By M.K. George
Rome, September 21, 2026: Recently, Archbishop Christophe Zakhia El-Kassis, the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations, while speaking to the United Nations in New York, said, “Hate speech poisons public discourse, inflames division, and too often prepares the ground for violence and persecution.”
Hate speech has become so normalised that we often fail even to recognise it. It becomes a kind of default mode when someone is provoked—or wants to provoke others. Hate speech is so ubiquitous that an ordinary man or woman may begin to think that it is normal.
We need to begin at the beginning: What is hate speech? How is it manifested? What are its effects? And how do we replace hate speech with human dialogue?
What is hate speech?
It generally refers to communication that attacks, demeans, threatens, or expresses hostility towards a person or group because of a protected or identity-related characteristic, such as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sex, sexual orientation or disability.
We should keep in mind that there is no single universally accepted legal definition of hate speech. Different countries, laws, platforms and institutions may interpret it differently.
But there are certain characteristics that help us practically identify hate speech.
Hate speech targets a specific group or individual because of their identity—for instance, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender or sexual orientation. When a particular religious group is repeatedly targeted with negative attributions, it can become hate speech.
When degrading or dehumanising language is used, portraying a group as inferior, dirty, dangerous, subhuman or undeserving of rights, we are clearly entering the territory of hate speech.
Language that encourages contempt, exclusion or hostility towards a group is another warning sign. So are negative stereotypes and sweeping generalisations about an entire community.
When there is a call for discrimination or exclusion, the danger becomes even more obvious. For instance, asking people to avoid shops or businesses run by a particular community is an expression of exclusion that can contribute to a climate of hatred.
One should also remember that hate speech can be explicit or indirect. It can operate through insinuations, coded language and repeated stereotypes. What begins as words can create an environment in which discrimination and even violence become easier to justify.
How can hate speech be recognised?
A useful way to analyse a statement is to ask a few simple questions: Who is being targeted? What characteristic of the group is being referred to? What is the speaker saying about the group?
Is there a call to action—specifically exclusion, discrimination, harassment or violence? Is there a negative generalisation, such as “all members of X group are…”?
However, context matters. Not every harsh or offensive statement is necessarily hate speech. The key considerations are the target, the identity characteristic involved, the content of the expression and its context.
Reality check: Indian context
Raqib Hameed Naik, Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Organized Hate, commenting on the India Hate Lab’s 2024 findings, said, “It is no longer just an instrument of communal polarization but, shockingly, a standard feature of Indian political culture and electoral campaigns, institutional structures, and social fabric.”
The India Hate Lab systematically documents verified, in-person hate-speech events targeting religious minorities. Its 2025 report records 1,318 such events, an increase from 668 in 2023—amounting to approximately four documented events every day.
Obviously, hate speech is not just an Indian phenomenon, as the Archbishop’s remark makes clear. What should move us, however, is the warning contained in his words: ‘hate speech too often prepares the ground for violence and persecution.’
Work we must begin
There is, therefore, an urgent need to educate people about what hate speech is, how to identify it, and how to understand its impact. More importantly, we need to create a movement to counter hate speech with human dialogue.
The Archbishop rightly reminds us, quoting Magnifica Humanitas: “The first contribution we can make toward a more humane civilization is to be mindful of our words.”
Words have great power. They can wound, divide and dehumanise. But they can also heal, reconcile and build bridges.
The first step towards weaving “the fabric of social peace” and fostering “a culture of dialogue, tolerance and respect for differences” may therefore be very simple: disarm our words.
Indian Jesuit Father George Mutholil, based in Rome, serves as the Society of Jesus’ General Counsellor and Regional Assistant for South Asia. He advises on matters specific to this region while also supporting the Superior General on broader issues of governance.
A very thought-provoking and timely article on hate speech and its ramifications by Indian Jesuit priest George Mutholil, based in Rome. The specific intent of hate speeches/messages is to cause ‘polarization’ among targeted population and to incite violence through their wide circulation on social media.
However, I totally disagree with Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Organized Hate Raqib Hameed Naik’s observation that “hate speech has become a standard feature of Indian political culture and electoral campaigns, institutional structures, and social fabric.” Mr Naik has overlooked that hate speech has been universalized by politicians, surprisingly by the world’s top presidents/prime ministers, with the sole intent to get political mileages at the cost of the gullible electorate which unfortunately plays into their hands. Donald Trump has frequently faced widespread criticism and official condemnation for using inflammatory, derogatory, and dehumanizing language. In March 2026, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) stated that “racist hate speech” by Donald Trump and other political figures, paired with strict immigration crackdowns, led to severe human rights violations. In his authoritarian rhetoric, he has repeatedly described undocumented immigrants using terms like “vermin” and claiming they are “poisoning the blood of our country.” He has a long-documented history of targeting public figures, journalists, and women with denigrating commentary regarding their appearance or intelligence. Scholars and watchdogs argue that aggressive verbal attacks on marginalized groups, political opponents, and journalists normalize divisive behavior and raise the potential for political and social hostility.
I hope Mr Naik has watched on the YouTube hate speeches by Bangladesh’s Mufti Muhammad Jasimuddin Rahmani , the chief of the banned Al-Qaeda-inspired militant outfit Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT). He was arrested during Sheikh Hasina’s administration but has since August 2024 been released from prison. While on a translation/transcription assignment (from Bengali to English) for a US Language Service organisation, I along with a few team members, did assignments on identifying and highlighting hate speeches/violence instigating speeches, one of them being Jasimuddin Rahmani’s vitriolic speeches on not to give up on Jihad which he considers an indispensable feature of Islam.
Yes, there is a dire need to educate people on hate speech, how to identify it, and its impact. During a seminar a few years ago at St Xavier’s College auditorium, Rajya Sabha MP Derek O’Brien observed that Christians often fall prey to hate messages and circulate them like wildfire over the WhatsApp university. He said by doing so they are easily identified for future attacks. He advised that before circulation, one must do a fact-check about the authenticity of hate messages.