Discussion of Kurdish history and relations with neighbouring communities sometimes turns into judgments about social-media posts and accounts. Defending people’s dignity is more credible when claims are clear, evidence can be examined and the limits of knowledge are explicit. Rather than examining an accusation against a particular person, this article proposes an approach to reading and criticising online material responsibly.
How should hate speech be identified?
The United Nations’ operational definition considers attacks or derogatory and discriminatory language against people or groups based on characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, nationality and other identity factors within the framework of hate speech. The same explanation notes that international human rights law has no single universal definition of the term. Applying that label in an article does not, by itself, amount to a judicial finding against a speaker. The United Nations definition and explanation.
The United Nations’ explanation of the Rabat threshold test sets out six factors for assessing incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence: social and political context, the speaker’s position, intent, content and form, extent of dissemination, and likelihood of harm. Examining a sentence without these factors gives an incomplete picture. The United Nations in Indonesia on the Rabat threshold test.
From a screenshot to assessable evidence
The Berkeley Protocol, a joint guide by the United Nations Human Rights Office and the University of California, Berkeley’s Human Rights Center, concerns investigations of violations of human rights and international law. Its verification section considers the source, the digital file and its content together. It also stresses that public availability does not eliminate privacy concerns: combining scattered pieces of data can make people identifiable. The Berkeley Protocol: Principles, privacy and verification.
Our editorial application of these principles: Before publishing a claim, record the link, observation time, surrounding text and image provenance. Establish whether the evidence is an original post, a repost or a quotation. If the account holder or a sentence’s meaning is unverified, make that uncertainty visible. Material translated from another language should be assessed with explanations of relevant expressions and an opportunity to examine the original. An ambiguous translation should not underpin a definite accusation.
Clear criticism without exposing private lives
Our editorial position is that criticism should address documented statements or conduct, with no more certainty than the evidence permits. Home addresses, workplaces, telephone numbers or family details usually add nothing to understanding discriminatory language. Encouraging readers to contact, confront or pressure relatives does not replace examining evidence. Where an image is necessary to explain the discussion, irrelevant information and personal identifiers can be obscured.
The same care is needed with collective identity. Even if a message’s authorship and harmful content are confirmed, the evidence concerns that case. It cannot establish the beliefs or responsibility of all Assyrians, Kurds, Christians, Muslims or any other community. The right to criticise political views is compatible with respect for human equality.
Corrections are part of credibility
We propose that reports distinguish the allegation, evidence, any response and limits of the investigation. If new evidence changes the conclusion, the correction should be clear and accessible. Documentation should enable informed judgment. Precise language, privacy protection and avoiding generalisations about a people serve that purpose.
Editorial note: This is a thematic editorial rewrite based on the sources above. Allegations, images and personal identifying information from the previous version have not been republished.