Hate on the Net:
A Question of Rights / A Question of Power


Evelyn Kallen
York University


This paper will attempt to demonstrate that cyberhate messages promoted on the Internet by organized political and religious hate groups incite hatred and promote harmful action against racial, ethnocultural, religious and same-sex oriented minorities. The author’s analysis of racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic cyberhate messages will provide empirical evidence to support the thesis that, by manipulating deeply held invalidation myths to provide “evidence” for their arguments, high tech hate mongers incite virulent hatred of and harmful action toward targeted minorities. By so doing, high tech hate-mongering violates minority members’ human rights to dignity and equality by denying their fundamental freedom from group defamation and harassment.


This paper will attempt to demonstrate that cyberhate messages promoted on the Internet by organized political and religious hate groups incite hatred and promote harmful action against racial, ethnocultural, religious and same-sex oriented minorities. The author’s analysis of racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic cyberhate messages will provide empirical evidence to support the thesis that, by manipulating deeply held invalidation myths to provide “evidence” for their arguments, high tech hate mongers incite virulent hatred of and harmful action toward targeted minorities. By so doing, high tech hate-mongering violates minority members’ human rights to dignity and equality by denying their fundamental freedom from group vilification and harassment.

The Conceptual Framework: Fundamental Principles of Human Rights

As applied in the conceptual framework of this paper, the concept of human rights refers to a set of internationally agreed upon moral principles which have been set down in the various declarations of United Nations human rights instruments (UN 1978, 1988). These international human rights declarations were developed, initially, by democratic countries to express world-wide horror and repudiation of the atrocities of WW2: they represented an attempt to ensure that crimes against humanity, such as policies of genocide (the deliberate attempt to exterminate an entire human population), would not happen again.

Over the years, these principles have continuously been refined and extended in order to afford greater and clearer protection for human rights in general, and for the minority rights of particular populations, including women, persons with mental and physical disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous (aboriginal) peoples and others, more specifically.

The three main principles behind fundamental human rights are: freedom to decide and to make the crucial decisions affecting one’s life destiny; equality of opportunity in all life pursuits, and dignity of person/respect as a human being. Freedom to decide includes decision-making in public life (the right to vote in an election; the right to run for public office) as well as private decisions: choice of friends, marital partners, jobs) and, most importantly, freedom of expression and the right of dissent against the state. Equality of opportunity includes the right to life and to a standard of living that makes life possible. This includes the right to food, shelter, work, public education and so on. Dignity of person includes the right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or derogatory treatment and freedom from incitement to hatred and group defamation. Dignity of person is the unequivocal right to respect as a human being, regardless of differences in individual and/or group level racial/cultural/behavioral attributes.

International Human Rights Provisions Protecting the Right to Dignity: Protections Against Incitement to Hate and Group Defamation

The right of members of all racial and ethnic groups to freedom from the promotion of racial hatred is protected under article 20.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR. This article states that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law” (UN, 1978:11). Under the provisions of international human rights instruments explicitly designed to prevent racial discrimination, namely, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (UNDEAFRD) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICEAFRD), there are two articles which afford protection for the right to freedom from racial discrimination and racial hatred. Article 2.3 (UNDEAFRD) and article 1.4 (ICEAFRD) allow special measures of affirmative action designed to redress past, systemic discrimination for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities (UN 1978:24-25). Article 4 (ICEAFRD) prohibits hate propaganda and enjoins states parties to declare illegal and an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred and to declare illegal and prohibit all organizations promoting such ideas. This article specifically protects the right of racial/ethnic minorities to be free from incitement to hate and group defamation. However, as a general human rights principle, it can justifiably be extended to protect non-ethnic minorities as well.

To date, only some thirteen nations (including Canada, but not the United States) have ratified the international human rights instruments containing these protections against the promotion of hate and group defamation and have enacted laws which endorse some of their provisions. Nevertheless, these international human rights covenants represent universally endorsed moral principles, human rights guidelines to which all member nations should conform. And these international guidelines strongly endorse the prohibition of hate propaganda, hate- mongering activities and organized hate groups.

