You are on page 1of 143

306 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield S. Vic. 3162 T (61-3) 9272 5594 E info@ohpi.org.au W: www.ohpi.org.

au

Islamophobia on the Internet

The growth of online hate targeting Muslims

Copyright ©2013 Online Hate Prevention Institute Islamophobia on the Internet: The 3.0 growth of online hate targeting Muslims NonCommercial-NoDerivs Unported License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Report: IR13-7 Dr Andre Oboler

Islamophobia on the Internet By Andre Oboler; foreword by Ghaith Krayem

P a g e | ii

Published in Melbourne by: Online Hate Prevention Institute 306 Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield South, Vic, 3162 Ph: (03) 9272 5594 E-mail: ohpi@ohpi.org.au Website: http://www.ohpi.org.au

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Oboler, Andre, author. Islamophobia on the internet : the growth of online hate targeting Muslims / by Andre Oboler ; foreword by Ghaith Krayem. ISBN: 9780987429445 (ebook) Islamophobia. Online hate speech. Internet -- Moral and ethical aspects. 305.697091821

©2013 Online Hate Prevention Institute This publication is copyright. Other than for the purpose of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of this publication may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquires should be addressed to the publishers. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. This notice serves as prior written permission to the extent covered by the license.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

Page |i

The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) is an Australian Charity on the Register of Harm Prevention Charities maintained by the Australian Government. We aim to be a world leader in combating online hate and a critical partner who works with key stakeholders to improve the prevention, mitigation and responses to online hate. Ultimately, OHPI seeks to facilitate a change in online culture so that hate in all its forms becomes as socially unacceptable online as it is in “real life”. OHPI is a charity that accepts public donations; within Australia donations over two dollars are tax deductible. Non-financial contributions to support our work are also greatly appreciated. Please see the next page for details of how you can help OHPI, or visit our website: www.ohpi.org.au for more information.

About the Report’s Author, Dr Andre Oboler
Dr Oboler is CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute. He has worked at the leading edge of international efforts to combat online hate in social media since 2008, and has been active in the broader field of combating internet based hate since 2004. Dr Oboler is internationally recognised as a leading expert in the field of online hate. He has presented testimony to the Italian Parliament, appeared on national television in Australia, Italy and Israel. He is cochair of the Online Antisemitism Working Group of the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism and has served as an expert to the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism. His most recent work has focused on attacks against the memory of recently deceased children, attacks on the memory of the ANZACs and on military veterans, and attacks targeting Indigenous Australians. Dr Oboler holds a PhD in Computer Science from Lancaster University (UK), completed a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at Bar-Ilan University (Israel) and is currently completing a law degree at Monash University (Australia). He is a Senior Member of the IEEE and a member of the IEEE Computer Society and the IEEE Society for the Social Implications of Technology.

Limited License to Reproduce this Report
If you find this report useful, and wish to share it with other, please do so in line with the license arrangements described below. Please also consider supporting OHPI, work like this is only possible as a result of donations to OHPI. This report has been released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. This means you are welcome to upload copies of this report to other sites, or to make hard copies of the report, provided the report is reproduced in full and your use is not for a commercial purpose. If you would like to reproduce part of the report in isolation, for example in briefing papers or study material freely provided to students, please contact OHPI or Dr Andre Oboler and provide details of which sections you would like and for what purpose. If you would like to reproduce some or all of this report commercially, for example as part of a set of material that will be sold, please contact OHPI or Dr Andre Oboler.

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | ii

Help stop online hate
The Online Hate Prevention Institute encourages users to report all instances of hate speech they see on online platforms through the platforms internal reporting mechanisms. We are also in the process of building a third party reporting system to enable these incidents of hate, and the response by online platforms to users’ reports, to be monitored. This will increase transparency in an area of growing concern. We encourage users to make use of this system as well once it is available. As OHPI is a charity tackling a large and significant problem in today’s society. We rely on public support to undertake this important work. You can also help combat online hate by directly supporting our work.

Contribute to support our work OHPI is reliant on donations from the public for our funding. Your financial support helps ensure we can continue to operate and to expand our work. Donations are accepted from around the world. In Australia we are a Registered Harm Prevention Charity and all donations over $2 are tax deductible. Credit Cards: Donations can be made online via credit card: http://ohpi.org.au/donate/ Cheques: We also accept cheques payable to the “Online Hate Prevention Fund” which can be mailed to: OHPI, 306 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield South, Vic 3126, Australia.

Non-financial support You can also assist us by joining our mailing list, our Facebook page, and following us on Twitter @onlinehate. This shows your support for the work we do and will keep you informed of new reports, projects, campaigns and opportunities to take a stand against online hate. OHPI is also looking to connect with other experts in the field, foundations that may support our work and journalists that may be interested in reporting on future stories related to our work. If this is you, please contact us: http://ohpi.org.au/contact-us/

Acknowledgements
This report was produced in consultation with the Islamic Council of Victoria. The work has been supported in part by two research projects at the University of Technology Sydney: the Making Multicultural Australia Project (http://multiculturalaustralia.edu.au), and by Cyber Racism and Community Resilience Research Project (funded by the Australian Research Council - data from this research contributes to the development of an ecology of anti-Islamic hate in cyber-space). OHPI thanks our donors for their assistance in making work like this possible. OHPI would also like to acknowledge the support we receive from our professional advisers Logicca Chartered Accountants and Frankel Lawyers. Andre Oboler thanks the Directors of OHPI for the important role they play, as volunteers, in overseeing and helping to develop this important charity. Mutual respect for people other faiths and an open dialogue that creates friendship, knowledge and empathy is needed to combat religious vilification. Andre Oboler thanks the Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre for creating such an environment, the Islamic Society of Lancaster University for their support of it, and Amro Ebbiary for the significant role he played in fostering meaningful relations between Muslims and people of others faiths BOTH within the inter-faith setting and more broadly in public life.

Contents
Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Public responses to this report .......................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 6 List of Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 7 Recommendations to mitigate against the spread of hate against Muslims ................................................ 7 General recommendations to mitigate against the spread of Hate Speech ................................................. 7 An Overview of the Problem ............................................................................................................................. 8 The Nature of Anti-Muslim Hate Speech....................................................................................................... 8 Anti-Muslim Hate Speech in Social Media .................................................................................................. 10 The danger of hate pages for extreme political parties .............................................................................. 13 The Types of Hate Speech Explored in this Report ......................................................................................... 14 Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety (Category A) ........................................................ 14 Muslims as a Cultural Threat (Category B) .................................................................................................. 15 Muslims as an Economic Threat (Category C) ............................................................................................. 16 Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims (Category D) .................................................................... 17 Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims (Category E) ....................................... 18 Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers (Category F) ............................................................................ 19 Other Forms of Hate (Category G)............................................................................................................... 20 Additional Observations .................................................................................................................................. 21 Halal Certification ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Pro-Israel Content on Anti-Muslim Pages ................................................................................................... 23 The Clash of Civilisations and Allegations of Collective Guilt ...................................................................... 24 The English Defence League ........................................................................................................................ 25 Technical Matters Contributing to the Problem ............................................................................................. 26 The danger of hate pages as a free for all ................................................................................................... 26 The Problem of Duplicate Instances of Hate Speech Images ...................................................................... 27 The Flawed Reporting System that puts Victims at Risk ............................................................................. 28 Hate Speech Manifest ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Australia’s contribution ............................................................................................................................... 33 Examples of Anti-Muslim Hate ........................................................................................................................ 34 Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety (Category A) ........................................................ 34 Muslims as a Cultural Threat (Category B) .................................................................................................. 56 Muslims as an Economic Threat (Category C) ............................................................................................. 73 Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims (Category D) .................................................................... 79 Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims (Category E) ....................................... 99 Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers (Category F) .......................................................................... 109 Other Forms of Hate (Category G)............................................................................................................. 117

Online Hate Prevention Institute

Page |1

Foreword
Today’s Australia is committed to the tenets of multiculturalism. The foundation of our national psyche has this at its core. Prejudice, however, continues to exist and together we must do more to overcome discriminatory perceptions in Australian society. The Muslim community is one of the segments of society that has been affected by misrepresentation and at times vilification. This report highlights some of the messages of hate about our community that can be found online. We may either choose to ignore such messages, or we may choose to challenge and correct them. We believe no community in Australia should be subjected to the sorts of attacks highlighted in this report. Such attacks are at odds with Australia's proclaimed ideals. In speaking out against this hate speech, we also recognise that there is a balance to be struck between freedom of expression and freedom from hate. Preventative measures that safeguard our peaceful coexistence without overly restricting self expression are needed. It is not enough for individuals to try and overcome such challenges alone, laws that protect against hate speech are needed and send a message about the values of our multicultural society. Victoria is one step ahead of the rest of the country in this regard, as religious vilification has been declared unlawful Australia’s newly elected coalition Government has expressed interest in reworking the Commonwealth Government’s stance on the Racial Discrimination Act. We would like to emphasise the importance of this law, and any amendments that reduce the scope of this law could detriment the efforts of the community in upholding our multicultural ideals.. As the peak Muslim body in Victoria, the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) believes it is vital that the Federal Government extends greater protection to religious minorities under the laws of the Commonwealth to prevent vilification and discrimination on the basis of religion. The type of vilification that is documented in this report undermines the substantial efforts of Muslims, alongside other faith groups and organisations, to challenge prejudice in society. The content of this report is integral to furthering our understanding of the hate that continues to spread through social media platforms like Facebook. It shows the hate our community is exposed to, especially young adults who are often left to grapple with the aftereffects of viewing such hate directed against them and their community. Like all hate speech, such content creates a sense of alienation and exclusion from society for those targeted. Facebook must recognise its responsibility for rectifying this problem. It must take action in a timely manner as the damage that such material causes can spread when the messages are left online. A failure to take action also has the potential of appearing to exonerate those who publish and endorse such hate speech. The Islamic Council of Victoria believes that this report has opened an important discussion about a topic of great concern and would like to thank the Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) for their efforts in producing this report; it has become vital in our appreciation of the severity of this issue. We would like to thank the other religious, ethnic and cultural organisations and community groups who we work with in efforts to strengthen multiculturalism and tackle the persistent issue of hate directed against minority groups. While this report focuses on online hate against our community, the problem of online hate affects all of us. Previous reports we have seen from the Online Hate Prevention Institute show how other groups such as Indigenous Australians and the Jewish

Islamophobia on the Internet

Page |2

Community have been similarly targeted by online hate. Tackling such hate is not only a concern for each of our communities individually, it is also a concern for us collectively, and for Australian society more generally. The Islamic Council of Victoria is pleased to have been consulted throughout the production of this report, and in seeing the final report, we are pleased to endorse it and to play a part in ensuring its dissemination. We hope this report provides a basis for further discussion, and that we are able to work with other well meaning Australians to better tackle the problems of hate speech in general, religious vilification in particular, and of online religious vilification as a particularly dangerous manifestation of this problem.

