cultural backgrounds could be considered without turning one into a dominant recipe.
7.4 Avoiding Hate Speech: Ahimsa in Communication Ethics
Anti-violence ethics or ahimsa as practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and a lot of other figures is an essential norm in a world inhabited by
communities of various culture and religion. People who possess passive indifferent open attitude have already considered the importance of the
attitude which Richard Rorty calls non-cruelty Rorty, 1989; Nugroho, 2003. The importance is in not disturbing others, particularly others
meaning those originating from different religious or cultural backgrounds.
This practice of non-violence is in accordance to the principle of non-maleficence do no harm in ethics: do not hurt each other, do not
disturb each other, do not offend each other’s feelings, do not humiliate others, do not dishonour others. We are kept busy by our own
businesses, but we do not disturb each other, so that we can live side by side in peace and harmony in one world. The essence of the word
tolerance in a multicultural world is a situation free from conducting acts of disturbance and free from insinuating such acts.
An active open attitude will consider these norms of non-violence or spirit of tolerance as the minimum norms in a world inhabited by
multicultural communities. However, tolerance alone will not suffice. An active open attitude realizes the need of at least two other norms,
namely the obligation to conduct linguistic hospitality and the obligation to work together, collaborate, in fostering a better, fairer, more
sustainable life together. In the practice of communication, keeping the existence of hate
speech at bay as far as possible is imperative in order to execute norms of non-violence. Hate speech is communication with no other intent than
an expression of hate towards other groups, particularly in situations where such messages could trigger violent actions. Hate speeches would
ignite hatred of other parties who possess different backgrounds to their purveyors, specifically in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, territory,
gender, religion, sexual orientation, and others uslegal.com, 1
st
November, 2012, 06:35. Hate speeches could originate from anywhere, either the majority or the minority, either the party discriminated upon
or the discriminating party, either the impoverished or the well-to-do, either the less educated or the highly educated, either the opposition
party or the party in power. In communication ethics, what is categorized as hate speech is
generally considered unethical. Hate speeches are considered to be one of the forms of symbolic violence through language driven by intent to
annihilate the “others”. In Rita Kirk Whillock’s term, hate speeches are “rhetorical annihilation” of the “others”. It is “rhetorical” due to it being
a series of words, and “annihilation” due to the essence of the message in annihilating or obliterating the “others” Whillock, 2000. In the
words of Erich Fromm, hate speech manifests necrophilia tendency or “interests towards deathcorpses”, because hate speech essentially kills
the opponent and kills oneself in the process. It kills the opponent because it does not respect and listen to the opposing interlocutor. It also
kills oneself because it causes oneself to become closed-minded, unchanged, and devoid of process.
In a face to face communication with audiences originating from the same background, hate speeches would ignite the spirit and awoken a
strong feeling of unity due to the rise in the level of emotion towards a “common enemy”. The scope of influence that hate speeches have
through such face to face communication is indeed limited, however, it must be remembered that, firstly, the audiences would be compelled to
conduct violence towards the “common enemy” which became the target of the hate speech, and secondly, the audiences could spread the
