE

OVER 25

FEMALE

25%

6%

16%

51%
78%
PAKISTAN (URBAN)

PAKISTANIS LIVING ABROAD

PAKISTAN (RURAL)

24%
RS 50 - 200,000
(MEDIUM INCOME)

OVER 200,000
(HIGH INCOME)

BELOW 50,000
(LOW INCOME)

Respondents were roughly evenly divided between those aged 0-25 (45%) and those over 25 (55%). The ratio of males (47%) to
females (53%) was also roughly even. A large majority of respondents (78%) were Pakistanis living in urban areas of the country.
In terms of monthly household income, a little more than half of respondents fell in the medium income range (51%), while 25%
were in the high income bracket (over Rs200,000) and 24% were in the low income bracket (below Rs50,000). Male respondents
were slightly overrepresented in the over 25 age group, which was 58% male, 42% female, and slightly underrepresented in the low
income group, which was 44% male and 56% female.
33.

32.

ARE YOU AWARE OF PAKISTANS LAWS REGARDING HATE SPEECH?

56%

27%
17%

Yes

No

Not Sure

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

A large majority (83%) of total respondents indicated they were either unaware of laws related to hate speech in Pakistan (56%) or
not sure about the laws (27%). Only 17% of respondents indicated they were aware of Pakistans laws regarding hate speech.
33.

34.

BREAKDOWN: ARE YOU AWARE OF PAKISTANS LAWS REGARDING HATE SPEECH?

60%

58%

59%

54%

52%

28%

28%

26%

23%

18% 17%
16%

Yes

25%

20%
16%

No

Not Sure

RS 50 - 200,000
(MEDIUM INCOME)

OVER 200,000
(HIGH INCOME)

BELOW 50,000
(LOW INCOME)

Yes

No
0-25

Not Sure
OVER 25

58%
54%

30%
23%

23%

12%

Yes

No
MALE

35.

Not Sure
FEMALE

Respondents in the low income bracket had a slightly higher

percentage (60%) of those indicating they were unaware of
Pakistans laws related to hate speech as compared to high
income (54%) and middle income (58%) respondents.
Those aged 0-25 expressed slightly greater confidence (20%)
in being aware of hate speech related laws as compared to
those over 25 (16%). Respondents aged 0-25 also had a lower
percentage of those who indicated they were unaware of hate
speech laws (52%) as compared to those over 25 (59%). Males
expressed significantly greater confidence (23%) in being aware
of hate speech related laws as compared to females (12%).
34.

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS QUALIFY AS HATE SPEECH?

71%

70%
60%
56%

The evil Jews/Zionists have control of

our media. They are
poisoning us with
their filth

Person Y is a US
agent. I hope the
Taliban take care of
him

This NGO is antiPakistan, working on

foreign funding - they
are our enemy

Person X is a
confirmed Indian
agent

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

A majority of respondents identified hate speech propagating that evil Jews are manipulating the media (71%), labeling an individual a US agent who should be targeted by terrorists (70%) and to a lesser extent, labeling an NGO anti-Pakistan and an enemy
(60%). Only a little over half (56%) of respondents identified terming someone an Indian agent as hate speech.
35.

36.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

82%
74%
67%

71% 70%

75%
68%

65%

64%

67%

72%

77%

75%
63%
56%

59%

62%

66%

50%

The evil Jews/Zionists have control of our media.

They are poisoning us with their filth

0-25

Person Y is a US agent. I hope the Taliban take

care of him

Over 25

Female

Male

Over 200,000 (high income)

65%

62%

44%

This NGO is anti-Pakistan, working on foreign

funding - they are our enemy

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

59% 60% 59%

53%

48%

44%

Person X is a confirmed Indian agent

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Respondents in the high income bracket identified hate speech more than all other demographic groups for the statements above.
Conversely, respondents in the low income bracket identified hate speech less than all other demographic groups for the statements
above, falling below 50% for hate speech labeling an NGO anti-Pakistan and an enemy, and terming someone an Indian agent.
Male respondents also fell below 50% in identifying terming someone an Indian agent as hate speech. Those over 25 identified hate
speech more than those aged 0-25 for all the statements above. Aside from the statement propagating that evil Jews are manipulating the media, females identified hate speech less than males.
37.

36.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

89%
73%

Pakistan was
made in the name
of Islam and only
muslims can live
in this country

80%
72%

If you seen an
Ahmadi pretending
to be a muslim, catch
him. He must be
punished severely

Shias are kaafirs

- they should not be
allowed to protest
in the streets

Person X is a
blasphemer...this
is his address/
phone number

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

In all, the highest percentage of respondents correctly identifying hate speech was for the statement terming followers of Shia Islam
kaafirs i.e. unbelievers/infidels (89%). A majority of correspondents identified hate speech that targeted members of the minority
Ahmadiyya religious group (80%), declared Pakistan a country for Muslims only (73%) and labeled an individual a blasphemer with
his personal information attached (72%).
37.

38.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

77%
69%

84%

82%
73% 74%

76%

75%

90%
79% 81%

60%

86%

85%

91%

88% 90%

94% 94%
84%
73%

76%
68%

70%

75%

78%

58%
49%

Pakistan was made in the name of Islam and

only muslims can live in this country

0-25

Over 25

If you seen an Ahmadi pretending to be a muslim,

catch him. He must be punished severely

Female

Male

Shias are kaafirs - they should not be allowed to

protest in the streets

Over 200,000 (high income)

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Person X is a blasphemer...this is his address/

phone number

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Respondents in the high income bracket identified hate speech more than other demographic groups for the statements above.
Conversely, respondents in the low income bracket identified hate speech markedly less than all other demographic groups for the
statements above, falling below 50% for labeling an individual a blasphemer and identifying their address/phone number. Similarly,
those in the low income bracket identified hate speech against Ahmadis markedly less than the average (58%). Those over 25 identified hate speech more than those aged 0-25 for all the statements above. Females identified hate speech slightly less than males in
the statements above.
39.

38.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

50%

38%
35%

All religions are

man made and
contain mistakes

All rich and

powerful people are
corrupt to the core

Pakistans
ideology is
hopeless and
broken

37%

I hate person Xs
personality

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

The four statements that were not hate speech were correctly skipped by a majority of respondents, except in the case of a generalization of rich and powerful people being corrupt (50% identified the statement as hate speech).
39.

40.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

47%

37%

34%

37% 37%

36% 35%

48%

51%

55%

54%

51% 50%
45%

39%

37% 38% 38% 37%

37% 36%

30%

41%

39%
34% 33%

31%

26%

All religions are man made and

contain mistakes
0-25

Over 25

All rich and powerful people are

corrupt to the core

Female

Male

Pakistans ideology is hopeless

and broken

Over 200,000 (high income)

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

I hate person Xs personality

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Respondents in the high income bracket were significantly better at identifying and skipping statements that were not hate speech
except in the case of a generalized attack on rich and powerful people which saw the high income bracket identify the statement
as hate speech the most (55%) out of all demographic groups. Those in the low income bracket incorrectly identified the statement,
Pakistans ideology is hopeless and broken as hate speech markedly more (47%) than other demographic groups. Age differences
had no significant bearing on correctly skipping over statements that were not hate speech.
Females incorrectly identified the statements above as hate speech more than males.
41.

40.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

82%

81%

Pathans are brainless

- we should only hire
them for low level jobs.

All Baloch are

traitors to Pakistan.

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

A majority of respondents (over 80%) were able to correctly identify hate speech related to the Pakhtun and Baloch ethnic groups.
41.

42.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

79%

85%

81%

84%

88%

84%
73%

Pathans are brainless - we should only hire them for

low level jobs.
0-25

Over 25

Female

Male

Over 200,000 (high income)

78%

83%

78%

84%

87%

84%
69%

All Baloch are traitors to Pakistan.