Ghaith Krayem Secretary Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV)

Online Hate Prevention Institute

Page |3

Public responses to this report
The Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Shadow Attorney General (current) and Attorney General (2013): “I commend the work of Dr Andre Oboler and the Online Hate Prevention Institute on their recent report Islamophobia on the Internet - The growth of online hate targeting Muslims. The increased use of social media as a platform for the dissemination of hate speech is very concerning. I have worked closely with the Islamic community during my time in parliament, in particular when I was Attorney-General, and the issue of online hate targeting Muslims has been raised directly with me by a number of community leaders. It is also an issue that has been raised with me by our security agencies, because in demeaning, threatening and generally seeking to exclude members of the Muslim community from our multicultural society, online hate increases the risk factors associated with the marginalisation and radicalisation of Muslim youth. I note that while this report of the Online Hate Prevention Institute focuses on anti-Muslim hate speech, the Institute has exposed similar attacks on Indigenous Australians, the Jewish Community, military veterans and other groups. Freedom of speech is a value that we hold dear in Australia, and I have advocated for that freedom throughout my legal and political careers. However, democracies such as ours are not founded on absolutist doctrines, but rather on competing values that must be carefully balanced against each other. Freedom of speech is both a right and a privilege in Australia. It is not an absolute right to be exercised without responsibility or regard to the consequences. Rather, freedom of speech is a democratic value that we protect, and limit only to the extent necessary to uphold other values that we hold dear as a nation. Religious vilification is a stain on the values of any democracy. I believe that the practice of treating all people with respect, regardless of their religious, cultural or ethnic background, should be our nation’s custom and expectation. Previous generations have worked hard to ensure that ours is a strong democracy, enriched by the vibrancy of an open and welcoming multicultural society. I am committed to ensuring that the law continues to provide an appropriate framework for the protection of the values of tolerance and respect for others on which our nation is founded. Reports such as this one sound an important warning about threats to the harmony we have worked so hard to build, and are a useful resource for everyone who shares a commitment to standing up against vilification and protecting our democratic values.”

The Hon John Brumby, Premier of Victoria (2007-2010) and Australian Member of Parliament (19831990): “Addressing racial and religious discrimination involves more than just changing laws. It requires a concerted effort to challenge behaviours and transform culture and attitudes. In my time in Government, I strongly supported this goal. We initiated an education program for children and parents around issues of cyber-bullying and safety; ran a state-wide multicultural policy to strengthen and promote harmonious community relations; endorsed legislation to protect against racial vilification and engender social cohesion; and introduced the nation’s first ‘Respect Agenda’ to address discriminatory behaviour and foster difference and diversity. In light of these initiatives, I commend the Online Hate Prevention Institute for their work against online vilification. This report is a pointed reminder of the significance of this problem and an important call for ongoing work to highlight and address hate speech. Moreover, it emphasises the important message that combating discrimination and vilification not only advances equality and human rights, but it also supports diversity, community strength and overall inclusion within society.”

Ghaith Krayem, Secretary, Islamic Council of Victoria: “This report has opened an important discussion about a topic of great concern… it has become vital in our appreciation of the severity of this issue… The Islamic Council of Victoria is pleased to have been consulted throughout the production of this report, and in seeing the final report, we are pleased to endorse it and to play a part in ensuring its dissemination. We hope this report provides a basis for further discussion, and that we are able to work with other well meaning Australians to better tackle the problems of hate speech in general, religious vilification in particular, and of online religious vilification as a particularly dangerous manifestation of this problem.” (Extracted from the foreword to this report)

Islamophobia on the Internet

Page |4

Prof. Andrew Jakubowicz, Principal Investigator, Cyber racism and community resilience research project (CRaCR), University of Technology Sydney: “At a time that the Australian government has announced it intends
to legislate to reduce the constraints on hate speech by amending if not repealing section 18C of the Race Discrimination Act, this OHPI report on anti-Muslim hate speech on Facebook demonstrates to the wider community what is further at stake if these protections are withdrawn. As the report notes, all the material reported here is in breach of Facebook's own code of conduct, but Facebook, based in the USA, has done little if anything to control it. As with much hate speech, the majority of its targets and victims are vulnerable and unable or unwilling to respond through the legal system. Organisations like OHPI play a crucial role in helping our wider society understand exactly how racism works in cyberspace, by exposing its tactics, reporting its instances, and charting its supporters. The heat that is generated by these sites might well drive customers towards Facebook's advertisers, but we need to ask to what extent commercial profit should be permitted to overwhelm social decency. OHPI must be commended once again for its detailed, sustained and courageous research, on which Australia will increasingly depend for the truth about the nastier side of the hate industry. As OHPI shows, the creators and supporters of these pages are not "mistaken" people who can be educated to be nice; they are deeply committed racists whose goal is to inflame society and turn Australian against Australian at great social cost to us all.”

Dr Hass Dellal OAM, Executive Director, Australian Multicultural Foundation: “One of the growing challenges that we face today is cyber hate within our society. Social media sites such as Facebook have provided a platform where people can easily spread messages of hate and bigotry. This report highlights how we cannot afford to be complacent when it comes to matters such as online vilification. The widespread access to online hate speech targeting specific groups has a negative impact on the community as whole, not to mention many physical and emotional health implications for individuals. Freedom of speech is a democratic value that we all respect and protect. However, there are also moral limits to freedom of speech; discrimination, racism and hate campaigns based on one’s ethnicity, race, religion or gender cannot be and will not be accepted. I congratulate the Online Hate Prevention Institute for their important work against online hate campaigns. The recommendations in this report clearly highlight how we as an Australian community can work together to educate people and tackle online hate.”
Peter Wertheim AM, Executive Director, Executive Council of Australian Jewry: “The freedom to express one’s views freely is rightly regarded as fundamental to democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. After centuries of struggle, criticism of theological doctrines and religious beliefs has come to be accepted in western societies as a legitimate exercise of that freedom. Such criticism also necessarily implies a degree of criticism of adherents of those doctrines and beliefs. The ECAJ as the peak body representing the Jewish community in Australia takes the view that such implied criticism must also be accepted as legitimate in a free society, provided that it does not go further and incite hatred or violence against them. There is an ongoing need for research to inform policy discussions about what our society should consider to be reasonable and justifiable limits on freedom of speech, and the contribution made by OHPI is to be welcomed. The instances this report has documented illustrate how the internet and social media have sometimes provided a megaphone to individuals and groups motivated by racism and other forms of bigotry. In the past such people had a far more limited audience to which to promote their hateful messages, which go well beyond what might reasonably be regarded as a genuine contribution to the contest of ideas. The ECAJ commends OHPI for its work.”

Priscilla Brice, Managing Director, All Together Now: “It seems as though online hate increases each year. Yet the response of authorities including Facebook has not kept up with the wider community's demands for appropriate policing of content and enforcement of policies designed to remove hateful content and punish perpetrators. Thanks to the work of OHPI there is now a robust and well-documented process for monitoring hate online and holding social media platforms accountable. The recommendations in this particular report clearly show how we can all play a part in reducing online hate and I hope that authorities like the Australian government and social media platforms listen up and take action!”

Online Hate Prevention Institute

Page |5

Dr Dvir Abramovich, Chair, B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission: “For more than three decades, The B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission has been vocal in raising awareness and in exposing and fighting anti-Semitism and discrimination in all its forms. As this important and meticulously researched report by OHPI reveals, there is a disturbing rise of anti-Muslim bigotry on the internet in variety of platforms and fora such as Facebook. Such religious vilification is unacceptable, and the ADC supports the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and The Racial Discrimination Act that make such egregious racial abuse illegal. As the Jewish community well knows, the sheer volume of hatred pervading cyberspace is staggering, and online hate is not just a growing problem, it is an insidious epidemic. While the communication revolution has had a wonderful impact, it has also provided a super highway for hatemongers to peddle their lies and distortions. Today, there are more people and more organisations, emboldened by anonymity, who are propagating this immoral assault on human rights and personal dignity. Jewish History teaches us that all too often expressions of hate can turn into acts of violence, and so we all have a shared responsibility to address this danger. The ADC recognises that it is a challenge for our society and government to reconcile the demands of freedom of speech and the need to deal with the threat that this inexcusable and unregulated flow of bigotry poses. The ADC has repeatedly called on internet users to be aware and alert, and to report such material to the police, as well as lobby internet providers and government. The ADC believes that public involvement , concern, and when needed, outcry, are vital in countering the purveyors of hate. The OHPI should be congratulated for important report.”

Craig Rowley, Chief Executive Officer, LeadWest: “Hate speech has no place in communities, and today that also means hate has no place online. Whatever form it takes, hate is dangerous. It damages individuals and their physical and emotional health. Hate tears apart the social fabric. Hate damages our society as a whole. Remarkable work is being done by the Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), Australia’s first Harm Prevention Charity entirely dedicated to the problem of Internet based antisemitism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, hate against other groups and the cyberbullying of individuals. Furthering the good work it has already done, OHPI has now released the Anti-Muslim Hate Report, which examines online hate against Muslims, including Muslim Australians, primarily on Facebook. It is a timely and significant contribution to the elimination of hate in our communities.”

Nina Bassat AM, President, Jewish Community Council of Victoria: “Freedom of speech is an accepted norm in our society, but much is said and written under the rubric of free speech which clearly crosses all accepted borders of decency and respect for others. This meticulously researched and well thought through Report by the Online Hate Prevention Institute of the problem of religious vilification against Muslims and the Muslim community, demonstrates graphically just how frequently and viciously one man’s freedom of speech is another man’s humiliation and degradation. Whilst hate speech against a religious group is in clear violation of Facebook’s terms of service, there seems to be scant will by Facebook to prevent or even contain hate speech, and the lack of action constitutes an odious participation in this type of activity. This Report sets out with clarity its findings and recommendations and I commend Dr Andre Oboler and the Online Hate Prevention Institute for exposing, as he has done in previous reports relating to other communities, the range and viciousness of the hatred which Facebook enables and allows. The Jewish Community Council of Victoria is only too aware of how insidious and dangerous is the phenomenon of hate speech and how such speech can lead to violence, violence which must be prevented if we are to lay claim to being a civilized society. The Report is not only an exposé; it is a call to action, and one can only hope that positive action will follow.”

