sign in sign up
<<
Home , Genocide, Georges Ruggiu, Hassan Ngeze, Incitement to genocide, Jean Kambanda, Simon Bikindi

D•CKET Susan Benesch is a journalist and lawyer who works for Amnesty International in Washington, D.C.

Inciting , Pleading Free Speech Susan Benesch

In November 1991, a large drawing of a published his anti- materials. Ngeze machete appeared on the cover of , a was tried together with two other media ex- -owned Rwandan tabloid. Along one ecutives: Ferdinand Nahimana and Jean- edge of the machete’s curved blade appeared Bosco Barayagwiza, both founders of a radio the question: WHAT WEAPONS SHALL WE USE station, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille TO CONQUER THE INYENZI ONCE AND FOR Collines (RTLM), whose anti-Tutsi vitriol was ALL?? “Inyenzi,” or cockroach, was a term more explicit than that of Kangura. RTLM coined in the 1960s by some of ’s broadcasters not only read out the names governing to refer to rebel fighters of of people to be killed but added their li- Rwanda’s minority , the Tutsi. cense plate numbers—so they could be In the early , inyenzi became a slur ap- hunted down if, after hearing their names plied to any Tutsi. on the radio, they tried to escape by car. In April 1994, more than two years At the end of the “Media” trial, which later, the erupted. Over lasted more than three years, the judges—a the following three months, in what the South African, a Sri Lankan, and a Norwe- United later characterized as “a gian—issued a 361-page ruling that is a tidal wave of political and ethnic killings,” landmark in .1 They found more than 500,000 and moderate Ngeze, Nahimana, and Barayagwiza guilty, Hutus were murdered by the armed forces, declaring: “Without a firearm, machete or the presidential guard, and the ruling par- any physical weapon, you caused the deaths ty’s youth . of thousands of innocent .” As one By the time the genocide began, after witness put it, the defendants’ was to four years of civil , , the “spread petrol throughout the country little founder, publisher, and editor of Kangura, by little, so that one day [they] would be had printed reams of anti-Tutsi vitriol, but able to set fire to the whole country.”2 The he had not called for of Tutsi judges agreed. Their decision was legally civilians. In fact, he had stopped publishing daring and, in spite of its length, not fully his paper by the time the genocide began, explained. But it was correct. and no killings were directly linked to what he had printed. So after Ngeze was indicted to Genocide in 1997 for , among The Media case is important for the histori- other , by the International Criminal cal analysis inherent in its verdict, as well Tribunal for Rwanda (which had been con- as the potentially far-reaching law it laid vened in Arusha, ), three judges down. In trying Ngeze and his two codefen- had to decide whether he could be held re- dants, the international tribunal suggested sponsible for causing the killings of hun- answers to the most important questions dreds of thousands of people—or had been underlying its work: what causes genocide exercising his right to free speech when he and how might it be prevented?

