Most Bulgarians disapprove hate speech although it seems to be widespread in this country, reveals a survey of the Open Society Institute on the public attitudes towards the phenomenon in 2014. Nearly half of Bulgarians have heard words of disapproval, hatred or aggression towards minority groups and for each fourth Bulgarian these words can lead to violence against them. As in 2013, most affected are the Roma, Turks and gay groups. But also Muslims and foreigners because of the influx of immigrants and refugees as a consequence of the conflict in Syria and the Middle East. Most often the language of hatred is spread in the public domain by politicians and journalists through television.

Freedom of expression can be exercised only if it does not interfere with other people’s effectively exercising their freedom, states the Charter of Human Rights, as recalls in an interview for Radio Bulgaria Ivanka Ivanova - head of the Law Program and author of the survey. In her words, "forms of speech that promote discrimination may be prohibited and their restriction is not an attack on the freedom of speech."

What is the trend, which are the criminogenic factors motivating hate speech, and what should be done against it? Commentary from Ivanka Ivanova:

"It is still early to highlight trends as we need at least a few more surveys. After the second survey we can now only say which attitudes are variable and which rigid. Among the most important findings confirmed for 2014 as well is that there is strong public disapproval of the public use of hate speech in Bulgaria. And we've reached a time when it should be transformed into public policies. So that each institution in the system of education, healthcare, and justice might assume responsibility and apply a common plan to limit hate speech because it creates an environment where the unequal treatment of people and aggression towards members of minority groups are accepted as the normal and due conduct. And we can clearly see that most citizens do not approve of such an attitude."

The survey says little about why people use the language of hatred, but we will deepen the study in this direction, Ivanova says:

"A major problem is the state of education. We talk little about human rights, the distinction between a publicly acceptable rhetoric and a rhetoric that generates discrimination and aggression. This is one of the measures aimed at curbing hate speech in a future state strategy. The state of the education system is one of the criminogenic factors giving rise to hate speech. An additional factor is that some radical acts of hostility speech are left unpunished. The reaction needs not always to be a punishment, but there are cases that can be classified as a hate crime under the Penal Code, yet prosecutors do not initiate a criminal case or rather treat them as acts of hooliganism, i.e. they do not focus on the elements of the crime of hatred in particular. And if they go unpunished, thus they cannot fulfill the role of a general deterrence, people do not understand how to adapt their behavior in order not to fall foul of the law."

The 20-year-long accumulation of discrimination against minorities in the field of social services must be the balancing factor in the speech of politicians and the media should employ this perspective on the problem, Ivanka Ivanova claims.

"If you live in a society with many minorities and they are not represented among doctors, police, and the prosecution, it creates a barrier of distrust in minorities to the services they receive and a prerequisite for discrimination and racism. This should be countered with an effective strategy based on two main pillars. On the one hand, there are politicians and leaders who recognize the problem and as soon as they hear hate speech they condemn it, i.e. the political establishment must exercise self-regulation. There is the ethical committee at the National Assembly which examines cases of hate speech and prescribes measures to limit it. But there must be a reaction to the phenomenon on the part of the Interior Ministry and the Prosecutor's Office responsible for its criminal persecution. The second pillar on the other hand, the educational institutions, must apply a more gradual and measured approach to educate people and cultivate an understanding that some forms of public speech are unacceptable because they create conditions for unequal treatment of people."

English: Rossitsa Petcova