Islamophobia on the Internet

Page |6

Executive Summary
In this report the Online Hate Prevention Institute examines the problem of religious vilification against Muslims and the Muslim community. The report focuses on content on the Facebook social networking site. More specifically, we examine anti-Muslim hate that occurs publically on Facebook pages which are to some degree dedicated to this purpose. The presence of such Facebook pages, particularly those whose sole purpose is to promote hate speech against a religious group in violation of Facebook’s terms of service, is deeply concerning. Theological debate and criticism of religion should be protected under freedom of expression principles, however, the vilification of a group of people on the basis of their religious belief or practise, or of individuals on the basis of membership of such a group, is a fundamental affront to human dignity. This report documents 50 Facebook pages which contain examples of vilifying speech. A further two examples that do not contain vilifying speech but whose purpose is anti-Muslim are also included. From these pages we document 349 instances of hate speech. Given some content reoccurs in multiple places, these instances represent 191 different examples of hate speech. We have divided these examples into seven categories:        Category A, Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety, 42 examples Category B, Muslims as a Cultural Threat, 29 examples Category C, Muslims as an Economic Threat, 11 examples Category D, Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims, 37 examples Category E, Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims, 24 examples Category F, Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers, 12 examples Category G, Other Forms of Hate, 36 examples

This report aims to highlight the existence of what is a serious hate speech problem on Facebook. To the extent that this content gives a window into the hate speech against Muslims that is currently circulating in society, we hope this report assists community leaders, policy makers, law makers and researchers in better understanding and responding to this threat to an inclusive and multicultural society. In democracies inclusiveness is regarded as a public good, as such, this hate speech is not only an attack on the Muslim community but an attack on society as a whole. As a society we must work together to tackle this problem. This report is also directed to Facebook. We hope this report will allow the specific pages listed to be reviewed and appropriately closed. We hope the examples provided allow for a meaningful discussion about anti-Muslim hate speech within Facebook and result in better guidelines and training for those staff who first review complaints. We hope the technical recommendations allow Facebook to improve their response and their systems to prevent more hate speech spreading and to better respond to it in the future. The Muslim community is by no means the only community targeted by hate speech on Facebook. Past reports by the Online Hate Prevention Institute have examined attacks on Indigenous Australians,1 the Jewish Community,2 Military Veterans,3 and others. Our briefings have covered content related to Holocaust denial,4 homophobia,5 misogyny,6 and attacks on individuals. While a wide range of groups are target, that doesn’t in any way reduce the impact on each community, or on each individual, when they become a target. More needs to be done not only to remove the hate this report exposes, but to improve the systems at Facebook, and in society more generally, to prevent this hate spreading. Dr Andre Oboler CEO, Online Hate Prevention Institute Melbourne, November 2013
1 2

http://ohpi.org.au/aboriginal-memes-and-online-hate/ http://ohpi.org.au/recognizing-hate-speech-antisemitism-on-facebook/ 3 http://ohpi.org.au/attacking-the-anzacs-on-facebook/ 4 http://ohpi.org.au/holocaust-denial-on-facebook-an-untold-story/ 5 http://ohpi.org.au/twitter%E2%80%AC-to-be-sued-over-gaysmustdie/ 6 http://ohpi.org.au/ohpi-video-women/

Online Hate Prevention Institute

Page |7

List of Recommendations
Recommendations to mitigate against the spread of hate against Muslims
# 1 Recommendation Government agencies, researchers and others dealing with Racism should extend their work to include vilification of Muslims where this may be a proxy for racism or xenophobia against people of Middle Eastern and East Asian ethnicity The Australian Government should pass laws to make vilification on the grounds of religious belief or practise unlawful and expand the remit of the Australian Human Rights Commission accordingly. Facebook should develop an understanding of anti-Muslim hate based on the seven categories highlighted in this report and should ensure staff are provided with better guidance to recognise and respond to such hate speech Halal Certification Authorities need to be transparent and clear on their fee structures to help avoid hate spreading through ignorance. A dialogue is need between Jews and Muslims in relation to the Middle East. This dialogue need not reach solutions, provided it makes discussion of the topic possible. This will help build resistance against those seeking to drive a wedge between the communities in an effort to promote hate. Page 7

2

7

3

12

4

20

5

22

General recommendations to mitigate against the spread of Hate Speech
# 6 Recommendation Social media platforms should interpret hate speech as including messages expressing hostility, violence, discrimination, or exclusion against a protected group. Facebook should allow users to lodge a single complaint covering multiple items of content from a single page and to then additionally request that the page as a whole be reviewed. Pages attracting a large volume of hate from fans should be closed if the Administrator can’t or won’t act to stop the problem When an image is determined to be hate speech, all other copies of the image should be removed from the Facebook system as well. Facebook should improve the design and workflow of the reporting system. Messages that will go to the page administrator, rather than to Facebook, should be clearly marked and confirmation should be required before the message is sent. Automatically search for and remove duplicate instances of hate images once an instance of an image has been identified as hate. Page 7

7

10

8

24

9

25

10 11

26 26

12

27

Islamophobia on the Internet

Page |8

An Overview of the Problem
The Nature of Anti-Muslim Hate Speech
As traditionally defined, hate speech is speech that vilifies a protected group, or that vilifies a member of a protected group on the basis of their group identity. What constitutes a ‘protected group’ may vary with context, but religion is usually included as a protected group. This rule based approach to hate speech is useful, but avoids the need to consider the nature of hate speech itself. In differentiating hate speech against Muslims from what is sometimes called the ‘defamation of Islam’,7 or indeed from theological debate, a deeper understanding of hate speech in needed. Jeremy Waldron opens his book, The Harm in Hate Speech,8 with the story of a man out walking with his two young children. They encounter a sign, “Muslims and 9/11! Don’t serve them, don’t speak to them, and don’t let them in.” The family in this fictional story is Muslim, and the father doesn’t know how to respond when his daughter asks about the sign, so he rushes them home. Waldron uses this example to highlight nature and purpose of hate speech. In his analysis, racism is certain hate speech, but hate speech need not be so narrowly defined. On Waldron’s analysis hate speech clearly encompasses religious vilification. The inclusion of religious vilification against Muslims as a form of hate speech is particularly significant when it comes to the online world as most platforms prohibit ‘hate speech’ rather more specific forms of hate such as racism. Under the terms of service of a platform provider, hate speech targeting Muslims should be treated no different to antisemitic content, racist content, or homophobia. In all cases it should be promptly removed from the platform. The danger of hate speech is that the messages it spreads aim to undermines the public good of an inclusive society.9 These messages aim to remove members of the targeted group’s ‘assurance that there will be no need to face hostility, violence, discrimination, or exclusion by others’ in their daily life.10 The messages take two forms. The first is directed to the targeted group and says, ‘[d]on’t be fooled into thinking you are welcome here’.11 The second message is to rest of society and says, ‘[w]e know some of you agree that these people are not wanted here... known that you are not alone... there are enough of us around to make sure these people are not welcome... [and] to draw attention to what these people are really like’.12 The messages are the same regardless of the group in society being targeted. Hate speech is an attack on a person, or group of people, and must be distinguished from ‘defamation of religion’ or ‘theological debate’ which are attacks on ideas (Figure 1 shows both). An attack on an idea can turn into an attack on a person when a disagreement over religious practise, acceptable as a matter of speech, morphs into action aimed at preventing the lawful religious practise of another. This report includes some coverage of this form of religious vilification in the context of campaigns against Halal certification. We include a significant volume and variety of hate speech in this report. Both the message to Muslims and the message sent to society at large can be readily observed in the examples provided. We don’t aim to further the objectives of the haters, but rather to expose them. The messages are out there, and a response is needed.

Figure 1 Example E18

7

Jerome Socolovsky, ‘Islamic Nations Relinquish Demand for Defamation Laws’, Voice of America News, 24 October 2012 online at http://www.voanews.com/content/islam-un-defamation/1532871.html 8 Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard University Press, 2012). 9 Ibid 4. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid 2. 12 Ibid 2-3.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

Page |9

While some of the hate shown in this report is specifically related to those who follow the Islamic religion, in other cases the anti-Muslim hate could more accurately be described as racism with ‘Muslim’ serving as a short hand for ‘foreign looking people’ of Middle Eastern or East Asian appearance. Examples of this can be seen in Figure 2. We note the positive work of Australia’s Acting Racial Discrimination Commissioner in the national consultation on eliminating prejudice against Arab and Muslim Australians in 2004. In particular we endorse the Commissioner’s recommendation that federal law be introduced making unlawful vilification on the grounds of religion of belief.13 This position was also previously expressed by the commission in 1998.14 We recommend adding ‘or practise’ to this recommendation.

Item A25

Item D34

Item B26

Figure 2 Images of anti-Muslim hate which may also be classified as racism

This report focuses on anti-Muslim hate, but past work by the Online Hate Prevention Institute has exposed similar attacks on Indigenous Australians, the Jewish Community, military veterans, and other groups. While the volume of content attacking Muslims is particularly significant, the Muslim community is by no means alone in facing such attacks. The Muslim community has an important role to play in responding to this hate, but this is not a Muslim community problem. An attack on the inclusiveness of our society, and on multiculturalism, is an attack on all of us. Governments and community groups must unite to better tackle the problem of anti-Muslim hate speech and of hate speech more generally.

Recommendation 1: Government agencies, researchers and others dealing with Racism should extend their work to include vilification of Muslims where this may be a proxy for racism or xenophobia against people of Middle Eastern and East Asian ethnicity Recommendation 2: The Australian Government should pass laws to make vilification on the grounds of religious belief or practise unlawful and expand the remit of the Australian Human Rights Commission accordingly. Recommendation 6: Social media platforms should interpret hate speech as including messages expressing hostility, violence, discrimination, or exclusion against a protected group.

13

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Isma‫ – ع‬Listen: National Consultations on Eliminating Prejudice against Arab and Muslim Australians (2003) 6. 14 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Article 18: Freedom of Religion and Belief (1998) iii, ix, ch 5.