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Respondents in the high income bracket had the highest percentages for recognizing hate speech against Pakhtuns (88%) and Baloch
(87%) compared to all other demographic groups. Conversely, those in the low income bracket had the lowest percentages for recognizing the statements above as hate speech. Those aged over 25 were slightly better at identifying hate speech related to Pakhtuns
and Baloch as compared to those 0-25. Male respondents were slightly better at identifying hate speech related to Pakhtuns and
Baloch as compared to females.
43.

42.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

77%
72%

Women who dress in

Western clothes are
asking to be raped

Women working in
showbiz are all of bad
character

66%

Homosexuals have a
disease of the mind that
makes them perverts

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

A majority of respondents correctly identified hate speech related to women and homosexuals, however, there was a significant
percentage (34%) of respondents who did not identify that saying homosexuals have a disease that makes them perverts was
hate speech.

43.

44.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

85%
80% 79%
74%

75%

78%
70%

74% 73%
72%

77%

77%

75%

70%

69% 68%

66%
60%

63%

64%

47%

Women working in showbiz are all of

bad character

Women who dress in Western clothes are

asking to be raped

0-25

Over 25

Female

Male

Over 200,000 (high income)

Homosexuals have a disease of the mind

that makes them perverts

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Respondents in the high income bracket had the highest percentages for recognizing hate speech related to women and homosexuals
compared to all other demographic groups.
Those in the low income bracket had the lowest percentages for recognizing the statements above as hate speech, dropping to less
than half (47%) identifying that calling homosexuals perverts with a disease was hate speech.
Those aged over 25 were slightly better at identifying hate speech related to women and homosexuals as compared to those 0-25.
Female respondents were slightly better at identifying hate speech related to women and homosexuals as compared to males.
45.

44.

HAVE YOU EVER COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE?

65%

19%
8%
Yes - often

Yes - sometimes

Yes - rarely

5%

3%

No

Not sure

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

In total, 92% of respondents replied yes to having come across hate speech online, with 65% indicating they encountered hate
speech often. Only 5% of total respondents said they had not encountered hate speech online.
45.

46.

HAVE YOU EVER COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE?

70%

69% 68%

67%

63%
60%

60%

24%

22%
19% 19%
17%

18% 18%
15%
11%
6% 6%

Yes - often
0-25

Yes - sometimes
Over 25

Female

Male

11%

10%
7%
4%

Yes - rarely
Over 200,000 (high income)

5% 5% 4% 6%
3% 3%

2% 3% 3%

No
Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Respondents in the low income bracket had the highest percentages of those who indicated they had not encountered hate speech
online (11%) or encountered hate speech rarely (15%).
Those over 25 reported coming across hate speech often (69%) more than those aged 0-25 (60%).
Male respondents reporting coming across hate speech often (68%) slightly more than females (63%).
47.

46.

IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHO/WHAT WAS THE HATE SPEECH TARGETING?

70%
61%

43%

39%

45%

48%

27%

Sunnis

Shias

Ahmadis

Hindus Christians Muslims

Atheists/
unbelievers

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Among religious targets, total respondents indicated that hate speech against Shias (70%) and Ahmadis (61%) was markedly high.
Forty five per cent of respondents to the online survey on hate speech indicated they had come across hate speech targeting Muslims. Respondents indicated that hate speech against Sunnis was lowest (27%) among target groups related to religion.
47.

48.

IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHO/WHAT WAS THE HATE SPEECH TARGETING?

56%

55%

Women

LGBT

16%

Men

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Among targets related to sex/sexual identity, more than half of total respondents indicated that they had come across hate speech
targeting women (56%) and LGBT (55%).
49.

48.

IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHO/WHAT WAS THE HATE SPEECH TARGETING?

