Search

Copyright of Annual of the Faculty of Law / Godišnjak Fakulteta Pravnih Nauka is the property of Pan-European University Apeiron and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Anbar University for Law & Political Sciences is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background. Recently, the study of the issue of liability for provocation of a crime has become widely popular. Russian legislation does not clearly define provocation of a crime. However, Article 304 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation prohibits provocation in relation to certain criminal acts. Nevertheless, in practice, cases of provocation to other crimes are increasingly encountered. Difficulties arise in the legal assessment of such acts, which is due to the lack of a legal definition of provocation, as well as the uncertainty of its legal essence. The purpose of the study is to determine the essence of provocation of a crime as a criminal law category and to propose its definition. Materials and methods. The objectives of the study were achieved by examining various views on the provocation of a crime by authoritative experts in the field of criminal law, analyzing the norms of the current criminal law and the Federal Law “On operational-search activityˮ dated 12.08.1995 No. 144-FZ in terms of the issue under consideration, studying materials of judicial practice illustrating examples of the qualification of actions related to the provocation of a crime. When writing the work, the author used general scientific methods of cognition – deduction, induction, generalization and synthesis, as well as special ones – formal-logical, document analysis method, linguistic. Results. During the study, the issue of provocation of a crime as a criminal-legal phenomenon was examined, its legal essence was revealed, and an original interpretation of this criminal-legal category was formulated. Conclusions. By analyzing criminal legislation, theoretical concepts and court decisions, we come to the conclusion that provocation of a crime as a criminal-legal category has features characteristic of complicity in a crime. In this context, actions aimed at provoking a crime can be considered as incitement to a criminal act.

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Since at least as far back as the infamous Derek Bentley case of the 1950s in which an unarmed 19-year-old was convicted and executed for murder based on his alleged uttering of the words let him have it to his gun-wielding accomplice, the issue of incitement has been positioned firmly as an object of interest for forensic linguists. An example of a language crime—i.e. an unlawful speech act (as reported by Shuy in Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom, Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, 1993) the features of incitement—formalized as intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence in the law of England & Wales under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/contents)—have been widely debated by linguists and legal scholars alike. This paper draws on two webinars hosted by The Hunting Office in August 2020, which were subsequently leaked by the Hunt Saboteurs Association. Featuring senior figures from the hunting community addressing a nationwide audience of hunt masters, the webinars led to a police investigation and subsequent prosecution and conviction of one of the main speakers, Mark Hankinson, for encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence under the Hunting Act 2004. In this paper I explore what, linguistically, is meant by encouraging or assisting. Through corpus-assisted pragmatic and discourse analyses I interrogate the webinars to address the question of how precisely Hankinson implied his encouragement of illegal hunting with dogs. The phenomena of collocation and semantic prosody are crucial for understanding how such meanings came to be attached to the contributions Hankinson makes to the webinars. Moreover the paper will examine the contributions of other speakers and demonstrate that the same incriminating linguistic patterns in Hankinson's talk are also evident in that of those who were not prosecuted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pandectele Române is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background & Statement of the problem: This research aims to discern the thematic elements within Safi al-Din alHilli’s poem “Glory to He Who Takes Risks.” It delves into unravelling the introductory framework and its influence on the reader. Findings of the study highlight the impact of the stylistic structure on the compositional layers and rhythmic dimensions, elucidating how these elements contribute to the poet’s fervent and provocative intentions. Objectives: The research explored thematic techniques utilized by Safi al-Din al-Hilli in his poem. The study revealed how the compositional interplay of negation and imperative contributed to connotation of incitement. The investigation delved into the nuanced connotations of revenge against Mongols and the pride associated with the House of Artaq. Methods: Employing a stylistic analytical approach, this research illuminated the thematic intricacies of the poem, unveiling the stylistic features operating at structural and rhythmic dimensions. The study elucidated the interplay of stylistic elements within the realms of praise, revenge, and pride, highlighting their significance in the multifaceted expression of the poem. Results: Findings crystallized the stylistic layers employed by the poet in his composition. The study underscored the poet’s skill in utilizing a poetic linguistic structure that resonates rhythmically and semantically, effectively urging the righteous king to pursue vengeance. The poet’s ability to mobilize resolve and confront adversaries was manifest through this intricately harmonized stylistic approach. Conclusions (Recommendations and contributions): The researcher advocates