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 10

Anti-Muslim Hate Speech in Social Media
Hate 2.0 involves the use of content that constitutes hate speech in combination with a social media platform that is able to take that content viral. The aim is not only to spread the hateful content, but to also normalise it. When the hate speech becomes no more than another opinion, the hate itself can be openly expressed not only online, but also in daily life. This creates problems of intimidation, exclusion, and ultimately violence resulting from incitement. Hate 2.0 is a generalised form of ‘Antisemitism 2.0’, a term first raised in a 2008 article.15 As the article noted, the aim was ‘to creating social acceptability for such content’,16 which in turns allows the content to ‘be spread, public resistance lowered, and hate networks rapidly established.’17 The paper also noted how forums promoting hate 2.0 readily combined statements denying they spread hate with statements that actually did spread hate. One sentence in a page’s about information would declare the page to be against racism, and the next would be a racist statement. The pattern might then repeat. This is part of the normalisation effort aimed at making hate against the target group appear acceptable. We’re against hate, it says, but this sort of hate doesn’t count. This normalisation is similar to dehumanisation where the victim group is declared less human and as a result the denial of their right, and ultimately the call for violence against them, is made to appear more reasonable or at least more palatable.

Figure 3 Cover of the page ‘People against Islam’, item 27 in the Hate Speech Manifest

A number of pages examined in this report use the same approach. The page ‘People against Islam’,18 for example, describes itself as: ‘[a] page that should instantly have over 1 million. No posts are to be racist, in any way. We all want islam out of our countries and need to group together for this cause’, it goes on to say ‘Use this page as the international gateway for eliminating islam [sic]. Like and share page as much as possible!’ The ‘no posts are to be racist’ sentence is immediately followed by a call to expel those who are different, and then by a call for the total elimination of their culture. For those still in doubt, the cover image directly refers to hating Muslims. This is not about disagreement over an idea, it is about people, and ultimately could be interpreted as being pro-genocide.

15

Andre Oboler, Online Antisemitism 2.0. “Social Antisemitism on the Social Web”, Post-Holocaust and Antisemitism Series, JCPA, (April 2008, No. 67) 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 See item 27 in the Hate Speech Manifest in this report

Online Hate Prevention Institute Hate 2.0 is designed to make it harder for a reviewer of a complaint against the page to take the decision to close it. While individual images or posts may be removed, the page is persistently given the benefit of the doubt, and allowed to remain online. The fact it says it is against racism is given more weight than the fact it has been empirically shown to be posting a significant volume of hate speech. Figure 4 shows the page administrator’s response to Facebook’s actions removing some images following reports by other users. Given the nature of this page, the removal should have triggered a review of the page as a whole. The page’s very nature promotes a violation of Facebook’s terms of service (by encouraging the promotion of hate speech), and the removal of some images will inevitably be an incomplete response.

P a g e | 11

Despite some images being removed, a range of hate images remained. Three of the images are shown below. The fact that this page was, and continues to, Figure 4 Complaint about Facebook Police inciting hate against people on the basis of their religion, specifically Islam, is grounds for complete closure. Reports of the page, however, were not successful.

Item D13

Item A31

Item B20

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 12

Facebook’s refusal to remove the page (see Figure 5), and instead directing people to examine each item of content, is seriously flawed. To suggest that in the case of a hate page it would be more accurate to review each item individually is missing the point. Individual reports are unlikely to reflect the nature of the page as a whole. Facebook’s message is in effect an admission of a failure to properly review the report.

Figure 5 Rejection message after reporting the page Muhammad Speaks (Item 31 in the Hate Speech Manifest)

Recommendation 7: Facebook should allow users to lodge a single complaint covering multiple items of content from a single page and to then additionally request that the page as a whole be reviewed.

The concept of hate 2.0 (specifically antisemitism 2.0) was created based on observations in Facebook, a platform that at the time was a little over three years old and had 60 million users. Today Facebook is used by over 1.5 billion unique users each month. With the rise in the number of users and the volume of content, the volume of hate has grown as well. This is exacerbated by a network effect. With more users producing hate speech, and creating more pages, there is an amplified feeling of acceptability for hate. More significantly, the volume of hate messages increases exponentially as more pages mean not only more original content, but also more sharing and cross-posting of existing content created by others. In the manifest to this report we identify all the example images a page includes. The examples are later listed with ‘fbid’ numbers that would allow Facebook to easily remove each of the instances of these images. This data demonstrates that it is becoming faster and easier to spread hate on Facebook. The problem is growing and it’s about time there was a better response to it.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 13

The danger of hate pages for extreme political parties
Another danger resulting from Hate 2.0 is the use of the hate networks established to support racist political parties. In Australia this is most clearly seen with One Nation, a party which the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs, The Honourable Glen Elmes, described as having a political manifesto ‘based solely on attacking people who are different’.19 The page ‘People against Islam’ included a promotional flier for One Nation Candidate Clayton Denny. Other pages like ‘Boycott Halal’ (item 21 in the Hate Speech Manifest in this report) also reposted One Nation content and promoted the anti-halal stickers sold through a racist website run by a One Nation candidate.20 With the rise of racist parties in Europe, such as Golden Dawn in Greece, the risk posed by parties such as ‘One Nation’ in Australia should not be underestimated.

19

Glen Elmes, Media Statement: Same old One-Nation Racism, July 25, 2013. Online at http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/7/25/same-old-onenation-racism 20 Ibid.

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 14

The Types of Hate Speech Explored in this Report
This report documents 50 Facebook pages which contain examples of vilifying speech. From these pages we document 349 instances of hate speech including 191 unique examples. We have divided these examples into seven categories: Category A, Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety, 42 examples ; Category B, Muslims as a Cultural Threat, 29 examples; Category C, Muslims as an Economic Threat, 11 examples; Category D, Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims, 37 examples; Category E, Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims, 24 examples; Category F, Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers, 12 examples; and Category G, Other Forms of Hate, 36 examples. In this section each of these categories is presented and discussed. Recommendation 3: Facebook should develop an understanding of anti-Muslim hate based on the seven categories highlighted in this report and should ensure staff are provided with better guidance to recognise and respond to such hate speech

Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety (Category A)
This theme, Category A, which is represented by 42 example images in this report, says that Muslims are dangerous. It often equates Muslims with terrorism, lawlessness or a desire to kill anyone who is not Muslim. Fear of Muslims, and therefore hatred of Muslims, is justified by painting Muslims as “the enemy” and a real threat to life and property. While the terrorism accusation is particularly target to Muslims, the general approach of instilling fear of the other in an audience is a classical ingredient of traditional far right racism. A particular ridicule is reserved for those who would ignore this message and encourage coexistence, multiculturalism and tolerance. The idea that “all Muslims support terrorism” is also prevalent in the examples we examined and build on this theme of the foolishness of those who would want to coexist with Muslims. This idea is then further developed to suggest Halal certification supports terrorism, and therefore any Australian companies who produce food and have it Halal certified are supporting terrorism, as is anyone buying such food.

The claim that Muslims are violent is aimed both at the community, claiming organised violence and an organised threat to society, and at the individual as an inherent part of being Muslim. The attribution of violent tendencies etc to Muslims is a form of racial vilification rather than religious vilification as it suggests these characteristics are inherent characteristics.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 15

Muslims as a Cultural Threat (Category B)
This theme suggests Muslims are a cultural threat, that is, a “threat to our way of life”. This report includes 28 examples of Category B “cultural threat” content. The cultural threat argument is often linked to the idea of a Muslim “take over”, either through immigration or demographics. Such a takeover would, according to his logic, mean that Sharia Law would then be imposed on all citizens. Any accommodation made for the Muslim community is seen as the slow imposition of Sharia law. The availability of Halal food is the most obvious. Those promoting this idea are particularly offended when iconic foods like Vegemite are Halal certified.

This theme suggests that Muslims do not want to integrate into our multicultural society, but to infiltrate and then sabotage it. This is fed by other themes that suggest Muslims are not to be trusted and that any appearance of integration or participation in multicultural activities is no more than pretence. This line of argument is particularly prevalent amongst the English Defence League (EDL) and it’s off-shoots in other countries including Australia. It follows the traditional racist arguments of the Far Right. Imagery associated with it often includes references to the crusades. Groups like the EDL will highlight they accept all comers, provided they are not Muslim. Former Muslims appear to be acceptable. The underlying basis to at least some of the cultural threat theme appears linked to religious warfare of centuries past.

In another approach, not based on religion, the cultural attack describes Islam as a “cult”. This approach aims to make the anti-Muslim cause acceptable to those on the left who would otherwise be opposed to it out of a belief in the right of freedom of religion. Under either approach, the underlying message of the Cultural Threat theme is that Muslims do not belong.

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 16

Muslims as an Economic Threat (Category C)
This theme suggests Muslims are a threat to the readers’ economic well being. This argument is relatively rare with only 11 examples of Category C found in this research. It comes in to main varieties: the first is expressed though opposition to Halal certification, described as an additional tax; the second is a claim that Muslims are a drain on the welfare system. The Islam specific allegation that goes beyond the economic to suggest Halal certification is a means of fundraising to support terrorism has been separated from the economic arguments and addressed under the category of Muslims as a security threat (Category A).

The ‘Halal tax’ argument, depending on how it is phrases, would equally apply to other forms of food certification including: Kosher Certification; the Heart Foundation’s tick of approval; Australia Made Campaign’s Australian Made, Australian Grown logo; Fairtrade certification; and many others. A note in this report discusses this topic further.

The Welfare argument in some forms suggests that government benefits are being used to fund what is seen as the problem of Islam, the accusation is that the government is supporting the enemy. This argument is perhaps aimed at the more affluent.

In another forms the argument suggests Muslims are not entitled to welfare because they aren’t real Australians. There is a link made between the cultural threat and the economic threat. This argument may be aimed more that those receiving benefits and suggests Muslims are a threat because they are taking benefits way from ‘real Australians’. This argument has a classical racist / anti-immigrant undertone.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 17

Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims (Category D)
Classic racism often involves the demonization or dehumanisation of the other. Such approaches make the victim appear a legitimate target for attack, or undeserving of the basic rights and respect that would be accorded to others in society. Arguments along these lines were relatively common with 37 examples of Category D found in this research. Demonization can occur through the literal association of the target with the devil. This approach has origins in religious persecution. It can also be made in relation to the ‘modern secular religion’ of human rights.

In this newer form, there is an attempt to dismiss the human rights of some to freedom of religion by accusing the religion itself of being against human rights. The premise of the argument is that the target is evil and has therefore forfeited the right to peacefully exist in society. Demonization also take the form of collective allegations of criminality, immorality or evil. Some images provide large lists of crimes they attribute to Islam. Dehumanisation, by contrast, emerges from racism and suggests the target are inherently not worthy of the same rights as other people. Targets are often directly compared to animals and particularly vermin. A number of examples use a pig to represent Muslims in an attempt to add insult to injury. Others suggest becoming a Muslims is a form of devolution back to an ape like state.