38%
31%
27%
23%

Sindhis

Punjabis

Baloch

Pakhtuns

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Among local ethnic groups, a majority of total respondents indicated that they had not come across hate speech targeting Sindhis
(23%), Punjabis (27%), Baloch (31%) and Pakhtuns (38%).
49.

50.

IDENTIFYING HATE SPEECH STATEMENTS: ONLINE SURVEY

57%
51%

51%

38%
24%
18%

Jews

Africans

Americans

Other
Westerners

20%

Afghans

16%

Indians

19%

Iranians Bangladeshis Pakistanis

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Among targets related to nationality and race, over half of total respondents indicated that they had come across hate speech
targeting Jews (57%), Americans (51%) and Indians (51%).
51.

50.

IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHO/WHAT WAS THE HATE SPEECH TARGETING?

41%
36%

24%

Pakistan
Government

Pakistan
Judiciary

22%

Pakistan
Media

Pakistan
Armed Forces

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

More than half of total respondents indicated they did not come across hate speech targeting Pakistans pillars of state. The highest percentage of hate speech directed at an institution was the Pakistan government (41%) followed by the media (36%).
51.

52.

IF YOU HAVE COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHO/WHAT WAS THE HATE SPEECH TARGETING?

27%

22%

17%

NGOs/Civil society
organizations

Human rights
defenders/activists

Liberals/secular thinking
academics

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

A majority of total respondents indicated that they had not come across hate speech targeting NGOs, civil society organizations,
human rights defenders/activists and liberal/secular thinking academics.
53.

WHERE HAVE YOU COME ACROSS HATE SPEECH?

91%

49%

49%

44%
37%

13%
Local hate site/
blog/forum

Email

Facebook

Twitter

Video - sharing
sites

SMS/MMS

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

The vast majority of total respondents indicated they had come across hate speech on Facebook (91%). Facebook was the only
network/medium where more than half of respondents indicated they had encountered hate speech.
54.

BREAKDOWN: WHERE HAVE YOU ENCOUNTERED HATE SPEECH FROM THE BELOW?

92%

49% 49%

51%

50%

93%
90%

93%
88% 89%

86%

54%

53% 53%

52%

48% 47%

47%
43%

42%

50%

48%

46%
41%

38%

50%

41%

39%
34%

41%
34%

21%
17% 17%
13%
9%

10%
6%

0-25

Over 25

Female

Video - sharing
sites

Facebook

Email

Local hate site/

blog/forum

Male

Twitter

Over 200,000 (high income)

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

SMS/MMS

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Respondents in the low income bracket indicated that they had encountered hate speech less than all other demographic groups
for the networks/mediums listed above, except in the case of SMS/MMS.
Those aged 0-25 encountered hate speech far less via email (9%) as compared to those over 25 (17%). Those aged 0-25 also
encountered hate speech less on Twitter (43%) as compared to those over 25 (53%). Conversely, those aged o-25 indicated they
encountered hate speech more on video-sharing sites (48%) and SMS/MMS (41%) as compared to those over 25.
Male respondents indicated they encountered hate speech more than females in all the networks/mediums listed above.
55.

HAVE YOU EVER ENGAGED IN CREATING/SPREADING HATE SPEECH ONLINE?

78%

16%
6%

Yes

No

Not sure

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

A small percentage of respondents (6%) indicated they had engaged in creating/spreading hate speech online, while the majority
(78%) indicated they had not created/spread hate speech online.
56.

BREAKDOWN: HAVE YOU EVER ENGAGED IN CREATING/SPREADING HATE SPEECH ONLINE?

76%

81%

80%

84%

74%

77%

73%

18%
6% 6%

10%
3% 3%

7%

9%

No

Yes
0-25

Over 25

14%

Female

Male

Over 200,000 (high income)

16% 15%

13%

16%

Not sure
Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Male respondents had the highest percentage (10%) of those who indicated they had engaged in creating/spreading hate speech
online, followed by those in the low income bracket (9%). Conversely, females (3%) and those in the high income bracket (3%)
had the lowest percentages for the same.
57.