Rights in Conflict: Freedom of Expression Versus Freedom From Group Vilification

The virulent spread of hate on the (as yet) unregulated Internet has raised concerns not only about what it means for the future of free speech on our planet, but also what it says about our human rights priorities. To anti-hate activists, freedom of speech does not include the right to vilify. From this view, hate-mongering by organized networks of political and religious hate groups embracing and promoting racist, anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, white-supremacist, anti-gay and anti-feminist ideologies and strategies, constitutes a direct violation of the fundamental human right of targeted minorities to freedom from group defamation and its harmful psycho-social effects. On the other hand, to absolutist upholders of unfettered freedom of speech, protection of this fundamental human right assumes priority, and virtually no form of censorship of hate-mongering is held to be justified.

The Hate Propaganda Debate

In contrast with the United States, Canada’s Criminal Code contains specific provisions prohibiting incitement to hate (319(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46). As in Canada, in countries outside of North America where anti-hate propaganda legislation is in place, the conflict of rights at issue in the controversy over promotion of hate on the Net must be analyzed within the broader ideological context of the hate propaganda debate.

There are two sharply contrasting positions among both human rights activists and legal scholars on this question. 1) The “libertarian” view holds that freedom of speech takes precedence over all other rights and freedoms because all rights and freedoms depend on the existence of an effective right of dissent (Rosenthal 1978: 139). From this view, the harmful effects of hate propaganda are not deemed to be sufficiently grave to justify the imposition of restrictions on freedom of speech – especially legal/criminal restrictions. 2) The opposing “egalitarian” view holds that restrictions on hate-mongering are necessary in order to protect minority groups from pain and suffering and in order to promote inter-group harmony in the society (Rosenthal 1978: 20). From the egalitarian view, all persons and groups must equally be protected against the willful promotion of hatred and against defamatory attacks which deny their right to human dignity. Freedom of speech, from this view, does not mean the right to vilify. Insofar as hate propaganda has no redeeming social value and is inherently harmful both to target groups and the societal order, restrictions on freedom of expression explicitly designed to curb hate-mongering represent “reasonable limits.” As proponents of this view, egalitarians generally support legislative means of curbing the activities of hate propagandists, including the use of criminal charges and public trials (Canada 1984; Canadian Bar Association 1984; Cotler:1985).

A key conceptual issue underlying this debate is whether or not affronts to group dignity constitute violations of the individual human right to dignity of members of target minority groups. The egalitarian position is consistent with the view that an affront to group dignity is experienced by minority members as an affront to their individual dignity. The libertarian position is inconsistent with this view.

The Promotion of Hate: Prejudice or Discrimination

From a human rights perspective, the hate propaganda debate has been conceptualized in terms of rights in conflict. Another way of conceptualizing the debate, using a social scientific approach, is to apply the distinction between the concepts of prejudice and discrimination in the analysis of the issues raised in the debate.

When hate propaganda and its dissemination are conceptualized as prejudice (negative ideas, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings toward the target for hate), it can be argued that it does not violate human rights. This, we suggest, is what the libertarians are saying. However, when hate promotion activities are conceptualized as discrimination (acts or practices which deny target groups their individual and collective human right to dignity), the promotion of hatred indisputably violates human rights. This, we suggest, is the line of argument put forward by proponents of the egalitarian view (Kallen & Lam 1993).

If we conceptualize hate propaganda and the promotion of hate as prejudice, then the argument follows that anti-hate propaganda laws are both inappropriate and ineffective means for the suppression of hatred. If however we conceptualize the promotion of hatred as acts of discrimination, then the social scientific evidence supports the view that anti-hate propaganda laws are necessary and efficacious measures to curtail the spread of hatred, to protect minority target groups from harmful vilification and to safeguard inter-group harmony among diverse population groups in society (Kallen & Lam op cit).

