The criminal confrontation for crimes of discrimination and hate speech: a comparative study

Also, Article 10 stipulates, "shall be sentenced to temporary imprisonment, any person who misuses religion to call individuals or groups as infidels either by statement, writings, or any other means. The sentence shall be the death penalty if the call of infidelity was associated with death and where the murder crime was committed as a result of that."

Article 9 and Article 10 clearly delineate the following points:

1. Enhanced penalties for public officers and religious figures: The law specifies harsher penalties for hate crimes committed by public officers or religious figures. This underscores the heightened responsibility of these individuals in society, recognising that their actions can have a more significant impact due to their positions of trust and authority.

2. Misuse of religion for discrimination: The article criminalises the misuse of religion for labelling individuals or groups as infidels. This provision aims to prevent religious figures from abusing their influence to incite hatred or discrimination.

3. Severe penalties for grave consequences: The law imposes the most severe penalty - the death penalty - in cases where such labelling leads to murder. This reflects the seriousness with which the UAE regards the incitement of violence, especially when it is cloaked in religious rhetoric.

Article 13 of the Law of Combating Discrimination, Hatred, and Extremism states, "shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not less than (10) years any person, who establishes, sets up, organises or manages an association, centre, entity, organisation, league or group or any branch thereof, or uses any other means with the purpose of offending religions, or encouraging the incitement of hate speech and discrimination."

Article 13 is considered a decisive measure to prevent the establishment and operation of organisations that aim to incite hatred and religious discrimination.

Article 14 states, "Any person who joins, participates in or assists any of the parties referred to in the previous article, while knowing its objectives, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding (7) years."

Article 15 states, "Any person who holds or organises a conference or a meeting in the State with the intention of offending religions, or provoking discrimination or hate speech shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not less than (5) years, and any person, who participates in the conference or the meeting, while knowing its objectives, shall be sentenced to the same punishment. The public authority has the right to stop the conference or the meeting with the use of force if necessary."

Article 15 specifically targets the organisation of events such as conferences or meetings that aim to incite religious insult, discrimination or hate speech. It imposes a minimum prison sentence of five years, not only for organisers but also for participants who realise the objectives of the event, with an emphasis on individual responsibility. The law enables public authorities to stop such conferences or meetings, using force if necessary, demonstrating the government's commitment to effectively preventing hate speech and maintaining public order. Essentially, the offender of the crime bears criminal responsibility and receives the due penalty for that crime, and his act entails a criminal responsibility attached to the legal person. Therefore, if one of the employees of a company engages in behaviour constituting the crime of discrimination stipulated in Article 6 of the Law of Combating Discrimination and Hatred - such as firing an employee who belongs to a particular religious group - criminal responsibility for the crime is not limited to the offender but rather extends to include the representative, manager or agent of the legal person if it is proven that they are aware of that act. This, indeed, represents an extension in the framework of penal responsibility and punishment and a departure from the principle of personal penal liability.

Article 17 states that "the representative, director or agent of a legal entity- in case any of the crimes set forth in the present decree-law is committed, with his knowledge, by any employee acting in his name or to his interest- shall be sentenced to the same penalties prescribed for the committed crime. The legal person shall be held jointly liable to settle any pecuniary penalties or compensation as ruled."

Article 22 states that "any offender of any of the crimes set forth in the present decree law, who reports the judicial or administrative authorities before the discovery of such crime shall be exempted from penalty. In case such reporting is carried out after the discovery of such crime, the court may decide to exempt such offender from the punishment when the report has resulted in the detention of other offenders. Also, discrimination may not apply regarding any advantage or benefit conferred upon women, children, disabled individuals, elderly or others."

Upon analysing the first part of Article 22, it becomes clear that several conditions must be met to avail oneself of the exempting excuse provided in the Law of Combating Discrimination and Hate Speech. Manal Marwan Monjid, `Legislative Policy in Confronting Discrimination and Hate Crimes in Federal Law: Analytical Study' (2019) 43(3) Law Journal 297 Once such a condition involves reporting a crime as delineated in the law, wherein the reporter must be one of the offenders. Notably, the legislator did not specify the nature of the reporting party - whether they are an original partner or a subordinate - nor did they specify whether the reporting should be to judicial or administrative authorities. However, the disclosed information should be effective and enable the administrative or judicial authorities to uncover the crime. Additionally, the legislator specified a certain time when the person is exempted from penalty if they report the criminal activity before uncovering it by the authorised agencies. For example, if a group of people organises a meeting with the purpose of provoking hate speech, but one member withdraws and informs the authorised agencies, that reporting member is exempted from penalty since they facilitated the uncovering of the crime.