for a meticulous exploration of the panegyric compositions by Safi al-Din al-Hilli and other poets from the Mamluk era, emphasizing the dearth of analytical studies on their works in this particular domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2016, as requested, the UK Government submitted written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry into hate crime and its consequences. Among all the offences listed as part of what was called a robust legal framework to combat online hate, there was one set of offences surprisingly missing. The stirring up hatred offences (ss. 18-23 and 29B-29G of the Public Order Act 1986), at least comparable to those envisaged in Article 510 of the Spanish Criminal Code (that is, punishable hate speech), were laid incomprehensibly out of play. Hence, this research study first aims to determine whether this decision is understandable. Then, we will focus on some legal hotspots concerning those offences to visualise better how they operate in practice. Finally, by way of conclusion, a comparative endeavour will be made with the Spanish legal system, bringing to the forefront the conflict points already dealt with. En 2016, tal y como le había sido requerido, el Gobierno del Reino Unido facilitó pruebas documentales a la investigación en curso sobre delitos de odio y sus consecuencias llevada a cabo por la Home Office Affairs Committee (comité multipartidista de parlamentarios que trata asuntos de estado). Entre todos los delitos enumerados como parte de lo que se denominó como un marco jurídico sólido para combatir el odio online, sorprendentemente faltaba un conjunto de delitos. Los delitos de fomento del odio (arts. 18-23 y 29B-29G de la Public Order Act 1986), cuando menos equiparables a los previstos en el artículo 510 del Código Penal español (es decir, el discurso de odio punible), quedaron incomprensiblemente fuera de foco. De ahí que el presente estudio de investigación pretenda, en primer lugar, comprobar si esta decisión es o no entendible. A continuación, nos centraremos en algunos aspectos legales conflictivos relativos a dichos delitos para visualizar mejor cómo operan en la práctica. Finalmente, a modo de conclusión, se realizará un esfuerzo comparativo con el ordenamiento jurídico español, poniendo sobre la mesa los puntos conflictivos ya tratados.

Copyright of Journal of Surra Man Raa is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Babylon Center for Humanities Studies is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Hate speech and incitement have been instrumental in atrocity crimes that have occurred in India, even prior to its independence. These atrocities include targeted killings of minorities based on religious and ethnic identity, and demonstrate persistent features of systematic, orchestrated violence that is fuelled by a Hindu nationalist ideology. This ideology is routinely promulgated at the highest levels of political leadership. This article traces both the historical and institutional character of hate speech and incitement in India to understand its repeated manifestation over time. Through case studies of recent violence, it considers the implications of new legal developments, technology and the COVID-19 pandemic on the character and dynamic of hate speech, incitement and atrocity violence in India. It considers key reforms and areas for accountability on which the international community could engage the government and civil society in India on the issue of hate speech and incitement to promote atrocity prevention at the domestic level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces the conceptual and analytical framework for this special issue on hate speech and atrocity prevention in Asia. It defines hate speech and incitement, and explains the process and context through which hate speech and incitement operates as a risk factor for atrocities. It also provides an explanation of the international legal framework regulating hate speech and incitement that informs the approach of the articles in this issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since independence, the politicisation of Islam in Pakistan has fostered a culture of atrocities against religious minorities. This explains why Pakistan tops the list of countries at the risk of mass killings. The Islamic revivalist movement that emerged under the military dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq during the 1970s-80s is often equated with Pakistan's descent into religious intolerance. The controversial blasphemy laws modified under his regime continue to abet atrocity crimes across Pakistan. This article reflects on the constitutional and legal frameworks to understand the prevalence of hate speech and incitement in the country. Through case studies of recent episodes of violence, it sheds light on the state's complex governance structures, its struggle to counter episodes that incite violence, and the barriers to implementing rule of law. Furthermore, the article highlights the need for key reforms on both national and international level to push for the implementation of atrocity prevention frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An implausible sentence begins the narrative of David's census in 2 Samuel 24.1–17. There is no information that indicates that David and Israel had made a fatal mistake, but God suddenly became angry with them. Moreover, consequences of God's wrath even included three days of plague for the people of Israel. In sum, God was the one who incited David to record the number of fighting men of Israel, but the Israelites grievously bore the divine punishment. This passage seems hard to understand. In fact, one of the possible solutions comes from Joab's response to David's order, which David should have anticipated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering the collective nature of international crimes, incitement to commit crimes plays an important role in encouraging people to align