18%

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THE TARGET OF HATE SPEECH ONLINE?

51%
38%

11%

Yes

No

Not sure

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Over half (51%) of total respondents indicated that they had been the target of hate speech online.

58.

BREAKDOWN: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THE TARGET OF HATE SPEECH ONLINE?

50% 52%

57%

53% 53%
46% 45%
36%

39%

42%

47%
36% 34%

34%

14%

Yes
0-25

Over 25

Male

Over 200,000 (high income)

8%

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Male respondents had the highest percentage (57%) of those who indicated they had been the target of hate speech online.
Those in the high income bracket had the lowest percentage (45%) of those who had been the target of hate speech online.
59.

11% 13%

Not sure

No
Female

9% 9%

12%

IF YOU HAVE BEEN A TARGET OF HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHAT WERE YOU TARGETED FOR?

42%

22%

23%

Race/
Ethnicity

Nationality

16%

Religion

Sex/Gender/
Sexual
Orientation

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Of those respondents who indicated that they had been the target of hate speech online, 42% said they were targeted for their
religious beliefs, 23% for their nationality, 22% based on race/ethnicity and 16% for sex/gender/sexual orientation.
60.

BREAKDOWN: IF YOU HAVE BEEN A TARGET OF HATE SPEECH ONLINE, WHAT WERE YOU TARGETED FOR?

48%

45% 45%

42% 42%
36%
32%

23%

23%

20%
13%

13%

26%
21% 22%

15%

26%
18% 18%

21%

31%

28%

26%
22%
18%

16% 16%

9%

Religion

0-25

Sex/Gender/ Sexual
Orientation

Over 25

Female

Male

Over 200,000 (high income)

Race/
Ethnicity

Rs 50-200,000 (medium income)

Nationality

Below Rs50,000 (low income)

Male respondents had the highest percentage of those who indicated they had been the target of hate speech based on religion
(48%) and nationality (31%). Women (23%) and those in the low income bracket (23%) had the highest percentages of those
targeted for sex/gender/sexual orientation. Those aged 0-25 had higher percentages of being the targets of hate speech related
to sex/gender/sexual orientation (20%) and nationality (28%) than those over 25.
61.

IF YOU WERE THE TARGET OF ONLINE HATE SPEECH, DID THE PERSON/GROUP THAT TARGETED YOU
FACE ANY CONSEQUENCES - LEGAL OR OTHERWISE?

85%

9%
3%

3%

Yes

Somewhat

No

Not Sure

TOTAL RESPONDENTS

Only 3% of those respondents who indicated that they had been the target of hate speech online said the person/group that
targeted them faced any consequences. The majority (85%) of respondents said those who targeted them did not face any consequences for the reported attack(s).
62.

ABOUT BYTES FOR ALL, PAKISTAN

Bytes for All (B4A), Pakistan is a human rights organization and a
research think tank with a focus on Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). It experiments with and organizes debate
on the relevance of ICTs for sustainable development and strengthening human rights movements in the country. Its strategic plan delivers in following key result areas (KRA), which include:
1. Securing digital rights and freedom of expression for civil liberties;
2. Strengthening digital security of human rights defenders & media
professionals;
3. Ending technology-driven gender-based violence;
4. Network building at national, regional and global level; and
5. Community development and communications for environmental sustainability
To deliver above-mentioned KRAs, B4A conducts research for evidence-based policy advocacy and capacity building of human rights
defenders on their digital security, privacy, and online safety.
Globally acclaimed Take Back The Tech Campaign is the flagship of
Bytes for All, which focuses on strategic use of ICTs by the women
and girls to fight violence against women in Pakistan.
For its work, B4A partners and collaborates with a large number of
civil society organizations. B4As team is dedicatedly committed towards civil liberties in Pakistan.
Bytes for All, Pakistan
Tel. +92 (51) 2110494-5
info@bytesforall.pk
www.bytesforall.pk

63.