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 18

Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims (Category E)
Category E is a broad category for all content that promoted violence against Muslims. There were 24 examples of such content recorded. The content aims to put Muslims in fear, and in some cases to incite physical attacks.

Also included in this category are calls for genocide, in this context, the wiping out of Muslim culture by ‘eradicating’ all Muslims. This sort of argument is grounded in racist propaganda.

Despite a lack of historical context, we also found a significant volume of far right propaganda, specifically swastikas and the promotion of Nazism. Tanks and weapons featured strongly as well, suggesting Muslims are the enemy that must be killed. This content largely speaks for itself and it surprising more of it wasn’t immediately taken down by Facebook without the need for any further consideration.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 19

Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers (Category F)
Category F was relatively rare with only 12 examples. It involves an overt attack on Muslims as refugees / Asylum seekers. In some sense the lack of examples in this category may be no more than evidence of the attacks being more direct and unrelated to immigration status. Attacks related to culture, economics and violence often made reference to Muslims as an imposition on society from elsewhere. No real distinction is drawn between legal and illegal immigration. The Australian nature of many of the pages examined and Australia’s current immigration policy preventing in country processing may also have an impact on the prevalence of these arguments.

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 20

Other Forms of Hate (Category G)
While intended to catch any content not covered by the other categories, a number of distinct themes emerged in the 36 examples allocated to Category G. The first major theme was an attack on moderate Islam as nothing more than an enable for extremists. As one image put it, “the only difference between a radical and a moderate Muslim is the distance they place between themselves and the bomb”. The aim is to sow distrust and to prevent the inclusion of Muslim groups in multicultural activities and relations with other groups.

Another theme was the idea that Muslims are not a race so the hate being directed against Muslims is not racist. While this may technically be true, racial vilification is not the only form of vilification against a group which is considered unlawful or a criminal offence in many parts of the world. This argument is promoted particularly strongly by the English Defence League and its various spin offs. The idea that being anti-Muslim is socially acceptable is also strongly promoted with slogans such as “I’m not Islamophobic, I’m Islam-Aware!”

Another theme is that of Muslims as untrustworthy or inherently deceptive. This merges the theme of moderate Muslims as enablers, and with the idea of Islam as a cultural threat.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 21

Additional Observations
Halal Certification
There is a significant volume of vilification of Muslims on pages ostensibly about opposition to Halal certification. On these pages, the opposition to Halal certification is little more than an excuse for gathering an audience to share hate. There are, however, also two pages seriously pursuing opposition to Halal certification and without engaging in other overt hate. The grounds for opposition are: 1. An argument of increases prices as certification costs are passed on to consumers 2. A concern over the final destination of money raised from the certification process The price increase argument is supported by the additional argument that because Halal certification for some products relates purely to the ingredients used, which consumers can read on the packaging, there is no justification for requiring a license (and increasing the cost). This argument could be applied to any form of certification and ignores the value provided by an independent certification authority. Independent authorities manage a wide range of certifications, particularly for food products. In addition to Halal certification, other common forms of certification in Australia include: Kosher certification; the Heart Foundation’s tick of approval; Australia Made Campaign’s Australian Made, Australian Grown logo; Fairtrade certification; and many others. Certification typically involves a licensee fee which companies pay in order to display a logo on their product which meet the criteria give by the certification authority. Certification authorities come under challenge, or risk devaluing their brand, when a gap emerges between public expectations and the impression given. An example is the damage to the Heart Foundation’s certification that resulted from secrecy around the process of certification,21 combined with the award of certification to products that made little sense to the public.22 The issue has since been resolved. The concern that certification imposes an additional cost is common across certifications. There are however two very different models to certification costing. In one, certification is based on the cost of inspecting processes, premises and raw ingredients and is undertaken on a cost recovery basis. This imposes a fixed cost that will usually become insignificant to the price the consumers pay as it is spread across a large volume of sales. An example of this is the Heart Foundation Tick of approval. The second model is where certification requires the payment of a percent. The second model creates a premium product which consumers are willing to pay a little extra to support. An example of this is Fairtrade certification. In the case of certifications based on a fixed fee, any cost that is passed on to consumers is no different to, and is likely to be swamped by, other fixed costs such as advertising and marketing. These fixed costs all decrease as the volume of sales increases. In the case of Halal certification, having a product certified opens up the Muslim market both locally and internationally. The ability to export Halal certified foods to Muslim countries can significantly increase volumes, which in turn may reduce the costs to consumers. A number of Halal certification authorities exist in Australia and the fee structures are bases on a fixed cost model.23 The fee may have different components such as some of the following: an initial application processing fee (ad administrative fee), premises accreditation fees (ensuring the physical premises are suitable to prevent non-Halal food getting mixed with Halal food), certification fees (this is based on
21

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/the-tick-that-broke-heart-of-foundation/story-e6freuy91226145340644 22 http://theconversation.com/fast-food-loses-tick-but-can-the-heart-foundation-regain-its-credibility-3475 23 Baw Baw Shire Council, The Halal Market: A Beginners Guide to Halal in Domestic and Export Markets (July 2008) 13. http://www.bawbawshire.vic.gov.au/files/4bed29c6-1b3d-4110-86479fd300dfc075/The_Halal_Market_A_Beginners_Guide_Rev10_July_08[1].pdf

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 22

understanding the product e.g. the ingredients used, the production process etc), inspection fees (this is to ensure what is happening in the ground matches what is expected based on the certification, multiple inspection fees may be required where certification covers multiple sites), and licensing fees (usually an annual fee). While the fees are variable, taking into account the complexities of manufacturing process, they are still typically based on a fixed cost model rather than a percentage of profits. Some comparisons:     Kosher Australia makes the cost of certification publically available on its site and clearly states that the process is run on a not for profit basis with the money charged simply covering the cost of the certification process.24 The fee is based on the cost of inspecting the premises and the process. The Heart Foundation Tick of Approval is also paid for by ‘participating food companies and outlets’,25 and the process involves lab testing and random audits.26 The Heart Foundation is a charity and the Tick of Approval program runs on a cost recovery basis.27 The Australian Made Campaign has a minimum entry cost which rises in relation to the value of sales.28 The campaign is run on a not for profit basis and is self funded from the cost of the license fees.29 The Fair Trade movement is also growing in Australian with certification (managed by Fairtrade Australia and New Zealand – a registered charity) appearing on a growing range of products.30 The cost of Fairtrade certification is typically about 2% of the net wholesale value of a company’s Fairtrade sales.31

Recommendation 4: Halal Certification Authorities need to be transparent and clear on their fee structures to help avoid hate spreading through ignorance.

24 25

http://www.kosher.org.au/content/certification-process http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Tick-Criteria-Introduction.pdf 26 http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/information-for-professionals/heart-foundationtick/Pages/retail.aspx 27 http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/heart-foundation-tick/Pages/smart-shopping.aspx 28 http://www.australianmade.com.au/for-business/how-much-does-it-cost/ 29 Ibid. 30 http://fairtrade.com.au/page/faqs 31 http://fairtrade.com.au/page/manufacturers

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 23

Pro-Israel Content on Anti-Muslim Pages

Figure 6 Example G33

This image blatantly raises the issue of some people being pro-Israel purely as a way to be anti-Muslim. This may explain the presense of pro-Israel content, from those who otherwise have no affiliation or connection with Israel, on a number of the hate pages. The conceptualisation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a zero sum game, where any disadvantage to one side is seen as an advantage to the other, and visa versa, leads to a position where one is either proPalestinian or Pro-Israeli and therefore wholly ‘against’ the other side. The premise of this argument is mistaken and runs counter to decades of peace negotiations in pursuit of a two state solution. Where Jews are associated with Israel, and Muslims are associated with the Palestinians, the zero sum game approach can lead to a build up of hate against both groups by various ‘hangers on’ supporting the other side. That would typically be the left that slips into antisemitism in its support of Palestinians, or the right that slips into anti-Muslim hate in its support of Israel. There are also those who are deeply antisemitic who use the pro-Palestinian cause as a cover, and similarly, in the pages examined in this report, we see those with a hatred of Muslims bring in pro-Israel (and pro-Jewish) imagery and arguments as a cover or a means to try and attract support – as shown in Figure 6. In Australia the Muslim Community and the Jewish Community typically enjoy mutual respect and leadership can and does cooperate on issues of mutual concern as well as on interfaith and multifaith dialogues. There is a danger that pro-Israel content on anti-Muslim pages, which may be entirely unrelated to the Jewish community, could trigger a response against the Jewish community while giving those responsible a free pass that avoid even mild condemnation.

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 24

The Clash of Civilisations and Allegations of Collective Guilt
The hate speech argument that all Muslims are accountable for the acts of terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam, gains strength when Muslim groups themselves follow a zero sum game. That is, when Muslim groups drawing a sharp line between Jews and Israel and refuse to have anything to do with the later on the basis that this position supports the Palestinian cause. This makes it easier for those wishing to promote hate against the Muslim community to put mainstream Muslim organisations (who have adopted this approach) in the same camp as terrorist organisations actively seeking Israel’s destruction, rather than in the camp of moderates Palestinians who are working towards peace. This issue is Israel specific and stronger relationships between the Muslims community and the Jewish community, in a manner that does not address Israel, have little impact against this line of hate speech. There is another line of hate speech which seeks to reframe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a wider religious conflict. This can be seen in Figure 7 where the fact the victims were Jewish is specifically highlighted. The example also holds all Muslims responsible for the attack, demonizing Muslims in general, and using a swastika to re-enforce that message.

Figure 7 Example A16 which seems to demonize all Muslims by holding them collectively responsible. The fact the girls are Jewish is specifically highlighted.

Recommendation 5: A dialogue is need between Jews and Muslims in relation to the Middle East. This dialogue need not reach solutions, provided it makes discussion of the topic possible. This will help build resistance against those seeking to drive a wedge between the communities in an effort to promote hate.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 25

The English Defence League
A significant number of the hate pages examined are affiliated to the English Defence League (EDL). One such page is ‘Eye on Islam’ (Item 29 in the Hate Speech Manifest in this report). Online the EDL’s influence is international with a particularly strong focus on Australia, the United States and Canada in addition to the UK. While openly pushing the notion that they are not racist, the EDL promotes religious vilification and some of its arguments are strongly tied to classic right wing arguments. This group needs to be recognised as hate group and those opposing racism need to step forward to challenge them.