and accompany committing international crimes. For this reason, in international criminal law, incitement to commit an international crime has been specified under different titles, without providing a definition in the statutes of international criminal courts. In the statutes of international criminal courts, in addition to instigation to commit a crime, public and direct incitement to commit genocide in Article (p)(3) 4 of the Statute of the ICTY and Article (p)(3) 2 of the statute of the ICTR, Article 25(3) of the Statute of the ICC is specified in the same way as paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide in 1948. While in the incitement to genocide, it is mentioned that it must be public and direct, but in the instigation to commit the crime, there is no further description. Therefore, the distinction that can be seen in the statutes of international criminal courts is the distinction between instigation to commit an international crime and public and direct incitement to genocide. The question is, why have the statutes of international criminal courts criminalized direct and public incitement to genocide separately from instigation to commit international crimes? What is the difference between the elements of instigation to commit an international crime and incitement to genocide?MethodologyIn order to answer the above questions, this article with a descriptive analytical method and by examining international documents and international judicial procedure, firstly, scrutinizes the nature of public and direct incitement to genocide and its relationship with incitement to commit a crime, and then examines the necessary elements to prove the responsibility of public and direct incitement to genocide.Results and DiscussionAccording to Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg International Military Court, which Article 5 of the Tokyo Court Charter is exactly similar to it: “…The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) ' Crimes against peace: … (b) ' War crimes: … (c) ' Crimes against humanity… Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan”. Instigation to an international crime entered the international procedure as an international crime for the first time when the Nuremberg Court sentenced Julius Streicher in 1946. Although the term "incitement to genocide" was not yet recognized as such, and the defendant was charged with crimes against humanity, the charge was based on actions that would today be defined as incitement to genocide. In general, instigation is defined as one of the behaviors that lead to individual criminal responsibility in the Charter of the Nuremberg Military Court. This charter does not distinguish between different forms of incitement in different clauses, but in general, it states that the instigators in the formulation or implementation of a joint plan or conspiracy to commit any of the mentioned crimes for all acts committed by persons in the implementation of such a plan will be held responsible.According to ICTY Statute, Article 7(1): “A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall be individually responsible for the crime.” However, public and direct incitement to genocide is criminalized in Article (p)(3) 4 of the Statute of the ICTY and Article (p)(3) 2 of the Statute of the ICTR.Article (1) 6 of the Statute of the Special Court of Sierra Leone, which is similar to Articles 7 and 6 of the Statute of the ICTY and ICTR, prompted SCSL to declare in the case of Brima, Kamara and Kanu that the relationship between instigation and the crime committed must be proven, but it is not necessary to prove that the crime would not have occurred without the involvement of the accused to instigation. From the interpretation of the sentence "the relationship between instigation and the crime committed must be proved" it can be concluded that instigation is considered as one of the forms of secondary responsibility in the SCSL, which considers the occurrence of the result as one of the basic elements of the realization of the crime of instigation.On the other hand, referring to Article 3 of the Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide and Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Statute of the ICTY and Paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the Statute of the ICTR, in international criminal law, incitement to commit genocide regardless of whether it leads to a criminal outcome as an independent crime must be considered. There is also a difference between clauses B and E of Article 25(3) of the Statute of the ICC regarding inducement to commit an international crime and direct and public incitement to genocide.​ConclusionInstigation to commit international crimes and public and direct incitement to genocide have many similarities and are often disputed. However, they have distinct characteristics and should be distinguished accordingly. Instigation to commit international crimes is a form of participation in the crime of another person. Instigation to commit international crimes is not a crime in itself. While incitement to genocide is punishable even if genocide did not take place, direct and public incitement to genocide is addressed to the general society, which can ultimately cause an atmosphere of hatred and bipolarity in the society, and it is possible that anyone commits a crime following these public incitements. On the other hand, instigation to commit international crimes is an incitement addressed to a specific person. In order to prove the responsibility of the accused for this international crime of hate crimes (Public and Direct Incitement to Genocide), it is necessary that in addition to being public and direct, and the specific seriousness and specific mens rea required for genocide, the words of the speaker have the potential to lead to a genocide in the society. A capability that can be proven according to the time and place of the speech and the characteristics of the speaker and the audience.

