Increasing attacks on perceived ODM rivals in the run up to the Kibra by-election raised concerns about inflammatory content on the Internet. Such hate incidents perpetuated by online users could intensify discord and threaten peace.
Cyber-hate is a growing problem and while there are laws in place that can be used to curb it, in practice online offences are difficult to handle. Bakalis Chara, in an article published in 2018 in the Journal of Information & Communications Technology Law, argues that “the law is fragmented, and does not capture the true nature of Internet hate, or provide adequate protection to victims”.
Is this what motivates online users to increasingly attack the ‘other’ whom they believe do not agree with their views?
In Kenya, The Computer Misuse and Cyber crimes Act 2018, The Kenya Information and Communication Act 2013 and The National Cohesion and Integration Act 2008, among other laws, attempt to deter online hate, attacks and misinformation.
For example, The Computer Misuse and Cyber crimes Act 2018 imposes penalties of up to 10 years in prison for anyone publishing “false” or “fictitious” information and propagating hate speech that is likely to discredit the reputation of a person.
Incidents of hate are seen nearly everyday in every country. As witnessed in the Kibra by-election campaign, many social media users retweeted or reposted posts that had been shared hours or days earlier. It is through these social media platforms that people get the opportunity to publicize their acts.
Scholars have observed how social media posts and other online speech or comments can spark acts of violence. Karsten Muller and Carlo Schwarz in an article, “Fanning flames of hate: social media and hate crime, 2018”, report that social media “act as a propagation mechanism between online hate speech and real-life violent crime.”
In United States, the killer of Charlston Church where nine people lost their lives in 2015 had engaged in self-learning using and online platform while shooter at Pittsburgh Synagogue in 2018 had participated in a social media network chat.
It is clear from the above cases that social media platforms have widespread effects on users. It is the duty of authorities to monitor these platforms and take action. Users’ experiences online are mediated or reinforced by continued increase in the number of new followers.
On November 3, Twitter users who seemed to support ODM ran an online campaign using the hashtag #OperationToaKunguni. For the third week, the same twitter users have been generating and running hate campaigns. In one of the tweets under the hashtag, one user targeted public transport companies plying the Nairobi-Mombasa route.
Lucky Jejo Jethros-GGA #RCN wrote that, “How about the other hubs of bedbugs that are spread in every part of the country? Who will annihilate them?” The author was calling for attacks on an unidentified group.
Based on our knowledge of similar messages perpetuated by the media in Rwanda in the 1994 genocide, where ‘cockroaches’ was used to refer to a hated group, the online hate speech in Kibra by-election is worrying.
Hate speech constitutes expression of hostility directed at individuals or social groups based on their perceived group membership and can refer to race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.
What is going in Kibra by-election is hate speech. Online users, some using pseudonyms, continue to generate hashtags to target or create ‘enemies’ among residents of the constituency. This could lead to violence among communities or between supporters of rival candidates.
We recommend sustained efforts to combat online hate before 2022 election that is expected to be hotly contested. Most regulation has concentrated on mainstream media, which have internal mechanism of creating awareness among their journalists. But urgent attention should shift to online hate as illustrated in the Kibra by-election campaigns.