From Item 29 (page ID 171939046312524)

From Item 29 (Example G27)

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 26

Technical Matters Contributing to the Problem
The danger of hate pages as a free for all
In one case (Item 44 in the Hate Speech Manifest), a page was created with only one image, but with open posting so others, without administrator access, could post their images to the page. This may have been done to avoid the page being sanctioned as any reports would then result in sanctions against the poster, not the page or its administrator (even if it is the same person using a disposable account without administration rights to the page). This approach had one flaw, which was that the page became a free-for-all with anti-Muslim hate (presumably posted by the administrator and others) being match by the posting of antisemitic and antiChristian hate speech as shown in Figure 8 below. While the page as such is not technically connected to the hate (except by receiving it), were it not for the existence of the page much of this content would probably not have been created or uploaded to Facebook. Such pages should be removed as they serve no useful purpose except as lighting rods to attract and encourage hate speech. Social media companies have a vast audience and at least some (like Facebook) make significant revenue from advertising to this audience. The hate speech that occurs is a by-product of this industry, and like any other industrial undesirable by-product, corporate social responsibility demands that the company both manage the by-products and covers the cost for doing so. The spread of hate 2.0 is a problem for society, but ultimately it is a problem social media companies create and that social media companies must solve.

Fbid: 463462377046814
Figure 8 Examples of anti-Christian and antisemitic content from Item 44

Fbid: 689483431077614

Recommendation 8: Pages attracting a large volume of hate from fans should be closed if the Administrator can’t or won’t act to stop the problem.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 27

The Problem of Duplicate Instances of Hate Speech Images
As this report demonstrates, there are multiple copies of most of the images listed. There have most likely been other copies which Facebook may in the past have removed. As long as each instance of each image requires a fresh consideration it will be hard to keep up with the spread of hate. The removal of duplicate images is technically possible. Identifying exact matches of an image is a straight forward process. Digital fingerprint algorithms also allow resized or cropped images to be found. This technology is in regular use with tools like Google image search. Facebook itself already uses even more advanced recognition tools to match faces in photographs. This technology needs to be used to reduce the volume of hate speech on Facebook. Recommendation 9: When an image is determined to be hate speech, all other copies of the image should be removed from the Facebook system as well. This recommendation will significant reduce the number of complaints staff need to resolve as any complaints about the same image can then be automatically closed and users can be notified that a Facebook staff member are reviewed the content and acted on their report. This will also reduce future complaints as 1000 copies of the same image would only need to be reported once. A related problem is the prevention of future uploading of images that have already been judged to be hate speech and removed. Figure 9 shows why this is important. In this example an image was removed, and user banned for posting it, so another user immediately re-uploaded the image and almost 5 months later the second copy of this image, which Facebook has already determined to be hate speech, is still up.

Figure 9 Example D31 from Item 49

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 28

The Flawed Reporting System that puts Victims at Risk
As OHPI have pointed out previously, the reporting system for Facebook is flawed in a number of ways, one of which is that those typing to report a page to Facebook often end up messaging the page administrator by mistake. In the case of a dedicated hate page, this can make the person trying to report the content into a target putting them at risk.

Figure 10 A message received by a page administrator but intended for Facebook (from item 31 in the hate speech manifest)

Facebook needs to make the reporting system more intuitive, and to make it very clear when content is being set to a page administrator not to Facebook. In this case the page administrator removed part of the users name. They could have left the name visible or posted a link to the user’s profile which would have effectively marked the complainant as a target for others to troll or bully. This highlights the danger created by the flaw in the current system. The problem of a complex reporting system is exacerbated when the reporting may be undertaken by children. Recommendation 10: Facebook should improve the design and workflow of the reporting system. Recommendation 11: Messages that will go to the page administrator, rather than to Facebook, should be clearly marked and confirmation should be required before the message is sent.

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 29

Hate Speech Manifest
The hate speech manifest is in two parts; the first provides a list of hate pages and the second provides examples of the hate found on those pages. In some cases the example will show a different pages image and name as the poster, this occurs when the page we list the example against has reposted (shared) content from another page. In the list of pages, each page is assigned a unique ID number for reference within this report. The unique Page ID assigned by Facebook is also provided. The popularity (number of fans) of each page on the 16th of September 2013 is provided. Facebook were provided with access to the draft of this report, including the list of pages in this manifest, on the 1st of October 2013. We invited Facebook to take action on the items listed, or provide us with reason why they felt action was not warranted. While we have discussed other issues with our contacts at Facebook since then, no comment was forthcoming in response to this report. The popularity (number of fans) of each page on the 26th of November 2013 is also provided. The 10 largest pages are highlighted, as are those which are no longer available, those with significant growth, and those that are Australian pages. As shown, while Facebook has largely stood back from the issue, despite being on notice, the hate has continued to grow and spread. The items are presented thematically and each is given a unique ITEM number. In the case of items that involve images, an fbid may be provided. This is a unique ID that allows Facebook to identify that specific instance of the image. In some cases multiple instances of the same image have been found (on the same or different pages) and in these cases multiple fbids may be listed (note that this indicates multiple uploads rather than a reposting of the same instance onto different pages through sharing). Each occurrence of the image needs to be separately removed by the platform provider, although once one is identified, removal of all additional copies could be automated. RECOMMENDATION 12: Automatically search for and remove duplicate instances of hate images once an instance of an image has been identified as hate.
ID Address 16 Sept 26 Nov Examples (item numbers)

1

https://www.facebook.com/pages/boycott-all-halalproducts-in-australia/171203192936626 Page ID: 171203192936626 (Australian)

483

504

A2, A4, A37, B2, B3,

2

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Petition-to-Banthe-Burqa-in-Australia/190919737590995 Page ID: 190919737590995 (Australian)

1574

1561

A10, B5, B6, D3, E4, E5, E6, E8, E9, E10, F1, F2, F3

3

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Petition-to-BanHalal-Products-in-Australia/186266591414328 Page ID: 186266591414328 (Australian)

1248

1247

A5, E1, E2, E3, E7, F2

4

https://www.facebook.com/WelcomeGeertWilderst oAustralia Page ID: 159422497475857 (Australian)

1694

1723

A8, B9, C1, C2, D6, D7, D8, G4, G5, G6, G7

5

http://www.facebook.com/islamisbad Page ID: 525453094188925

Unpublished

Unpublished

D1, D2, A1

6

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MuslimAustralians-againsty-ANZAC-day/243802445761391 Page ID: 243802445761391 (Australian) https://www.facebook.com/TheIslamicThreat/ Page ID: 169622839809363

Unpublished

Unpublished

B1 (false flag)

7

43,964

106,566

A3, A6, A7, B7, B8, D4, D5, D8, F4, G1, G2, G19 *

Islamophobia on the Internet
ID Address 16 Sept 26 Nov

P a g e | 30
Examples (item numbers)

8

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Exposingtheantiboganwordpresscom/105033652949818 Page ID: 105033652949818 (Australian)

263

279

A9, A11, A12, E11, F5, F6

9

https://www.facebook.com/halalchoices Page ID: 182039275189849 (Australian)

776

1021

A13, C3, C4

10

https://www.facebook.com/AustralianDefenceLeague OfficialAdlEst2009 Page ID: 464439926928205 (Australian)

1865

2210

A14, A15, B10, B11, B12, C5, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14, D15, E12, E13, F7, F8, G8, G9, G10, G11 A16, A17, B13, B14, D16, D20, D21, G12, G13, G15 A19, A26, B16, B20, D27, G21, G22 * A21, A22, A23, B16, B17, D22, D23, F9, G18 A12, A19, A20, A23, B8, B15, D2, D17, D18, D19, E14, G3, G9, G14, G15, G16, G17

11

https://www.facebook.com/IslamIsEvil Page ID: 511171252271525

299

373

12

https://www.facebook.com/GDLREVIVE
Page ID: 630090623669318

1845

4027

13

http://www.facebook.com/goat.defenceleaguepeace Page ID: 492535594111615

1494

1651

14

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Islam-is-thereligion-of-PISS-and-the-retarded-Zhc-can-fckright-off/321061987964966 Page ID: 321061987964966

9301

9340

15

https://www.facebook.com/pages/SIOC-StopIslamization-of-Canada/113065962075296 Page ID: 113065962075296

2322

2426

B20, B21, D25, G19 *

16

https://www.facebook.com/islamuncovered Page ID: 373950966012413

4604

4693

A20, B20, D26, E15, G20, A26

17

https://www.facebook.com/USDefenseLeague Page ID: 234080043350002

20914

22052

A2, C6, D28

18

https://www.facebook.com/pages/United-StatesDefense-League-Ohio-Division/152553058147119 Page ID: 152553058147119

1648

1654

A2, A7, A27, D23, G3, G24

19

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Proud-To-BeAn-Infidel-2/674976375851362 Page ID: 674976375851362

2638

4832

A15, B11,G11

20

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Look-afterAustralians-first-deport-all-illegal-boatpeople/152604028146493 Page id: 152604028146493 (Australian)

682

712

A24, A25, B19, D8, D24

Online Hate Prevention Institute
ID Address 16 Sept 26 Nov

P a g e | 31
Examples (item numbers)

21

https://www.facebook.com/BOYCOTTxHALAL Page ID: 160347640662396

13251

14825

A28, A29, A37, C7, C8

22

https://www.facebook.com/BOYCOTT.HALAL.EUROPE Page ID: 259382534110945

931

1013

A30, C8, G24

23

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-SubwaysHalal-Meat/116228618452324 Page ID: 116228618452324

135

137

F10

24

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Australiansfirst/411328682283915
Page ID: 411328682283915 (Australian)

69

72

A24, B18, B19

25

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Islam-Is-Not-aReligion/345745032190274 Page ID: 345745032190274

209

291

A 24; A31, B8,B21, D8, D29 (twice), G2, G16

26

https://www.facebook.com/IslamFreePlanet Page ID: 357271364367939

12290

13065

A19, A29, A31,B22, B27, G8, G9, G21, G25

27

https://www.facebook.com/PeopleAgainstIslam Page ID: 479659055442087

1236

1385

A2, A31, B20; D13, D23, E17, E18, G9, G26, A24, A31, B16, B17, D23, D30, G9 A2, A31, A32, A33, B10, B12, B16, D13, D30 (x2), G8, G9, G11, G18, G27 A23, B23, D8, D24, G28, G29

28

https://www.facebook.com/BanQuran Page ID: 289280414518143

2711

3118

29

https://www.facebook.com/EyeOnIslam Page ID: 171939046312524

2965

3213

30

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Infidel-TaskForce/191884884172028 Page ID: 191884884172028

9033

9185

31

https://www.facebook.com/pages/MuhammadSpeaks/198902856795660 Page ID: 198902856795660