The Harmful Impact Of Hate-Mongering

Insofar as hate-mongering activities can have a harmful impact on the target for hate and/or on inter-group relations in the society, then such activities clearly constitute acts of discrimination. What needs to be determined is the nature of the harm caused by the promotion of hate. Social psychologists have been largely responsible for the analysis of the harmful impact of hate- mongering. This approach is espoused by Kaufmann, in his Appendix to the (1966) report to the Minister of Justice of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. Kaufmann points out that most psychologists accept a theory of general persuadability as a personal characteristic. He argues, in light of this theory, that account must be taken of the fact that human beings are emotional as well as rational in their predispositions, and that, particularly in times of stress and strain, they can be swept away by the emotional appeals of false, defamatory propaganda against identifiable target groups. Hitler’s Germany, he suggests, provides a stark case in point. Kaufmann argues that the uncontrolled harassment of minority target groups and the uncontrolled repetition of falsehoods and pseudo-facts can leave behind a residue of prejudice and hate among (non-target) recipients – a seed bed from which more widespread incitement to hate and harm can flourish. With regard to the psychological impact of hate messages on target groups, Kaufmann contends that hate-mongering can inflict profound psychological and spiritual damage on members of target groups through defamatory messages which violate the right to dignity of the group as a whole. The latter point is strongly supported by the findings of the author’s research on the psycho-social impact of hate trials on a minority target group in Canada (Kallen 1992 ; Kallen & Lam 1993 ).

Invalidation Myths and Ideologies: The Paradigm of Hate

In order to “justify” harmful discriminatory action against targeted minorities, in clear violation of their fundamental human rights, organized hate groups throughout the globe rely on and promote invalidation myths and ideologies through which they attempt to invalidate, in essence, to dehumanize, identified minorities and thus to legitimize violation of their human rights.

Let me take a minute or two to elaborate on the concept of invalidation, which I hold to be critical for the analysis of hate propaganda and its harmful effects. Invalidation myths are falsified statements which allege that identified human populations are innately inferior or invalid (defective) with regard to particular human attributes (Kallen 1995: 22). For example, (as will be amply demonstrated throughout this paper) Jews are depicted in prevailing anti-Semitic myths as “devils incarnate” – unscrupulous power-hungry and money-hungry manipulators of media, governments and international finance, whose only loyalty is to other Jews. Blacks are classified in racist myths as racially, culturally and morally inferior sub-human beings – criminally inclined dope-peddlers, wife-beaters and murderers. Gay men are identified in heterosexist/homophobic myths as anti-human beings – sinful, perverted, promiscuous sex-seekers, life threatening AIDS-carriers and transmitters of disease and death.

Invalidation ideologies – like anti-Semitism, white racism and heterosexism – are spurious theories which are designed to give credibility to invalidation myths by providing purported “evidence” for them (Kallen op cit). The arguments are premised on scientifically unsupportable assumptions about differences in human attributes among various populations; prejudicial assumptions which serve to inferiorize, to invalidate, particular populations and thus to provide a platform for discriminatory action against them. Typically, pseudo-scientific and/or pseudo-religious “evidence” of minority inferiority or dangerousness is manipulated in order to justify violations of minority rights.

Hate propaganda represents probably the most malignant expression of invalidation ideology, for it not only inferiorizes target populations, but it also singles them out as dangerous and threatening to society. Not surprisingly, it follows from this premise that hate propaganda urges its audience to take steps to eliminate the purported threat. What begins as prejudice is thus translated into discrimination through hate-mongering activities which incite hate and harm against the target group.

We can conceptualize the process of invalidation as a sequence of three main stages:

  1. Invalidation myth (prejudice): definition of target group as inferior and/or dangerous
  2. Invalidation ideology: development of theory of vilification and provision of supporting arguments and “evidence “to” justify “denial of fundamental human rights
  3. Platform for action: incitement to hatred and harm (discriminatory action); denial of human rights.

By way of illustration of this conceptual paradigm, let us examine the following excerpt from a hate message promoted on Antipas’s Home Page:

My church (Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas) engages in daily, peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. We display large colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments, including: GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, NO TEARS FOR QUEERS, SIN & SHAME NOT PRIDE, FAG=ANAL SEX=DEATH, FAG=AIDS=DEATH, GOD IS NOT MOCKED, FAGS ARE NATURE FREAKS, GOD GAVE FAGS UP, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR FAGS, etc.


This hate message provides a clear example of a homophobic religious invalidation ideology, an ideology of heterosexism.