In its judgment in Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission 2022 2 BCLR 129 (CC), the Constitutional Court declared section 10(1) of the Equality Act unconstitutional and invalid to the narrow extent that section 10(1)(a) refers to the intention to be "hurtful". The prohibition on hate speech passed constitutional muster in all other respects. In addition, the court purposively interpreted aspects of the application of section 10(1) so as to limit its impact on the right to freedom of expression. This contribution firstly welcomes the court's reliance on the transformative goals of the Constitution and the Equality Act as its primary framework in interpreting section 10(1). The severance of section 10(1)(a) and the conjunctive reading of sections 10(1)(b) and (c) ("be harmful or to incite harm" and ʺpromote or propagate hatred" respectively) also seem sensible considering the court's broad definition of "harm". The article further emphasises that the terms of section 10 call for a proper consideration of context. In this regard, the court rightly considered the extreme homophobia in the society addressed by Mr Qwelane, the particular vulnerability of the target group and the real threat of devastating imminent consequences to conclude that Qwelane's words were clearly intended to "incite harm" and "propagate hatred". Yet the court's view that the speaker's subjective intention is irrelevant in performing the requisite objective reasonableness assessment from the ambit of section 10(1) is arguably less judicious, as is the categorical exclusion of expression in private. Ultimately, the objective case-by-case reasonableness inquiry under section 10(1) should be whether a reasonable person in the speaker's position should have refrained from making the impugned harmful discriminatory utterances. This inquiry involves a determination of wrongfulness based on the constitutional duty not to discriminate unfairly. It invokes all the aspects of the Equality Act's definition of discrimination as well as all the elements of fairness analysis set out in section 14 of the Equality Act. Factors to be considered include the value of the particular expression, and the extent of the (potential) harm to individual members of a protected group and to society as a whole, as well as justification considerations such as the respondent's legitimate and bona fide exercise of the right to freedom of expression and to privacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Legal Studies / Studia Prawnicze is the property of Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Legal Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The practice of public parades involving marches has been used historically by political and civic actors as a tool of helping to accomplish recognition of particular agendas or, at the very least, suggest a peaceful proclamation of justice within a democratic framework. Over the past two decades, The pride parade and The flag parade are drawing the attention of radical stakeholders in Israel whilst taking place in Jerusalem—a religiously divided space. Based on EU official reports and data from news reports and social media publications between 2002 and 2022, this paper examines religious extremists' presence in the above parades, in parallel to the appearance of incitement, physical violence and vandalism. All as part of an ongoing Radicalisation process. In addition, it observes the establishment of The flower parade as a civic counter-response initiated by deradicalisation agents. The research reveals that under the values and rule of democracy, the mechanism of public parades can self-trigger a dynamic between participants and opposers, exploited by extreme collectives for violent purposes. It reflects upon a fundamental dispute between different interpretations of the connection between Judaism, nationality and family values in the light of the democratic framework. One is leading to religious-based exclusion agenda on the one hand, while the other is reacting with inclusion activities on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the ECtHR uses two conflicting tests to assess the same types of hate speech. This results in legal uncertainty at best, and arbitrariness and double standards at worst. To remedy the present situation, I propose a two-track strategy. To begin with, the Court should abandon its "bad tendency" approach, a test prone to abuse by governments to silence political dissent under the guise of fighting hate speech, for a set of uniform criteria to assess hate speech-restrictions, in line with its current incitement approach. In addition, however, to compensate for the loss of protection against severe forms of vilification which do not meet the incitement-criteria, the Court should formulate a new category of unprotected speech, to be defined as intentional intimidation or harassment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is concerned with the boundaries of freedom of expression on the Internet and, more specifically, with manifestations of terrorism on YouTube. The article opens with two definitions of terrorism. Section II discusses various responsibilities that businesses have: economic, legal, moral, social and discretionary. Section III addresses the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Unfortunately, not all companies adhere to the principles of Corporate Social Responsibility. Therefore, ethical standards should be anchored in appropriate laws and enforced by responsible governments. Section IV clarifies that incitement to violence is in the focus of attention. The philosophy of John Stuart Mill is instrumental in explaining the difference between advocacy (or preaching) and incitement (or instigation). Sections V and VI examine the influences of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-Muslim jihadi preacher, and of Anjem Choudary, the British-Muslim jihadi preacher, on their followers. The words of al-Awlaki and of Choudary instigated many of the terrorist activities that the West had seen in recent years. There are direct links between their incitement and extreme violent incidents. Both of them were able to spread their instigation to terror on platforms provided by Google and specifically its subsidiary YouTube. Finally, Section VII probes YouTube and CSR. It is argued that the Internet is international in character, but it cannot be abused to override law. There is not one law for people and another for the Internet. It is further argued that power without responsibility is dangerous and corrosive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donald Trump's hate-filled rhetoric while in office emphasizes long-existing shortcomings of free speech doctrine dealing with various forms of threatening speech. More so, because of his elected position during those speech moments, his speech elevates those concerns to a new level. His disregard for civil discourse has opened the door for a new speech behavior in national politics, one where inciteful, threatening or hateful speech is used more frequently and, as such, is becoming more socially acceptable. Each of those speech moments invokes claims of First Amendment protection. All of them were unimaginable topics 50 years ago and yet, from a legal perspective, all were or would be judged today using principles and legal doctrines crystalized in the 1950s and 1960s. Clearly, these are different times but what, if anything, does that mean for claims to free speech protections? This paper maintains that the answer to the problems inherent in current First Amendment treatment of hate-filled political speech involves two actions. First, the pre-existing doctrines of incitement and true threats need to be updated to make them applicable to current communication formats. Second, the courts must consider the addition of a constitutional category of hate speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes a discourse semantic and corpus linguistic approach, or language as evidence, to examining written terrorist threatening communication. Topics discussed are patterns of lexicogrammatical features that discursively mark the violent extremist style and identity of an author, affiliation strategies and tactics employed as discursive incitement tactics, and manifestation and function of the appraisal signature of a terrorist in terrorist threat texts.

