HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION

Natia Gvelesiani

HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION

Öz

Hate speech is a highly topical and a controversial legal phenomenon. The paper outlines the definition of hate speech and its constituent elements, propounds the threshold test in order to gauge the magnitude and latitude of relevant forms of expression, identifies root causes and effects of hate speech uttered by members of parliament and conditions conducive to the creation of intolerance in the light of Georgia’s context. It finds the key how to strike a fair balance between the wide freedom of expression of members of parliament and freedom from hate speech and shows in which direction should or should not be oriented vectors of the freedom of expression of members of parliament. As a result, the concrete recommendations are designed to give impetus, inter alia, to the Parliament of Georgia to elaborate an effective regulatory legal mechanism dealing with the elimination of all scourges of hate speech from the “public dictionary” of members of parliament.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Hate Speech,Parliamentary Immunity,Freedom of Expression,Intolerance

Kaynakça

1. Report by Nils Muiznieks, Commissioner for human Rights of the Council of Europe following his visit to Georgia from 20 to 25 January 2014;
2. Georgia in Transition, Report on the human rights dimension: background, steps taken and remaining challenges, Assessment and recommendations by Thomas Hammarberg in his capacity as EU Special Adviser on Constitutional and Legal Reform and Human Rights in Georgia;
3. ECRI General Policy Recommendation no.15 on Combating Hate Speech, Strasbourg, 2016;
4. Wojcik Anna, Polish Exceptionalism: Hate Speech Laws between Supra-national Standards and National Politics, submitted to Central European University, in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts, Hungary, 2016;
5.International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted and opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965;
6.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966;
7. The Council of the European Union, framework decision 2008/913/JHA of 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law;
8. -The Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality;

9.General recommendation No. 35 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 2013;
10. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/67/357, 2012;
11. Hate Crime and Hate Speech in Europe: Comprehensive Analysis of International Law Principles, EU-wide Study and National Assessments produced within the framework of the project "PRISM”;
12. UN General Comment no. 34 concerning Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, 2011;
13. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred, 2013;
14. General comment No. 34 of the Human Rights Committee, 2011;
15. The Constitution of Georgia;
16. ECRI General Policy Recommendation no.15 on Combating Hate Speech, Strasbourg, 2016;
17. Report CDL-AD (2014)011 on the Scope and Lifting of Parliamentary Immunity, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 98th Plenary Session, Strasbourg, 2014;
18. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Parliamentary Immunity in a European Context, 2015;
19. Handbook on the Incompatibilities and Immunity of the Members of the European Parliament;
20. Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, 8th parliamentary term, January, 2017;
21. The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, 8th parliamentary term, January 2017, July 2018
22. EU-Georgia Visa Dialogue, Action Plan on Visa Liberalisation;
23. National Strategy for the Protection of Human Rights in Georgia 2014-2020;
24. Law of Georgia on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination;
25. Law of Georgia on International Treaties of Georgia;
26. ECRI Report on Georgia (fifth monitoring cycle), published on 1 March 2016;
27. Concluding observations on the sixth to eighth periodic reports of Georgia adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 2016;
28. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, 2001;
29. Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 March 2010 at the 1081st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies;
30. The report of the public defender of Georgia on the situation of protection of human rights and freedoms in Georgia, short version, 2016;
31. The annual report of the Public Defender of Georgia on the situation of human rights and freedoms in Georgia, 2014;
32. Special Report on Combating and Preventing Discrimination and the Situation of Equality, issued by the Public Defender of Georgia, 2016;
33. Monitoring Hate Speech and Discrimination in Georgian Media issued by Media Development Foundation (MDF), 2013;
34. Hate Speech and Xenophobia, Media Monitoring Report, issued by Media Development Foundation (MDF), 2014-2015;
35. Hate Speech, issued by Media Development Foundation (MDF), 2016;
36. Recommendation No. R (97) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on “hate speech” Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 October 1997 at the 607th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies;
37. McGonagle Tarlach, The Council of Europe against online hate speech: Conundrums and challenges, expert paper.
The case-law of the ECtHR
Eweida and others v. United Kingdom, no 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10, 36516/10, 15/01/2013;
Perinçek v. Switzerland, no. 27510/08, A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, 17 December 2002,
Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, Castells v. Spain, no. 11798/5, Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, Le Pen v. France no. 18788/09, Cordova v. Italy no. 40877/98, 2003.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Natia Gvelesiani ^* Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi

25 Aralık 2018

Gönderilme Tarihi

4 Eylül 2019

Kabul Tarihi

-

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2018 Sayı: 1

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA64AU78DC

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Gvelesiani, N. (2018). HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION. Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu Akademik Dergisi, 1, 119-145. https://izlik.org/JA64AU78DC

AMA

1.Gvelesiani N. HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION. TİHEK Akademik Dergisi. 2018;(1):119-145. https://izlik.org/JA64AU78DC

Chicago

Gvelesiani, Natia. 2018. “HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION”. Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu Akademik Dergisi, sy 1: 119-45. https://izlik.org/JA64AU78DC.

EndNote

Gvelesiani N (01 Aralık 2018) HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION. Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu Akademik Dergisi 1 119–145.

IEEE

[1]N. Gvelesiani, “HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION”, TİHEK Akademik Dergisi, sy 1, ss. 119–145, Ara. 2018, [çevrimiçi]. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA64AU78DC

ISNAD

Gvelesiani, Natia. “HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION”. Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu Akademik Dergisi. 1 (01 Aralık 2018): 119-145. https://izlik.org/JA64AU78DC.

JAMA

1.Gvelesiani N. HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION. TİHEK Akademik Dergisi. 2018;:119–145.

MLA

Gvelesiani, Natia. “HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION”. Türkiye İnsan Hakları ve Eşitlik Kurumu Akademik Dergisi, sy 1, Aralık 2018, ss. 119-45, https://izlik.org/JA64AU78DC.

Vancouver

1.Natia Gvelesiani. HATE SPEECH EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT: THE DILEMMA AND KEY FOR ITS RESOLUTION. TİHEK Akademik Dergisi [Internet]. 01 Aralık 2018;(1):119-45. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA64AU78DC