7476

7708

A19, A23, A34, A35,A36, C9, D12 (x2), E19, F11, G22, G30, G31 A12, A24, A31 (x 9), A37, A38, A39, B24 (x2), D31, E17, G16, G24, G32 A23, D2, D23, E20

32

https://www.facebook.com/SIOTW Page ID: 103875636334576

34412

3842

33

https://www.facebook.com/Truth.Alone.Wins Page ID: 100701186772924

5428

6554

Islamophobia on the Internet
ID Address 16 Sept 26 Nov

P a g e | 32
Examples (item numbers)

34

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-TheIslamisation-of-Australia-SIOA/141328352588706 Page ID: 141328352588706 (Australian)

1694

1749

A31, A40, D8, D25, G29

35

https://www.facebook.com/pages/WOMEN-OFTHE-WORLD-UNITED-AGAINST-ISLAMICMUSLIMSHARIA-LAW/276988682771 Page ID: 276988682771

28860

29290

A1 (x2), A33, A40, A41 (x2), B27 (x2), D8 (x2), D30 (x4), G3 (x2)

36

https://www.facebook.com/DarkSideofIslam Page ID: 253126498138459

11635

13096

A2, A7, A12, A24, A42, B16, B20, D8, D17, D23, D28, D32, G3, G7, G16 (x3), G24, G33 A33, G9

37

https://www.facebook.com/pages/IslamDeceiver/563323410397371 Page ID: 563323410397371 (removed page which had ID: 130429177128944)

1010

Unpublished

38

https://www.facebook.com/restore.australiathre e Page ID: 100005019034831 (Australian)

1755

1836

B25, C10, D33, G34,

39

https://www.facebook.com/RestoreAustraliaPage Closed Page ID: 355418931180713 (Australian)

Closed

G11

40

https://www.facebook.com/pages/StopIslamism/188010058029836 Page ID: 188010058029836

2192

3415

A1, A6, A39, B20, B26, B27 (x2), D8, D13, D23, D28, G3, G9, G12, G20, G31, G34 A31, E12, E16, E21, G35

41

http://www.facebook.com/pages/PotatoJihad/471362729622225 Page ID: 471362729622225

412

532

42

http://www.facebook.com/britainfirstparty Page id: 145526238936612

8066

8,914

B22, B28, C11, E13 (x2), E20

43

http://www.facebook.com/QuestioningIslam Page ID: 451735151589479 (mostly theological questioning which is not hate speech, but not entirely)

499

774

G10 (x2)

44

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anti-IslamicJokes/149509355089532 https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-ProphetMuhammad-STILL-Burns-In-HellFire/281538198643648 Page ID: 281538198643648

1992

2178

D8, D20, D24, D34, D35, E22, G14 A23, B2, D17, G3, G36

45

360

409

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 33

ID

Address

16 Sept

26 Nov

Examples (item numbers)

46

https://www.facebook.com/Suckingsince622 Page id: 388251271205702 (Australian Admin)

Closed

Closed

A19, A24, A31(x26), A42, B2, D17, D24, E14, E23, F12, G17 A1 (x2), A19, B16, D2, D8 (x2), D19, D23, E14, E19, G16, G24, G33, B11, D28, E23, G14,

47

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mohammadthe-PIG/383133018416934 Page ID: 383133018416934

2009

Unpublished

48

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Anti-Islam2/267946586676382 Page ID: 267946586676382

1230

1450

49

http://www.facebook.com/InfidelNations Page ID: 152211701609932

9219

9436

A2, A23, B2, B26, B27, D31, E24, G7 A18, A33, A40, B29 (x2), D6, D8 (x2), D36, D37 (x2), G3, G31, G35 (x2)

50

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Islam-is-forCretins/149004165250769 Page ID: 149004165250769

2640

3137

The following pages do not contain any hate speech, such as messages or imagery targeting Muslims, but may still be considered religious discrimination as they seek to prevent Halal options being made available. Where there is no reasonable explanation for seeking to prevent such options being available, the only conclusion is that it is part of an effort to make life more difficult for Muslims, and therefore to seek to exclude Muslim people or encourage them to move elsewhere.

ID 51

Page address
https://www.facebook.com/NonHalalWorld Page ID: 377261062322323

16 Sept

26 Nov

1425

1745

52

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-KFCResturaunts-for-going-Halal/108780769149172 Page ID: 108780769149172

3493

3486

Australia’s contribution
The largest hate page, “The Islamic Threat” (ID 7) has 57,000 supporters when we undertook a country analysis of it. Of the 13 countries with people supporting this page, Australia was the 4th largest supporter. The first was the United States with 78%, then India and the UK with 4% each, then Australia with 2%. The second largest page, “Women of the World United Against Islamic / Muslim Sharia Law” (ID 35) had 26,400 when we undertook the country analysis. The page has support from 34 countries, however the same top four countries appear in the same order (US: 46%, UK 8%, India 7%, Australia 4%). Given Australia makes up just 1.08% of Facebook’s global user base,32 it is significantly over represented on these larger pages and by the number of Australia specific pages in the manifest.

32

http://frankmedia.com.au/2013/05/01/social-media-statistics-australia-april-2013/

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 34

Examples of Anti-Muslim Hate
Muslims as a Security Threat or Threat to Public Safety (Category A)
Item A1 Fbid: 10151101616732772; 10150979863222772; 208451419319033; 448571645206404; 442417309155171

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A2

P a g e | 35

Fbid: 524736044262150; 187621388068963; 484657921608867; 191215887718173; 419325744851866

Islamophobia on the Internet Item A3 Fbid:

P a g e | 36

Item A4

Fbid: 488255391234978

The comment on the right reads: So there is NOTHING on the outside wrapper saying it is halal... Yet inside when I opened a package of COON cheese lo and behold what do my wondering eyes take in but a Halal symbol... Guess I just bought an AK-47 for those mirdering bastards eh?....

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A5 Fbid:

P a g e | 37

Item A6

Fbid: 367295453375433; 200868290077346

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 38

Item A7

Fbid: 403848169720161; 473543329381422; 273136136137495

Item A8

Fbid: 444646722286765

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A9

P a g e | 39

Item A10

Islamophobia on the Internet Item A11 Fbid: 271272839659231

P a g e | 40

Item A12

Fbid: 314415325326673; 413300585392078; 524570090947487; 416089895175451

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A13

P a g e | 41

Item A14

Fbid: 575888092450054

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 42

Item A15

Fbid: 698770660138600

Item A16

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A17

P a g e | 43

Islamophobia on the Internet Item A18 Fbid: 229493673868484

P a g e | 44

Item A19

Fbid: 524134444324385; 653585077986539; 512785802149827; 639224649430143; 609010552463105; 558550100875224

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A20 Fbid: 288039708002349

P a g e | 45

Item A21

Fbid: 509823509049490

Islamophobia on the Internet Item A22 Fbid: 498336130198228

P a g e | 46

Item A23

Fbid: 497010460330795; 611740798845195; 368065396553975; 172854039557638; 482798601791303; 175720622592373

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A24

P a g e | 47

Fbid: 10151301674479024; 329912020454982; 399955890059881; 253784771405965; 604030169627810

Item A25

Fbid: 363751900369285

Islamophobia on the Internet Item A26 Fbid: 650751954936518

P a g e | 48

Item A27

Fbid:

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A28 Fbid: 622982501065572; 496053740489700

P a g e | 49

Item A29

Fbid: 561909067172916; 504417576319983

Islamophobia on the Internet Item A30

P a g e | 50

Item A31

Fbid: 456785757752867; 425777817535068; 421740237938826; 510348335726907; 502482179826441; 181178178721944; 551935431528592; 548392285216240; 546718765383592; 546069698781832; 545709615484507; 545320505523418; 539614026094066; 200688036652737; 606529309377896; 606117246085769; 604405909590236; 603999642964196; 602987799732047; 603618149669012; 602537203110440; 602148256482668; 601651569865670; 601256669905160; 600851736612320; 599763916721102; 599213243442836; 598792756818218; 598296486867845; 597901776907316; 596163847081109; 595772897120204; 595298470500980; 594884487209045; 594861910544636; 594514083912752; 594096483954512; 226977787453406; 226642437486941;

This is a sample image, the listed images are for different periods but all come from the site http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A32 Fbid: 195252880647807

P a g e | 51

Item A33

Fbid: 195041384002290; 10150396228257772; 563421727054206; 218793011605217

Islamophobia on the Internet Item A34 Fbid: 609258132426795

P a g e | 52

Item A35

Fbid: 603438959675379

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A36 Fbid: 478191928866750

P a g e | 53

Item A37

Fbid: 558275717561230; 651937011503454

Islamophobia on the Internet Item A38 Fbid: 480653748656761

P a g e | 54

Item A39

Fbid: 274255809296557; 205861229578052

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item A40 Fbid: 485831758138362; 10150359240222772; 485078661555702; 210160185801833

P a g e | 55

Item A41

Fbid: 10150428140517772; 10150396215547772

Item A42

Fbid: 416197398498034; 594631287234365

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 56

Muslims as a Cultural Threat (Category B)
Item B1 Fbid:

This page was created by a non-Muslim as a false flag. It followed a series of earlier anti-ANZAC pages designed to cause distress to the Australian public in the lead up to ANZAC Day 2013. The previous hate content is document in OHPI’s report “Attacking the ANZACs on Facebook” (ISBN: 9780987429438). Prior to creating this page they posted in Arabic on an earlier anti-ANZAC page to gauge the reaction. That post stirred up strong anti-Muslim sentiment an encouraged them to proceed to the creation of this page.

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B2 Fbid: 499310253467234; 193892937441808; 603162163047944; 171780249653077

P a g e | 57

Item B3

Fbid:

Islamophobia on the Internet Item B4 Fbid:

P a g e | 58

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B5

P a g e | 59

Item B6

Islamophobia on the Internet Item B7

P a g e | 60

Item B8

Fbid: 401639836607661; 522667947804368

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B9 Fbid: 370323306378997

P a g e | 61

Item B10

Fbid: 191494467690315

Islamophobia on the Internet Item B11 Fbid: 703555056326827

P a g e | 62

Item B12

Fbid: 190435144462914

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B13

P a g e | 63

Islamophobia on the Internet Item B14 Fbid: 535588013163182

P a g e | 64

Item B15

Fbid: 526774497393713

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B16

P a g e | 65

Fbid: 509735285724979; 645240405487673; 179731772199918; 337425996370251; 380537375397370; 448635875199981

Item B17

Fbid: 499144703450704; 303208176458700

Islamophobia on the Internet Item B18 Fbid: 161029130710988

P a g e | 66

Item B19

Fbid: 236343449772550

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B20

P a g e | 67

Fbid: 528509847197570; 491086377632204; 654346627910384; 488011937940132; 404924949625279; 209173195913522

Item B21

Fbid: 536750536370617

Islamophobia on the Internet Item B22

P a g e | 68 Fbid: 613812441974683; 221348738021028

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B23 Fbid: 667857656574746

P a g e | 69

Item B24

Fbid: 540509119337890

Islamophobia on the Internet Item B25 Fbid: 146930098817624

P a g e | 70

Item B26

Fbid: 212791118885063; 199595603538208

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item B27

P a g e | 71

Fbid: 505254432902964; 10150210453487772; 10150255524332772; 209453059218869; 209574939206681

The ‘Kick Islam out of X’ meme exists for various countries as well as more generically for ‘the west’.