  1. Invalidation myth: Homosexuals are abnormal (“nature freaks”). The homosexual lifestyle is sinful, shameful, rooted in “soul-damning, nation-destroying filth”.
  2. Invalidation ideology: God has sent AIDS (=death) as a “cure” for homosexuality
  3. Platform for action: Death to homosexuals

The sequential model of invalidation, briefly illustrated above, will provide the conceptual framework to be applied in the analysis of cyberhate messages in the next section of this paper.


My first set of examples1 are excerpted from online articles in FREE SPEECH, Vol. No. 5, 1995. National Vanguard Books. Electronic version found @ Christian Identity Online, Feb 19,1996

These articles focus on the alleged threat to North American civilization and to the “normal” white Christians who built this civilization, posed by “alien” Jewish control of the media and the government, and by non-white immigration and “multiculturalism”.

Excerpted from: “Terror Breeds Terror: Oklahoma City in Perspective”, by Dr. William L. Pierce Chairman, National Alliance.

…When a civilization is dying, when the soul of a people is being poisoned… bloodshed and suffering are inevitable…. what the [Jew] controlled media and government has done to America is [to provoke] terrorism…by the …deliberate flooding of our country with non-Whites from the Third World… refusal to halt the massive illegal immigration across our border with Mexico and the Caribbean… catering to the worst elements in the population with welfare programs… promotion of “multiculturalism,” with the consequent ruin of our schools, the degradation of our popular culture, and the conversion of our cities into crime-infested hell holes…. the spiritual poisoning of our young people: young Whites singing rap ditties and behaving like Blacks.
Terror breeds Terror. The privileged classes- the Jews and the politicians and the homosexuals and the minorities and the female executives – believe that if they can control what normal Americans read and hear and think, they can control what we do… They’ll use each new incident of terrorism as an excuse for censorship, for repression. they’ll try to stampede a timid, frightened, confused public into allowing the government to take away even more of their rights in return for the false promise of more security. Our task is to halt that stampede by helping people understand who America’s real enemies [the privileged classes] are… and by encouraging them to stand together in a united front against [our enemies].

Excerpted from: “Evil in High Places”, by Kevin Alfred Strom.

THERE IS EVIL IN HIGH PLACES in America today… because there has been a revolution in this country and the American people lost. The revolution… the takeover of America by [Jewish] aliens and the traitors who served those aliens… was engineered and executed by the same forces who… brought the scourge of Communism to Europe…. The Jewish revolution is now complete – but the revolutionists feel far from secure. Now that they are in power, their main concern is staying there… They want to infiltrate agents into groups they merely suspect of lawbreaking. And who do you think they “suspect”? The Mafia? Jewish organized crime gangs in New York and Los Angeles? Homosexual activists who fling AIDS-infected blood at innocent churchgoers? Jamaican cocaine dealers who kill almost with impunity on our city streets? No. It is you and I, it is anyone who opposes their evil agenda, it is anyone who wants a return to the values that made America great… They would take away the last of our freedoms, the freedom to speak, and they would frame, they would plant evidence, they would lie, they would kill to stay in power .

[I urge you to] speak out against those who would turn our beloved America into a brutal Third World police state…. When our people realize that hundreds of thousands of us are speaking out, they will join us, and when enough of them do that, we will be the state – the American government will once again be in the hands of true Americans. The outward-bound 747s will be… overloaded with traitors and alien subversives and their ill-gotten lucre, heading for Israel or elsewhere where their evil revolution may still be in power. But the Jewish revolution will be finished here. America will be America once again. And our sons and our daughters will be able to look with clear eyes into a future once again brighter than the sun.

Excerpted from: “Non-White Immigration: Death Sentence for America”, by Dr. William L. Pierce Chairman, National Alliance.

… after the Second World War, the floodgates from the non-White world were opened [and] the result has been a steady rise in the percentage of non-White minorities in America. Most of these non-White races breed much faster than Whites do…. At some time in the next century Whites will become a minority [and through racial inter-breeding] America will gradually become a Brown country…. a hundred years from now there will be no White schools, no White neighborhoods, no White clubs or bars or restaurants. We will be submerged: that is, our grandchildren will be submerged.

…. as we have given the minorities more and more… advantage over ourselves – all sorts of affirmative action preferences in admissions to universities and professional schools, in the granting of financial aid, in hiring and promotions – crime has become worse and worse. In the future the crime situation [will escalate because] minorities will continue growing.

… We have only to look to the continent of Africa in order to see our own future. Before Europeans came to Africa, the Blacks there were eating each other, literally, just like the other animals… The Blacks reverted to their jungle behavior almost as soon as we had left. Even in South Africa, which until very recently was a civilized, White country… since the handing over of the country to Black rule… Black gangs prowl [the city streets] in search of prey by day as well as by night… conditions in South Africa [will soon] resemble those in Rwanda or Uganda, [and] that’s where we’re headed too…the law of entropy… tells us that if we place a highly developed civilization and a jungle society in contact and let the inhabitants of the jungle society take a hand in the running of things, the [civilized society] will soon take on the characteristics of the jungle society. The tendency is always toward dissolution, toward chaos and ruin – except in those rare instances where the vital spark… the genius for order… is able to assert itself. When that spark is quenched or overwhelmed, decay inevitably sets in. The vital spark [in America], the spirit of progress which built our civilization, is European.

… Our government, however, [is] under the influence of the [Jew]- controlled mass media… Jews, throughout their whole history have lived by two principles: first, always be loyal to your fellow Jews; and second, always remember that anyone who is not a Jew is your enemy; never forget and never forgive. Our government now, under the influence of the [Jew] controlled mass media, is pursuing policies which are guaranteed to extinguish our spark, policies which are guaranteed to bring our level of civilization down to that in Rwanda or Haiti…

… it may take more than 100 years for America to get there, but that’s where we’re headed…

… Changes are beginning to take place, however. Our weekly radio programs are reaching more and more people… The ripples of truth are spreading. Soon those ripples will become waves. And one day the storm will break loose over this land.

Analysis of Messages

  1. Invalidation myths: Targeted minorities (Jews, non- Whites, homosexuals) are evil, aberrant traitors and aliens
  2. Invalidation ideology: Targeted minorities pose a formidable threat to “our” (ultra-conservative, white, heterosexual Christian) civilization. The first alleged threat focuses on the menace of political corruption, terrorism and repression caused by the takeover of the economy, the media and government institutions by Jewish enemy intruders. The second and third alleged threats focus on the menace of racial and cultural corruption to North American civilization caused by non- white immigrants, and the menace of moral corruption and death posed by AIDS- spreading homosexuals.
  3. Platform for action: The audience is urged to take immediate action to eliminate this formidable threat. At the peak of its fervor, the call to action urges the audience to unite, and to take concerted action to eradicate the alleged threat to “our” superior (white, heterosexual, ultra-conservative, Christian) values and civilization. The audience is pressed to take whatever steps are necessary to protect North American civilization by disempowering, expelling, overthrowing or annihilating the blacks and (non-white) third-world immigrants, the homosexuals, the Jews and the “liberal” Jewish-controlled establishment — target group/s identified as the source of the threat.

My second set of hate messages focus on the alleged international threat to Christianity, to democracy, and to world order posed by the Judaic religion and by Jewish control of American media and of international corporations and governments. The first example is a brief excerpt taken from an article which appeared on the Internet in the news group alt.skinheads on October 17, 1994.

Subject: Jewish Talmud (Anti-Christ) and Satanic-Sick and Insaine (sic)”… According to the Talmud, the Jewish God is not the father of all men and the ideal of love, justice and mercy, like the Christian God; on the contrary, he is a God of vengeance… just and merciful only to his own people, but foe to all other nations, denying them human rights and commanding their defeat that Israel may appropriate their riches and rule over them”.

The second example is excerpted from “The Holocaust Myth: A Debilitating Device of the Jews”, by Milton John Kleim, Jr., listed by ARYAN CORPS HOME PAGE. February 27, 1996

… Why is the legend of the Holocaust propagated?… Building upon the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews suffered and died during the war [World War Two] – a war in which Jewish leaders played the major part in materializing – the Holocaust Myth was developed into a legend of genocide… myriad falsehoods were manifested into a fable about a program of extermination against European Jewry…

What do the Jews stand to gain from the Holocaust Myth? Mainly two things: most importantly, a psychological and spiritual weapon for utilization against peoples of the West; secondly, billions of dollars of monetary aid and materiels [sic] for their cause, including the State of Israel, via “reparations,” and profits collected from the promotion of the Myth… The Holocaust Myth serves to instill shame in White people, to diminish pride in the accomplishments of the Aryan race. Thee [sic?] Holocaust Myth is used as a vehicle for extortion. The German … and other Aryan nations are expected to contribute to Israel and other Jewish charities largely to “atone” for their inaction to “save” the Jews…

Many historical revisionists are seeking justice… [by exposing] the Holocaust myth…. They seek to right an obscene wrong, to remove the indictment against not only Hitler and National Socialism, but against all Western peoples who have refused to bow to the Jewish will. The neutralization of the eternal shame imposed upon the White race will occur when history is revised in accordance with the facts… With work and perseverance, the Holocaust Myth will be shown to be what it truly is: a hoax; a program which simply did not exist.

My third example is excerpted from “WHO RULES AMERICA? The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken”, by the Research Staff of National Vanguard Magazine, listed by AMERICAN DISSIDENT VOICES, February 27, 1996

There is no greater power in the world today than that wielded by the few dozen [Jewish] men who control America’s mass news and entertainment media. The [Jewish] control of the opinion-moulding media is monolithic. All of the controlled media – television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures – speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. It is a view of the world in which every voice proclaims … the inerrant nature of the Jewish “Holocaust” tale, the equality of the races, the wickedness of attempting to halt a flood of non-White aliens from pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a “pluralistic,” cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous one. It is a view of the world designed by the [Jewish] media masters to suit their own ends – and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming.

… The Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing – plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war – more dangerous to the future of our people… By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are giving them… virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence.

… The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asiatic women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character – except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

… Our Responsibility

… We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it… [To remain silent] would be tantamount to race suicide… We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power which has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into their minds and souls. If we fail to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.

Analysis of Messages

  1. Invalidation myths:
    • Jews are aliens and traitors: Judaism stresses loyalty only to fellow Jews/ Jews act only in their own interests (implied threat to Aryan race)
    • Jews are selfish, greedy liars and extortionists: The “Holocaust hoax” has been fabricated by Jews to legitimize extortion; to shame and pressure non-Jews to give financial aid to Israel (alleged threat to Aryan race)
    • Jews are powerful media manipulators: by their monolithic control of the American media, Jews are not only able to exert control of government, but also to poison the minds of people throughout the world with pro-minority/ anti-Aryan propaganda. (alleged threat of death to Aryan race)
  2. Invalidation ideology: “Alien” Jews pose a serious threat to the Aryan race in North America and throughout the world.
  3. Platform for action: True Americans (“our folk”) are urged to take steps to put an end to the monolithic Jewish control and manipulation of the media. And, it is urged, We must take whatever steps are necessary in order to eradicate the insidious Jewish threat to North American civilization and to the future of the Aryan race.

My third and last set of examples focus on the alleged threat to fundamentalist Christianity, the Aryan race, the heterosexual family and the future health of the World population, posed by the corrupt, sinful, perverted, dangerous and life-threatening sexual behaviors and relationships of homosexuals.

My first example is excerpted from “Death Penalty for Homosexuals”: Intolerance of, Discrimination Against, and the DEATH PENALTY FOR HOMOSEXUALS is Prescribed in the Bible. By Pastor Peter J. Peters listed by SCRIPTURES FOR AMERICA WORLDWIDE . February 27, 1996

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:13

… The fact that the death penalty exists among us in the form of disease, serial murders, childless and grand childless families (which brings the death of a family name or lineage) due to homosexuality, shows that Leviticus 20:13 is a Law. It’s just a matter of who and how many are going to die…. It is also apparent the death penalty comes with diseases connected to the homosexual life style. Yet, homosexuals do not mind promoting their lifestyle which, in reality, is to promote the death penalty [for its victims]….

Because Leviticus 20:13 is the existing Law of our Creator God, there is the judgment of DEATH [for homosexuals]. If we as a society refuse to repent and acquire righteous government to punish this crime with the death penalty, then even more will die… As a nation, people will reap the judgments of violating His existing proper Law with its accompanying proper intolerance and discrimination. After all, the Bible says not only is the homosexual worthy of the death penalty, but also those who give approval to it…

My second example is excerpted from: Up Front, Issue # 19, September, 1995 (Toronto: Heritage Front), listed by HERITAGE FRONT ONLINE, February 28, 1996 DON’T PROTEST! YOU MIGHT HAVE A PHOBIA HEATHER CAN HAVE TWO MOMMIES

… One of the institutions which has made the Aryan race strong… in the past has been our respect for the family.

… Traditionally, men and women of our race have understood that… the sanctity of the family must remain inviolable. For a long time, we seemed to understand the basic concept of what constitutes a family, and what does not.

… However, in the present climate of anti-white discrimination, affirmative action,… alien diseases, governmental tyranny and miscegenation, even the family is being threatened…. Today, one of the many plagues upon our culture is the rise of “homosexual rights” – specifically, the push by “gay” activists for adoption privileges.

According to… the guiding ideology of the traitors in power today… anyone who thinks that perverts should be kept out of the kid-raising business, is quite simply a bigot, suffering from some undefined “phobia.” After all, if heterosexual couples can adopt children, and sodomites – oops, I mean homosexual – couples can’t, why, that’s a clear case of discrimination! [Since] there is no greater threat to our enlightened Peoples’ Republic Of Canada than the big `D’ word,… what used to be called molestation is now cloaked in the euphemism, “same-sex adoption rights.”… How can the Aryan race rise to its rightful position as a free, moral healthy Folk when we allow the very seed of our existence to be stolen by perverts?… Homosexuality… is an unnatural practice and creates an abominable environment in which to bring up the heirs of our race. Homosexuals…must not be permitted to impose their lifestyle on the rest of us. And if one area above all others must remain sacrosanct, and off limits to [perverts], it is the nurturing and moral guidance of the next generation.

My third example is excerpted from “AIDS SECRETS: What the Government and the Media Don’t Want You to Know”, by Kevin Alfred Strom, listed by NATIONAL ALLIANCE MAIN PAGE. February 27, 1996.

… There is a killer loose in the land. This killer cuts down all whom he touches. This killer… AIDS or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, emerged… over a decade ago, rising like an angel of death out of the oozing rivers of body fluids that spilled like fetid waterfalls… from the sick and sleazy pleasure houses of the “liberated” homosexuals… The medical establishment and the public health authorities withhold vital information about AIDS which could save millions of lives. Why are we being betrayed and lied to by those who are paid with our tax money to protect us?

It has been well-documented that the tremendous power of organized homosexuals (which reaches even into the White House) holds most of our craven and criminal politicians in thrall… homosexuals have been greatly aided by the controlled media. The media are lying not only to protect the so-called “human rights” of homosexuals. They are also lying to protect their one-world, multicultural agenda. Blacks account for only about 12% of the US population, but they account for fully 90% of all AIDS infections in this country which were acquired through heterosexual means.

… What can you do to save your family and your country from this deadly epidemic? There’s a lot you can do. Avoid all contact with known homosexuals… If you live in [an area with a population of gays or blacks or third world immigrants] consider…moving into a racially, culturally, and medically healthier area. Even if you must sacrifice status or money to do it,… avoid repeated close contact with those in high-risk groups, including Blacks, Third World immigrants, homosexuals, and drug users. Do not allow your children to associate with individuals in these groups

… Plan your travels to skirt around areas where such groups form a high percentage of the population, even if it takes extra time and gasoline to do so.

Analysis of Messages

  1. Invalidation myths: Homosexuals are perverted, morally corrupt, sinful, and dangerous to society.
  2. Invalidation ideology: Homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle represent a palpable threat not only to the moral fibre of society, but also to the very survival of the human species. Same-sex relationships are life-threatening: instead of giving life to children; they destroy life by spreading the contagious and fatal AIDS disease. Because homosexuals are agents of death, they deserve the death penalty for their crimes. Homosexuality is so morally abominable, that “Our” God has decreed that the death penalty be imposed not only on homosexuals but also on all who give approval to them.
  3. Platform for action: “We” (heterosexual moral majority) are warned that “our” God has mandated the death penalty for homosexuals and for all who give approval to them. Implied platform for action: “We” must carry out the will of God; we must condemn homosexuality and we must take steps to eradicate its threat to life by expelling homosexuals from the society and (or) by imposing the death penalty on homosexuals and on all who support their lifestyle.

Implications of Hate on the Net for Human Rights Violation

As a highly pernicious form of invalidation ideology, hate propaganda rationalizes, legitimizes and incites harmful discriminatory action against minority target groups. I posited the argument, earlier in this paper, that hate propaganda represents probably the most malignant expression of invalidation ideology, for it not only inferiorizes target populations, but it also singles them out as dangerous and threatening to society. Following from this premise, hate propaganda urges its audience to take steps to eliminate the purported threat. The audience is urged to unite and to take concerted action to protect society by disempowering, expelling, overthrowing or annihilating the minority target group identified as the source of the threat. By so doing, hate-mongering violates the fundamental human rights of targeted minorities to freedom from vilification, harassment, and harm.

I believe that the evidence which I have presented in my excerpts from current hate messages promoted on the Internet provides strong support for this thesis. In all of the examples, whites and blacks/non-white immigrants, “true” Christians and Jews, heterosexuals and homosexuals are set apart in terms of contrast conceptions of WE – the pure, virtuous, builders of civilized Western/Christian society, versus THEY – the corrupt, evil, heathen alien intruders, bringing decay and ruin to our superior way of life. In each example, the argument of invalidation “demonstrates” that THEY pose a serious threat to OUR superior white Aryan race, Christian religion, western civilization, democratic institutions and family values. This threat, it is urgently argued must be stopped. The audience is urged to take immediate, concerted action to remove the alien threat by disempowering, expelling and/or annihilating minorities singled out as the source of the threat: homosexuals, blacks, third world (non-white) immigrants and Jews.

In conclusion, the analysis of High Tech Hate messages presented in this paper provides strong support for the thesis that hate-mongering incites hatred and harm against targeted minorities and thereby violates their fundamental human rights to dignity and equality by denying their fundamental freedom from vilification and harassment.

Codicil: A Question of Rights / A Question of Power

The title of this article raises the critical question I wish to pose, in closing. The question concerns our priorities with regard to human rights. My analysis of cyberhate messages reveals the violations of the human rights of targeted minorities which high tech hate- mongering engenders. These violations of minority rights are allowed to proceed unchecked because those with the power to decide; with the power to order our priorities with regard to human rights, can argue, persuasively, that to introduce constraints on hate-mongering by organized political and religious hate groups would violate our preciously safeguarded and fundamental rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. A human rights dilemma of giant magnitude, to be sure. So whose human rights continue to be violated? Not the rights of those with the power to decide, the established majority powers, but the rights of vulnerable, stigmatized minorities, the identified targets of cyberhate.

Perhaps it is time we rethought our priorities with regard to human rights.

Evelyn Kallen


Canada. (1966). Report to the Minister of Justice of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (M. Cohen, Chair). Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.

Canada. (1984). Equality Now! Report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. (B. Daudlin, Chair). Ottawa: House of Commons.

Canadian Bar Association. (1984). Hatred and the Law: Report of the Special Committee on Racial and Religious Hatred.

Cotler, I. (1985). “Hate Literature.” In Abella, R.S. and Rothman, M.L. (eds.) Justice Beyond Orwell. Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice.

Kallen, E. (1989). Label Me Human: Stigmatized Minorities and Human Rights in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

________ (1992). “Never Again!: Target Group Responses to the Debate Concerning Anti-Hate Propaganda Legislation.” In Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, Volume XI.

________ (1993). “Target for Hate: The Impact of the Zundel and Keegstra Trials on a Jewish Canadian Audience.” (with Larry Lam). Canadian Ethnic Studies, XXV.

________ (1995). Ethnicity and Human Rights in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Kinsella, W. (1994). Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far Right Network. Toronto: Harper-Collins.

Rosenthal, P. (1978). “The Criminality of Racial Harassment” in Canadian Human Rights Yearbook (1989-90), Human Rights Research & Education Centre, University of Ottawa, 1990 United Nations. International Bill of Human Rights.


1. For information on the data base used for hate messages referred to in this paper, or for a list of anti-hate groups active on the net, please contact the author.

Copyright 1998 Electronic Journal of Sociology