Copyright of Jurist-Diction is the property of Universitas Airlangga and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The authors in this paper deal with special investigative actions in Baltic countries. Special investigative measures today represent one of the most important measures in the fight against serious criminal offences, but its improper use endangers fundamental human rights, especially the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial. The article is divided into three main parts. After the introductory remarks, the authors elaborate the Lithuanian criminal procedure legislation, which influenced development of the European Court of Human Rights's jurisprudence in the field of the undercover investigator. Latvian solutions are explained in the next part and its main characteristic are numerous special investigative measures. Finally, the authors explain Estonian legislation. The authors specifically consider and analyse the positions of the European Court of Human Rights through judgments rendered in this field. A wide range of special investigative actions indicates their diversity, but mostly the solutions of all three legal frameworks are in line with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights.

Hate speech can refer to any expressions that encourage incitement to cause harm in all forms of discrimination or aggression or the use of violence according to the target entity or person Through this research, the researcher seeks to reveal the extent of the reflection of hate speech in the Iraqi media on Iraqi society, and this research is classified among the descriptive studies, where the researcher used the survey method to answer the questions of the research problem represented by the main question: ethnic on audience The research community was represented by the Iraqi public, and the researcher resorted to choosing the available sample within the framework of non-probability samples, and the research sample was limited to (250) individual members of the Iraqi communit. The research reached several results, the most important of which are: 1- The satellite channels affiliated with political parties are the highest ranked among the media that spread hate speech. 2- The concept of hate speech among the respondents is represented in public slander and insults with the other as well as incitement against the other party in the media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Kufa Legal & Political Science is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The practice of public parades involving marches has been used historically by political and civic actors as a tool of helping to accomplish recognition of particular agendas or, at the very least, suggest a peaceful proclamation of justice within a democratic framework. Over the past two decades, The pride parade and The flag parade are drawing the attention of radical stakeholders in Israel whilst taking place in Jerusalem—a religiously divided space. Based on EU official reports and data from news reports and social media publications between 2002 and 2022, this paper examines religious extremists’ presence in the above parades, in parallel to the appearance of incitement, physical violence and vandalism. All as part of an ongoing Radicalisation process. In addition, it observes the establishment of The flower parade as a civic counter-response initiated by deradicalisation agents. The research reveals that under the values and rule of democracy, the mechanism of public parades can self-trigger a dynamic between participants and opposers, exploited by extreme collectives for violent purposes. It reflects upon a fundamental dispute between different interpretations of the connection between Judaism, nationality and family values in the light of the democratic framework. One is leading to religious-based exclusion agenda on the one hand, while the other is reacting with inclusion activities on the other.