In the second part, Article 19 grants the court the right to exempt the offender from penalty if they reported the crime after its occurrence, where such a reporting contributed to arresting the other offenders. In this case, we propose that the legislator should consider imposing a penalty on the reporting offender instead of a complete exemption, with the final decision resting on the court's discretion.

emirati legal discrimination speech crime

Results and conclusions

The crimes of disseminating and promoting discrimination and hate speech are composite crimes which aim to provoke more violence and discrimination. They necessitate the offender to have a specific intention and willingness to provoke and incite discrimination and hate speech while being well-informed about the outcomes of their speech in terms of fostering hatred and discrimination.

In the Law of Combating Discrimination, Hatred, and Extremism in the UAE, the legislator has imposed sanctions for committing the crime of provoking hate speech but has not addressed hate crimes in a broader sense. Therefore, we suggest the necessity of imposing sanctions against crimes independently, particularly in cases where the motive is rooted in envy and hate.

The study recommends an addition to Article 1 of the Law of Combating Discrimination, Hatred, and Extremism in the UAE, suggesting the inclusion of the following text: "a discrimination that could underestimate or restrict the basic freedom and rights of people." The finalised context could read as follows: "Discrimination: any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference that is based on race, colour, descent, religion, nationality or ethnic origin, or any other reasons with the purpose or effect of impairing the enjoyment of equal human rights and freedom, either in the political, economic, social or cultural domains, or any other public life domains."

The legislator should reconsider Article 10 of the Law of Combating Discrimination, Hatred, and Extremism in the UAE. The phrase "(to achieve special interests or illegitimate affairs)" should potentially be omitted and instead rely on the presence of general criminal intention. This is because blasphemy is considered a dangerous threat to the community and should be combated to maintain social security. As for Article 16 of the Law of Combating Discrimination, Hatred, and Extremism in the UAE, the legislator should consider imposing harsher penalties on offenders who receive financial support from a foreign party due to the potential risk this poses to the State's security.

References

1. Adil K.M., `The Crime of Racial Discrimination in Algerian Law' (master's thesis, Mohammad Kheidar University 2015).

2. Al-Arabi D., `The Privacy of Judicial Control Procedures for Discrimination Crimes and Hate Speech According to Law 2005' (2021) 6(2) Journal of Human Rights and Public Liberties 211.

3. Al-Haja W., `Hate Speech between Freedom of Expression and Criminalization: A Study in Light of the Provisions of International Law' (2020) 4(1) International Journal of Legal and Policy Research 67.

4. Al-Jubouri M.D.S., `Racial Discrimination from the Perspective of Criminal Law: Comparative Analytical Study' (2018) 2(3/1) Tikrit University Journal of Law 350.

5. Al-Majali N.T., An Explanation of the Penal Code: General Section (Dar Al-Thaqafa Publishing and Distribution Library 1998).

6. Al-Maraghi A.A., `The Role of Criminal Law in Protecting Freedom of Religion' (Respect for Religions and Freedom of Expression of Opinion: annual scientific conference, May 3-4, 2015, Faculty of Law, Helwan University).

7. Al-Mudhakhi H.R.M., Information Crimes: A Comparative Study (Halabi Human Rights Publications 2014).

8. Badr Y.A., Contempt of Religions between Freedom, Protection and Responsibility (House of Thought and Law 2017).

9. De Witte F., `EU Law and the Question of Justice'(doctoral thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science 2012).

10. Hammouda A.M.A., Explaining the General Provisions of the UAE Federal Penal Code: General Section (Dubai Police Academy 2014).

11. Housni M.N., An Explanation of the Penal Code: General Section (Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya 2019).

12. Monjid M.M., `Legislative Policy in Confronting Discrimination and Hate Crimes in Federal Law: Analytical Study' (2019) 43(3) Law Journal 271,

13. Uviller H.R., `Making it Worse: “Hate” as an Aggravating Factor in Criminal Conduct' (2000) 23 (4) Ethnic and Racial Studies 761,

14. Zahra W.H., “I Hate You...”: Hate Speech and Sectarianism in the Arab Spring Media (Center for the Protection and Freedom of Journalists 2014).

15. Zakaria A.A., `The New Legal Mechanisms to Refute Hatred and Discrimination and Its Contemporize Applications' (2017) Spec (2/1) Kuwait International Law School Journal 533.

Размещено на Allbest.ru