Hate speeches: a threat to the democratic a threat to the democratic of tolerance

Abstract

Hate speeches stigmatize groups and minorities because of ethnic, political,social or religious reasons, seeking their denigration and causing structural disparities,a game of superiority and inferiority. In the international sphere, the response of the legal system to hate speeches is not unequivocal and several different paradigms can be identified: the American model, hyper protective of freedom of expression, under which only expressions that lead directly to the commission of crimes are rebuked; the European model, more prone to legally censor gratuitous denigrating statements, which do not contribute to the formation of a public opinion, even though they do not involve the commission of crimes; and the model of dictatorial regimes with which a number of confessional states can be equated, especially those with an Islamic tradition, in which the attack on ideological or religious symbols constitutes an attack against the State itself. In Europe, we have placed the focus on the types of criminal offences that are linked to the idea of hate speech, which have spread throughout the continent and of which the last reform of the Spanish Penal Code of 2015 is a proverbial manifestation. However, the effectiveness of criminal law in this area is precarious because of the difficulty in assessing harmful intentionality in certain satirical expressions; of the coverage provided by the artistic context in which they are often made; and of the traditional status in libel laws of what is acceptable or unacceptable according to the social use in each period. In any case, the law applicable on the subject is still being developed to a great extent, in fieri ; in need of major international and global agreements between States and the cultural and political identities in the international community. For this task, the need for strong thinking, ethical and political, is as unquestionable as it is urgent if we want to avoid the most dramatic effects of the clash of civilizations that today we relived in the wake of attacks. At this stage, it seems essential to build an idea of inclusive respect as the pivot and guiding element for the coexistence in increasingly intercultural societies. We understand that the status of tolerance should not be limited to the recognition of respect as a civic value actively engaged with the universal rights inherent in every human being. This is, off course, a prius already pointed by the UNESCO Declaration of 1995, making it clear that it is not a question of converting the tolerance of indifference ,which is essentially permissive, into a rule but it must be based on the need to respect the dignity of the other within the meaning of article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and right, and they are endowed with reason and conscience and should behave one another in a spirit of brotherhood. From this minimum, the building of respect must extend beyond the mere recognition of others, of what is different, to move towards the inclusion of others from a more intercultural than multicultural perspective, so that we could move from the public ethics of tolerance towards others to the cordial ethics of the recognition of others, a recognition that pursues a ransformative cultural integration. This position makes us face the need of public policies for the recognition of minorities and the diversity of identities. Active public policies ranging from a human rights education that laid the foundations of an intercultural citizenship to the engagement of victims of violence and discrimination that arises from hatred and a lack of knowledge.