Item B28

Fbid: 224082204414348

Islamophobia on the Internet Item B29

P a g e | 72 Fbid: 162992410518611; 188139838003868

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 73

Muslims as an Economic Threat (Category C)
Item C1

Item C2

Fbid: 435153139902790

Islamophobia on the Internet Item C3

P a g e | 74

Item C4

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item C5 Fbid: 556723541033176

P a g e | 75

Item C6

Fbid: 493125114112159

Islamophobia on the Internet Item C7 Fbid: 628403957190093

P a g e | 76

Item C8

Fbid: 431214026961784

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item C9 Fbid: 576239639061978

P a g e | 77

Item C10

Fbid: 171622489681718

Islamophobia on the Internet Item C11 Fbid: 220189081470327

P a g e | 78

The text in the middle of the image reads: “Muslims!... you just don’t get it do you? Nobidy wants you here! ...nobidy trusts you!”

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 79

Content Dehumanising or Demonizing Muslims (Category D)
Item D1 Fbid:

Islamophobia on the Internet

P a g e | 80

Item D2

Fbid: 10151767905356683; 182120661964309; 543964469000454

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D3

P a g e | 81

Item D4

Fbid: 296675923770720

This post comparing Islam to Nazism was shared 580 times.

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D5 Fbid: 403531083085203

P a g e | 82

Item D6

Fbid: 446000345427146; 216620851822433

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D7 Fbid: 486850051399765

P a g e | 83

Item D8

Fbid: 1015037285320277; 418209298229266; 385805498191095; 631403140220198; 492323460822525; 10150412953457772; 367274970056944; 200561803441328; 10200541744443586; 547706445292923; 504399922956909; 216389755178876; 219849338166251

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D9

P a g e | 84

Item D10

Fbid: 577113452327518

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D11 Fbid: 699206283428371

P a g e | 85

Item D12

Fbid: 548275581904034; 600810729938202; 512273212125288

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D13

P a g e | 86 Fbid: 133036953572609; 498502703557722; 195236340649461; 213882945442547

Item D14

Fbid: 10151575341931284

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D15 Fbid: 552660048106192

P a g e | 87

Item D16

Fbid: 530833216971995

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D17

P a g e | 88

Fbid: 281539071976894; 610897502274410; 359572794160495

Item D18

Fbid: 525866914151138

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D19

P a g e | 89

Fbid: 523219087749254; 467709353300228; 552492151481019

Item D20

Fbid: 530441207011196; 10200812962783875

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D21 Fbid: 528863633835620

P a g e | 90

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D22 Fbid: 509526795745828

P a g e | 91

Item D23

Fbid: 501880293177145; 478108482258240; 480026615405331; 300921330020718; 153563268153382; 374585635992544; 213842055446636; 442443642485871

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D24

P a g e | 92

Fbid: 463508106992849; 486842758009571; 4088723425145; 599235670107260

Item D25

Fbid: 537330659655138;

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D26 Fbid: 699649133383400

P a g e | 93

Item D27

Fbid: 656445681033812

Item D28

Fbid: 490275994397071; 620350231320246; 205470226283819; 286052624865778

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D29 Fbid: 337353673064043; 310495389052320

P a g e | 94

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D30 Fbid: 370700016364589; 10200942962250328; 173412312831864; 10150412954732772; 10150361489132772; 10150354164072772; 10150348523662772

P a g e | 95

Item D31

Fbid: 417750874947049; 157097331121369

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D32 Fbid: 425873907530383

P a g e | 96

Item D33

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item D34 Fbid: 152262051599304

P a g e | 97

Item D35

Fbid: 1394405810780899

Islamophobia on the Internet Item D36 Fbid: 154529891364863

P a g e | 98

Item D37

Fbid: 171343609683491; 216317881852730

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 99

Threats of Violence, Genocide and Direct Hate Targeting Muslims (Category E)
Item E1 Fbid:

Item E2

Fbid:

Item E3

Fbid:

Islamophobia on the Internet Item E4 Fbid:

P a g e | 100

The description of the page reads: The Muslim must be erraticated [sic]

Item E5

Fbid:

This post is in reference to Australia Day and suggests assaulting people (presumably Muslims given the nature of the page) would be an appropriate way to spend the day. Being a racist extremist, or at least joking about being one, is seen as a positive thing. Joking about killing Jews is also promoted.

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item E6 Fbid:

P a g e | 101

Item E7

Fbid:

Islamophobia on the Internet Item E8 Fbid:

P a g e | 102

Item E9

Fbid:

Item E10

Fbid:

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item E11 Fbid:

P a g e | 103

Item E12

Fbid: 477961098962388

Item E13

Fbid: 218785314944037; 213013658854536

Islamophobia on the Internet Item E14

P a g e | 104

Fbid: 520307951373701; 608801859150641; 442557519141150

Item E15

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item E16 Fbid: 481607511931080

P a g e | 105

Item E17

Fbid: 483092108432115; 528507237204745

Islamophobia on the Internet Item E18 Fbid: 483092285098764

P a g e | 106

Item E19

Fbid: 507733772579232; 484245284972373

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item E20 Fbid: 153267098182999; 217896325032936

P a g e | 107

The same images appears in one form speaking about Indians and in another speaklng about ‘White British’

Item E21

Fbid: 473775842714247

Islamophobia on the Internet Item E22 Fbid: 462005127218208

P a g e | 108

Item E23

Fbid: 610614948969332

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item E24 Fbid: 206520956179006

P a g e | 109

Hate Targeting Refugees / Asylum Seekers (Category F)
Item F1

Islamophobia on the Internet Item F2 Fbid:

P a g e | 110

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 111

Item F3

Item F4

Islamophobia on the Internet Item F5

P a g e | 112

Item F6

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item F7 Fbid: 577055478999982

P a g e | 113

Islamophobia on the Internet Item F8 Fbid: 545097052195825

P a g e | 114

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item F9 Fbid: 509212359110605

P a g e | 115

Item F10

Islamophobia on the Internet Item F11 Fbid: 389180347767909

P a g e | 116

Item F12

Fbid: 541016282636545

Online Hate Prevention Institute

P a g e | 117

Other Forms of Hate (Category G)
Item G1 Fbid: 367322630039382

Item G2

Fbid: 402360933202218

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G3

P a g e | 118

Fbid: 403536486417996; 472391269496628; 10150389550302772; 10150350078667772; 362566757194432; 204925909671584; 482798601791303; 232119166939268

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G4

P a g e | 119

Fbid: 402980366453401; 348128748605230

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G5 Fbid: 441063682599533

P a g e | 120

Item G6

Fbid: 480505145367589

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G7

P a g e | 121

Fbid: 556518457720351; 423596547758119; 206723219492113

Item G8

Fbid: 509401202488287; 195236093982819

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G9

P a g e | 122

Fbid: 10151770254509483; 583669408349839; 426163427496507; 510652359029838; 508124975928828; 195261617313600; 564575966938782; 207236079440567

Item G10

Fbid: 473616629401331; 461815947248066

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G11

P a g e | 123

Fbid: 697286130287053; 193049864201442; 162281023949198

Item G12

Fbid: 532599810128669; 209117652585743

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G13 Fbid: 531100256945291

P a g e | 124

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G14

P a g e | 125

Fbid: 520332204704609; 10200541745603615; 507496659324972

Item G15

Fbid: 525080187563144

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G16

P a g e | 126

Fbid: 524498770954619; 10201661651885793; 459279127460890; 510485905681644; 277675625683546; 293337750784000; 305137582937350

Item G17

Fbid: 604167539614073

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G18

P a g e | 127

Fbid: 509196269112214; 501485243216650; 195248857314876

Item G19

Fbid: 377271012377877

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G20 Fbid: 209547382542770

P a g e | 128

Item G21

Fbid: 657694720908908; 514935968601477

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G22 Fbid: 651994411478939; 390403380978939

P a g e | 129

Item G23

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G24

P a g e | 130

Fbid: 622749214417674; 452257531496383; 395164280601346; 443615522368683

Item G25

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G26 Fbid (cover image): 485152951559364

P a g e | 131

About text reads: “A page that should instantly have over 1 million. No posts are to be racist, in any way. We all want islam out of our countries and need to group together for this cause.”

Item G27

Fbid: 192419994264429

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G28 Fbid: 550267578333755

P a g e | 132

Item G29

Fbid: 499467473413766; 471499312904940

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G30 Fbid: 615803061772302

P a g e | 133

Item G31

Fbid: 616259925059949; 213955362101972; 218124008338784

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G32 Fbid: 529241533797982

P a g e | 134

Item G33

Fbid: 368686693249105; 564191980311036

This image is not hate speech (although the use of ‘Muzzies’ would qualify as hate speech accoridng to Facebook’s own definition in relation to slurs). That raises an interesting question of why Facebook removed a previous copy of this image, when they reject so many other complaints. It’s possible the removal was related to the accompanying text rather than to the image itself. If not, this would be yet another example of inconsistency in Facebook’s enforcement of policy.

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G34 Fbid: 179222282255072; 200931566737685

P a g e | 135

Item G35

Fbid: 224790911005427; 163482810469571

Islamophobia on the Internet Item G36 Fbid: 645292852162812

P a g e | 136

The posters comment shows the misuse of the argument that critisism of Islam is not hate speech in order to falsely argue that their attacks on Muslims are not hate speech.

Online Hate Prevention Institute Item G36 (cont) (The full image)

P a g e | 137

The text below reads: “Every Ideology must be subject to open, free discussion in regard to its value or otherwise, without fear of reprisal. No exceptions. “Islamophobia” is not racism, any more than “Communistophobia” or “Fascistophobia” would be, because Islam is an idea, not a race. In a civilised society, no idea – religious, political or philosophical – can claim any special treatment, or be set beyond the reach of empirical evidence.”