Deception into Darkness Article

By Bala / MPA

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that,” said Martin Luther King Jr.

Dehumanization reducing people to something less than human is not only a precursor to genocide but also a crime in itself. It often manifests through hate speech and dangerous rhetoric.

In Myanmar, the infamous and devastating racial discrimination against the Rohingya, marked by their dehumanization, has long been a tragic part of the country’s history.

Today, as we examine the complex history of communal violence, addressing hate speech and disinformation has become essential for sustaining support for resistance movements.

This article aims to shed light on specific instances of hate speech linked to certain prominent figures.

Should Non-CDM Participants Be Kept in “Pigsties”?

It was a statement by a prominent songwriter and singer suggesting that individuals who do not participate in the Anti-Junta Civil Disobedience Movement (non-CDM participants) should only be allowed to watch their performances from a pigsty is a shocking and hateful remark, particularly coming from such a well-known public figure.

Dr. Sai Lat, a PhD graduate from Simon Fraser University specializing in development and conflict in the Mekong region, shared on social media: “While we must respect and value those who participate in the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM participants), we cannot treat those who don’t as criminals or perceive them as less than human.”

Dr. Sai Lat stressed that prominent public figures should lead the nation by promoting compassion, understanding, empathy, humanity, and truth, emphasizing that justice must prevail.

Another CDM participant, with over three years of experience and hardship, stated: “I don’t see any benefit in using divisive rhetoric like ‘non-CDM.’ We should neither perpetuate this division between CDM and Non-CDM groups nor stigmatize people as non-CDM.”

A non-CDM participant highlighted the crucial role of some non-CDM individuals in leaking confidential instructions and information from within the military junta, suggesting their contributions should not be overlooked.

As some CDM participants returned to work in non-CDM roles, they faced criticism and condemnation. Additionally, hate speech directed at non-CDM participants by CDM supporters went viral on social media.

Dr. Sai Lat remarked: “Everyone faces struggles that others may not fully understand. Those who do not participate in CDM may have their own valid reasons and personal circumstances.”

Second-Class Citizens?

A former military officer, now a prominent figure in the resistance movement, recently suggested that Myanmar migrant workers abroad who pay taxes to the junta should be considered second-class citizens.

Activist Ko Moe Thway criticized this viewpoint on social media, calling it a fundamentally flawed perspective that seeks to create divisions and categorize citizens into hierarchical tiers.

A Myanmar migrant worker currently employed in Thailand questioned, “If we don’t pay taxes, our passports, visas, and identification cards will expire, leaving us unable to work or stay in these countries. What are we supposed to do in such situations?”

Many Thai-based resistance supporters highlighted that migrant workers contribute significantly to the struggle, particularly in regions like Kachin, Kayin, Karenni, Chin, Rakhine, and across Myanmar’s central plains. Their remittances often far exceed the taxes they are forced to pay to the junta.

Ko Moe Thway argued that labeling these workers as “second-class citizens” promotes divisive rhetoric, undermining the resistance movement on multiple levels.

Has Humanity Been Lost?

U Myo Yan Naung Thein, a former secretary of the Central Research Committee of the National League for Democracy, recently wrote on social media that children within the military junta’s circle should be targeted. This statement crosses the boundaries of humanity.

Ko Moe Thway expressed strong concerns about such rhetoric, stating, “Fueling hatred and a pervasive sense of insecurity could lead to actions far more brutal than what we see today.”

He emphasized the importance of protecting civilians, including the unprotected populace and even those supporting the junta. He argued that the revolution must strive for justice, humanity, and peace rather than descending into retaliatory violence.

Warning of the potential consequences, he added, “This kind of unrestrained rhetoric could affect not only the political perspectives of our society but also its very survival. If such trends continue, we risk descending into a situation akin to the Rwanda genocide. This is unacceptable. At that point, the revolution would no longer exist; it would devolve into ethnic cleansing or genocide.”

Hate speech in Myanmar is not merely the product of personal grudges or intolerance but is deeply rooted in socio-economic and historical factors. These include extremist nationalist ideologies, the political and economic interests of elites, widespread poverty, educational disparities, and long-standing historical divisions.

Ko Ye Hein Aung, founder of the Myanmar Cultural Research Society, noted, “Hate speech has been propagated through songs, literature, cartoons, films, sermons, Anyeint (a traditional Burmese performance art), and even religious events. It has often been celebrated and encouraged, while efforts to address it have been neglected.”

Discrimination, at its core, is an exclusionary mindset. Such exclusion often escalates to eradication. In societies where discrimination is prevalent, dissatisfaction and resentment become deeply ingrained, creating fertile ground for severe and violent conflict.

Dr. Myint Zaw, in his book Paths to Darkness, argues that when exclusionary policies which deny certain groups moral recognition or the right to exist gain traction and become systemic norms, the potential for violent conflict increases dramatically.

While freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic principles, allowing individuals to question, critique, and analyze ideologies and systems, it must not be used as a vehicle for hate speech. Incitement to violence, discrimination, oppression, or hostility against any individual, group, or organization falls outside the bounds of legitimate discourse.

Hate speech violates the law, whether expressed through words, actions, writing, or visual depictions. It constitutes an attack that goes beyond legal frameworks, undermining social harmony and sowing the seeds of violence.

In many cases, information is presented in a one-sided or selectively framed manner, further exacerbating tensions. Such actions threaten social peace and often become the root cause of violent conflicts.

In societies where discrimination and inequality are deeply entrenched, dissatisfaction and resentment grow unchecked, creating an environment ripe for the escalation of violent confrontations.

References: