Hate speech against women: between theory and practice
In light of the International Day for Countering Hate Speech, which takes place every year on the 18th of June, it is crucial in this day and age, and with the rising accessibility of social media, to acknowledge the detrimental effects of hate speech on vulnerable groups in society, as hate speech often targets inherent characteristics of certain groups to ensure their exclusion from the public sphere. The United Nations’ Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech defines hate speech as: “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”[1] Women, being a prime target of exclusionary rhetoric, are constantly bombarded with hateful speech targeting their appearance, intelligence, participation, and often their existence. From Hypatia, to burning women at the stake, to violent hate speech against women flying under the radar of major social media platforms[2], misogynistic hate speech is ahistoric; it has had many forms and manifestations across history, that it becomes difficult to pinpoint the exact rationale behind the eternal subjection and belittling of women and defamation campaigns from men. Existing in a patriarchal society means that this form of violence is so normalized that any attempt to challenge it is met with even more hate and is considered subversive. However, there is a point of contention regarding the subjectivity of hate speech; what constitutes hate speech, given the loose and broad-ranging nature of this concept? Theorizing Hate Speech The scholar Richardson-Self (2018)[3] made the distinction between oppressive speech and hate speech; to them, not all oppressive speech is hate speech, but all hate speech is oppressive. However, the severity of the oppression of hate speech is often undermined as people plead the “freedom of speech” argument to justify hate speech. Therefore, hate speech is thought to do certain acts: silence, malign, disparage, humiliate, intimidate, incite violence, discriminate, vilify, degrade, persecute, threaten, and the like. Thus, if any form of expression performs any of the above, and this expression targets a historically oppressed group, then prosecuting such an act is not an attack on “freedom of speech” but a protocol to protect vulnerable people from hate crimes. To identify hate speech in Jordan more easily, the Jordanian government repealed and replaced Jordan’s old (2015) cybercrime law with a new and improved cybercrime law (2023), which implements additional measures to combat online-related crimes. Despite the significant improvements, the new law, while preventative, does not clearly define hate speech, nor does it draw the line between hate speech and freedom of speech. The articles that came closest to defining hate speech are articles 15, 16, and 17[4], which considers defamation, slander, assassination of character, hatred, justification of violence, stirring racism or sedition, and insulting religion as punishable by law. However, none of these terms is explicitly defined, and none mentions discrimination according to sex or gender. Hate speech against women Even when it comes to hate speech against women, there are criteria as to what constitutes hate speech. Some scholars[5] conceptualize this categorization by differentiating between sexist speech and misogynistic speech and deeming the latter as oppressive hate speech. They argue that the interdivisional nature of misogynistic speech creates an arbitrary classification for women based on their conformity with the patriarchal system; the more a woman conforms, the better she is, and vice versa. Not only does this reduce women to passive agents of the patriarchy, but it also leads to women themselves leveraging the patriarchal system[6] to prove their “goodness” and create further division between women. To paint a clearer picture of the argument above, the blog will draw upon the involvement of women in politics as an example. Politics, which is considered socially a masculine field, begrudgingly accepts women’s participation under several conditions, the main one being not challenging the status quo of the political system while simultaneously upholding its ideals of oppression, including what is patriarchal. Thus, if a woman wants to not only enter the political scene, but sustain her position, she cannot delve into topics deemed provocative or controversial, including systematic patriarchal oppression, which ironically enough, is described that way due to systematic patriarchal oppression. Consequently, this arbitrary classification translates into a woman who is “fit” for politics and a woman who isn’t, depending on their level of conformity. This, slowly but surely, gets cemented into the collective consciousness, as more women who attempt to “disrupt” the status quo get bombarded with hate speech rooted in misogyny, which eventually leads to women avoiding politics altogether, which is, in an indirect way, considered silencing. Hate speech is more severe when a woman is in the spotlight, a politician[7], a journalist[8], an activist[9], or a public figure[10]. To mention a few examples among the litany of hate campaigns against women, according to a report done by ISD, many Jordanian female candidates faced widespread misogynistic rhetoric that reinforced harmful societal norms, and many online comments directed at female candidates went beyond questioning their competence into targeted harassment[11]. Another study conducted by Solidarity is Global Institute (SIGI)[12] reveals the dimensions of digital electoral violence against female candidates in the 2024 Jordanian parliamentary elections, which extended to defamation, stereotyping, mockery, etc. SIGI argues that this type of violence leads to diminishing the voters’ trust in the female candidate and thus lowers the independent participation of women in politics. This was proven correct as no female candidates succeeded in open competition, and the 25 women who ran outside the quota system were unsuccessful. Female journalists are not exempt from hate speech, as the Network for Combating Digital Violence Against Female Journalists in Jordan reports that 55% of journalists surveyed for their study reported facing some form of online violence at least once in their careers, which included hate speech and defamation[13]. Conclusion Hate speech is a structural problem that
When Gaza Became a Testing Ground for Relief Without Humanitarian Principles
On May 27, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) launched its first large-scale relief delivery. What followed exceeded what even our worst fears: it was utter chaos. Images showed civilians running without clear direction in a desperate search for food on the outskirts of Rafah. Reportedly, machine guns were fired in the air in warning. At least three Palestinians were killed and 48 others injured during the mayhem. The order collapsed. There was no meaningful coordination, dignified process, or safety for recipients. Instead of restoring humanity, this operation deepened the crisis. But this wasn’t just a logistical failure. It was the materialization of a deeply flawed and dangerous vision that humanitarian professionals, UN officials, and civil society actors had already sounded the alarm about. And yet, the GHF model proceeded, with political backing, financial support, the willful disregard of warnings, and the complicit silence of the international community. GHF is part of a broader strategy, a strategy that replaces a multilateral, rights-based humanitarian system with a militarized, privatized apparatus of control. This is not aid rooted in principles of neutrality, impartiality, or independence. It is a relief redesigned to fit the constraints of siege, managed by private contractors, guarded by security firms, and coordinated with the occupying power’s directives. The tragic scenes that unfolded on May 27 were not unforeseen. They were the chronicle of a disaster foretold. In fact, during the weekend leading up to this mockery of humanitarianism, several major international news outlets published in-depth investigations confirming that GHF was a carefully planned operation led by military strategists and business interests in Israel and the US, with no genuine humanitarian goal. Humanitarian access had not just collapsed: it had been reengineered, commodified, and co-opted. To add insult to injury, photos on social media showed how some food items distributed in Gaza were products from SUGAT, a leading company that boasts contracts with the Israeli military. Journalists furthermore reported meagre amounts of food being distributed, barely enough for a family to survive more than two days. The idea that besieged Palestinians, displaced, starved, and bombed, would be handed rations sourced from a company embedded in the very machinery of occupation is beyond cynical. The rations distributed also indicate this is not humanitarian relief; it is enforced rationing and dependency under the guise of aid. GHF is not a neutral humanitarian actor. It is a geopolitical tool packaged in donor-friendly language about “efficiency” and “innovation.” The aid was about managing survival under surveillance. And in doing so, it mocked decades of effort to build a humanitarian architecture meant to shield the world from the worst of humanity. This is not a one-off error. It is a systemic collapse, made possible by the silence and complicity of those who should have known better. The United Nations has repeatedly condemned Israel’s restrictions on humanitarian access. So, the question now is not just what went wrong on May 27. It is: how did we get here, and how far are we willing to let this go? Will the international community continue to normalize the siege of Gaza and a system that turns humanitarian aid into a business model, and crisis into a marketplace for humiliation, influence, and profit? This moment demands more than regret in “lessons learned.” It demands a reckoning: a bold, collective reclaiming of humanitarianism as a moral and political act.
The Nakba Never Ended: History Repeats Itself, Justice is Denied, and the World is Silent
A Statement by ARDD
It is at this darkest hour that we commemorate the Nakba and pay tribute to its victims, not only those of 1948 but to all those who perished as a result of the ongoing Nakba up to the current Genocide in Gaza and atrocities in the West Bank (and Lebanon). We salute the steadfast survivors of the Nakba, in Gaza, in Al Quds, in the West Bank, and wherever they are – including the millions of Palestinian refugees and the tens of thousands languishing in Israeli prisons. We greet the 30,000 predominantly Palestinian UNRWA employees and other humanitarian workers, many of whom have risked their lives to support their compatriots under the most difficult circumstances. We extend solidarity to our sisters and brothers in the Palestinian solidarity movement around the world who, increasingly subject to persecution for the mere fact of speaking out against the genocide, continue to fight for justice and Palestinian liberation. This year’s commemoration of Nakba Day, the 77th anniversary of the ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine, takes place at a time when a large part of the population of Gaza is starving. The vast majority of children under two and breastfeeding mothers are not receiving adequate nutrition. Hospitals have run out of blood, the UN and other humanitarian agencies have exhausted their reserves, while Israel is attempting to dismantle the existing UN-run aid distribution system. Deaths from famine are already occurring and are expected to rise sharply if conditions persist. The ongoing famine is the result of Israel’s latest blockade preventing the entry of food, water, fuel, medicine, electricity, and other life-saving supplies following its unilateral decision to end the ceasefire with Hamas on 2 March 2025. Israel feels emboldened to use starvation as a weapon of war by the acquiescence and the silence of most political leaders in the West and elsewhere, in defiance of both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. This manufactured famine is part of Israel’s ongoing genocidal war in Gaza that has been raging for the past 19 months. In the process, it has killed at least 53,000 Palestinians, with many more feared dead under the rubble, injured tens of thousands, destroyed most of the Strip’s housing stock and public infrastructure, and to a large extent succeeded in inflicting conditions of life that will lead to the further destruction of its population. Over the same period, there has been a dramatic escalation of Israeli military and settler violence in the West Bank, resulting in an unprecedented spike in forced displacement. As another alarming escalation, the Israeli cabinet has decided to assume complete authority over land registration in Area C of the West Bank — which constitutes approximately 60% of the occupied territory and houses the majority of illegal Israeli settlements. This move paves the way for the formal annexation of the area and further entrenches Israel’s settler-colonial project, undermining the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. A key element of the war and violence since 7 October 2023 has been Israel’s attacks on UNRWA. Israel has had a conflictual relationship with UNRWA almost since the start of the Israeli occupation in 1967, even though the agency was initially encouraged by the Israeli government to continue its operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. After a gradual increase in Israeli attacks on the agency over the years, the current Israeli government appears to have adopted a policy towards dismantling UNRWA, not just in the OPT but across the board. Israel has justified its attacks on UNRWA with reference to either antisemitism or terrorism, but its real objective appears to be the wholesale erasure of the issue of Palestinian refugees as part of its settler colonial endeavor. The recent legislation adopted by the Israeli parliament represents a critical escalation in that process, with the ban expected to have wide-ranging legal, political, institutional, humanitarian, financial, and other implications. The exact implications of this ban are still unclear, and UNRWA continues to operate. Beyond the operational and humanitarian implications in the occupied Palestinian territory, the Israeli attacks on UNRWA at large, with the help of Israel supporters in the US, threaten the very survival of the agency. We call on the world to break the silence and on every person of conscience to do what is in their power to put an end to the ongoing Nakba in all its manifestations: by speaking up and exposing falsehoods, by using the law to fight injustice, by demonstrating, by educating, by engaging political representatives and others with influence on their governments, or by simply bearing witness. Together, we can make a difference.