Stochastic terrorism has been bandied about in recent public discourse. However, it has received little scholarly attention, particularly in understanding its mechanics and the deeper psychological context in which it might flourish. The history and phenomenology of the term are elaborated upon, and its psychological meaning is explored through the application of linguistic pragmatics, the psychoanalysis of large group regression--what we term "poliregression"--and terrorism risk assessment. The January 6 Capitol siege and other historical events are used as illustrations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Babylon Center for Humanities Studies is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Both impoliteness and hate speech deal with offensive behaviour, yet it is also obvious that they are not exactly the same. This paper aims to tease out the similarities and differences. The first part concentrates on theorising by impoliteness and hate speech scholars, and thus takes a second-order perspective. It discusses the notions of face (largely overlooked in studies of hate speech), incitement (largely overlooked in studies of impoliteness) and intentionality (and related concepts) (examined in both studies of impoliteness and hate speech, though often without explicit connections to the other field). The second part of the paper, taking more of a first-order perspective, concentrates on the metapragmatics of the labels impoliteness and hate speech , which are approached through the terms impolite and hateful. Hateful , in comparison with impolite is characterised by more extreme behaviours, the emotion of hurt, and associations of prejudice. This part of the paper also provides a demonstration of what one can do with corpus-methods. Overall, it is hoped that this paper will promote theoretical synergies, and also greater awareness of the labels that are used. • The first paper to compare and contrast impoliteness and hate speech. • Critically discusses the theoretical impact of the notions of face, incitement and intentionality. • Conducts a corpus-based analysis of the labels impolite and hateful , revealing first-order understandings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although research has considered how poor governance, exclusionary politics and electoral malpractice affect election violence, the effect of hate speech on election violence has not received adequate academic attention. Using a mixed methods approach with qualitative dominance, this study examines the effect of hate speech on election violence in Nigeria during the 2011, 2015 and 2019 presidential elections. The article demonstrates that an entrenched culture of hate speech is an oft-neglected major driver of election violence in Nigeria. The study concludes that the implementation of existing anti-hate speech laws presents an opportunity for protecting the rights of minority groups, promoting political inclusion and preventing election violence in Nigeria and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a reply to a critique by Botha and Govindjee (2017 PELJ 1-32) of our interpretation of the hate speech provisions of the Equality Act (Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000) in Marais and Pretorius (2015 PELJ 901-942), in which we considered the constitutionality of section 10(1) of the Act, amongst other things. We address Botha and Govindjees' rejection of our view that hate speech is a form of unfair discrimination and that the most appropriate constitutional framework within which section 10(1) should be interpreted and assessed is sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution. We consider Botha and Govindjees' rejection of this point of departure, their opposing different interpretation of the role of the proviso in section 12 of the Act and, generally, their reasons for concluding that section 10(1) is unconstitutional. We maintain that Botha and Govindjee's proposals for reform unduly restrict the hate speech prohibition to cover exclusively expression that warrants criminalisation. In doing so, they fail to fully acknowledge the transformative obligation in terms of international law, the Constitution and the Equality Act, to prohibit and prevent unfair discrimination.

In criminal law, various terms are used that describe the same phenomenon - involvement in a crime (socially dangerous actions). Depending on the object, institutional affiliation and the criminal law context, criminal involvement may have different criminal law meaning. The paper provides a legal assessment of criminal involvement, which, regardless of its normative description, has a single legal nature, and provides recommendations on qualifications. It is noted that the approaches used by the legislator to criminalize involvement do not exclude the possibility of complicity in crimes committed by involvement. Regulatory differences in the description of engagement actions predetermine the non-uniform understanding of the content of executive actions and the moment of legal completion of crimes. It is substantiated that the understanding of the meaning of the criminal law, the content of the act in which is expressed in the form of involvement, should be carried out taking into account the rules of grammatical and logical interpretation, as well as take into account the criminal political tasks. of engagement actions predetermine the non-uniform understanding of the content of executive actions and the moment of legal completion of crimes. It is substantiated that the understanding of the meaning of the criminal law, the content of the act in which is expressed in the form of involvement, should be carried out taking into account the rules of grammatical and logical interpretation, as well as take into account the criminal political tasks.

In November 2019 the Supreme Court of Appeal in Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission ruled that section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act) 4 of 2000, otherwise known as the "hate speech" prohibition, was unconstitutional. The court said it was vague, overbroad and therefore unjustifiably infringing the right to freedom of expression. This contribution argues that every person's duty to respect others is central to the hate speech prohibition, and should therefore also be a central consideration in its interpretation. Related duties are those of the state to enact legislation and of courts to interpret and apply the law to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. References to relevant case law in various legal contexts provide the framework within which legal duties are examined in the context of unfair discrimination and, in particular, hate speech in terms of section 10(1) of the Equality Act. The constitutional obligations of the state, the courts and private persons to promote respect for the dignity of others are examined. The state's specific obligation in terms of section 9(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 to enact legislation to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination on the grounds listed in section 9(3) is reiterated. Finally, these duties are related to the section 10(1) prohibition in the Equality Act. Refuting the Supreme Court of Appeal's ruling in Qwelane, the reasonableness standard is applied to conclude that the prohibition gives due effect to the duties of the state and every person, and that the courts are duty-bound to interpret it accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]