62 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SUMMER 2004 Incitement is a hallmark of genocide, ring to , commented when the and it may be a prerequisite for it. Each was being debated by modern case of genocide has been preceded the U.N. General Assembly in 1948, “It by a propaganda campaign transmitted via was impossible that hundreds of thousands mass media and directed by a handful of po- of people should commit so many crimes litical leaders. If such campaigns could be unless they had been incited to do so and stopped—or their masterminds deterred— unless the crimes had been premeditated genocide might be averted. and carefully organized.”8 Within a few days of Hitler’s rise to This idea is absent from many popular power in 1933, his chief of propaganda, accounts of genocide, which attribute it to , exulted that “radio and “ancient tribal hatreds.” If “those people” press are at our disposal” and began shut- have been killing each other for hundreds of ting down anti-Nazi newspapers.3 Through- years, such thinking goes, it is a waste of out the rest of the 1930s, the Nazi-con- time to try to stop them. Perhaps not coin- trolled media spewed virulent anti-Semitic cidentally, this primordialist theory gives propaganda. outsiders an excuse not to try to prevent In in the early genocide. 1990s, Serbian forces took over so many To recognize the importance of incite- television transmitters that large areas were ment in causing genocide is not to ignore left with Serb-controlled television only. the role played by longstanding racial and The anti-Croat and anti-Muslim messages ethnic . Incitement does not nec- transmitted on Serb television were “very essarily induce people to act against their cogent and potent,” according to Ed Vul- own beliefs; when incites, it liamy, a British journalist who was there. does so because the listener is receptive to “It was a message of urgency, a threat to such speech. Nor does the incitement theory your people, to your , a call to arms, argue that people who participate in geno- and yes, a sort of instruction to go to war cide may be absolved of responsibility be- for your people.... It pushed and pushed. It cause they lack the will to behave differ- was rather like a sort of hammer bashing on ently. It is simply to highlight the power of peoples’ heads, I suppose.”4 media-borne messages to influence people, And in Rwanda, RTLM so “heated up especially by engendering fear. To believe heads,” in Rwandan parlance, during the pe- that incitement is a critical causal element riod leading up to the genocide and during in genocide, one need only recognize that the genocide itself that the people do not spontaneously rise up to kill considered jamming its signal (but never en masse. did so).5 Prime Minister Before genocide can occur, a large num- (who later entered into a plea agreement in ber of people must come to condone killing. which he admitted to inciting genocide as As the genocide scholar Helen Fein notes in well as other crimes) gave a speech over describing this collective psychological RTLM in June 1994, urging the station to process, one group of people must recatego- continue inciting and calling it rize another group of people as outside “the “an indispensable weapon in the fight boundaries of the universe of obligation.”9 against the enemy.”6 The dominant group must come to see its We cannot be certain that Kambanda putative victims as mortal threats (since was in essence correct—that incitement is killing can then be rationalized as self-de- indispensable to genocide—but and fense) or as subhuman (as insects or ani- the scholarly literature suggest as much.7 As mals), or both. Indeed, , Bosnian Mus- a Soviet delegate, who was apparently refer- lims, and Tutsis were all portrayed as ver-

Inciting Genocide, Pleading Free Speech 63 min. Hutu leaders described Tutsis as cock- ought to be unmolested when simply circu- roaches and also as snakes, Slobodan Milose- lated through the press, but [not] when de- vic referred to Bosnian Muslims as “black livered orally to an excited mob assembled crows,” and in Nazi , Julius Strei- before the house of a corn dealer.”12 cher, editor of the Nazi weekly Der Stürmer, The Rwanda tribunal’s first conviction termed the Jew “a germ and a pest, not a for incitement to genocide was in response human being.”10 (Later, at , to just this sort of immediate incitement. Streicher became the first person to be con- Jean-Paul Akayesu, the bourgmestre (mayor) victed for incitement to genocide by an of the township of Taba, was accused of international tribunal, although the crime leading a public meeting on the morning of had not yet been codified as such.) April 19, 1994, at which he urged his lis- In each of these cases incitement was teners to “eliminate accomplices of the RPF planned and directed by a few individuals [], which was un- for whom genocide was a political tactic. derstood by those present to mean Tutsis.”13 As the journalist Philip Gourevitch notes A member of the Interhamwe Hutu youth with biting clarity, “genocide...is an exercise militia had been killed, and Akayesu held in community building.”11 Deterring geno- forth at the place where the body lay. A wit- cide and war crimes—the ultimate goal of ness testified that Akayesu waved papers as international criminal proceedings like the he spoke, saying that they were Tutsi plans tribunal for Rwanda, its sister ad hoc tribu- to exterminate the Hutu, seized from the nal for the former (ICTY), and home of a Tutsi “accomplice”—a teacher now the International Criminal Court—is who had already been killed.14 Soon after an extremely difficult task. But the courts Akayesu’s speech, according to testimony will have a better chance of succeeding in at his trial, the massacres of Tutsis in Taba this if prosecutors take aim at those who in- began. cite genocide rather than individual perpe- This “immediate” incitement is rela- trators. (Ten years after the Rwandan geno- tively easy to recognize, but it is not the cide, 90,000 suspected génocidaires are still crime that brings about genocide; it comes in prison in Rwanda, awaiting trial.) too late. By the time Akayesu spoke, tens of thousands of Rwandans had already been International Law on Incitement massacred. Incitement is codified in the statutes of the In its ruling in Akayesu’s case, the tri- international tribunals, as well as in the bunal did not limit the definition of incite- Genocide Convention, as “direct and public ment to what he did. It took pains to point incitement to genocide.” The authors of the out that “direct and public” incitement need convention did not explain what they meant not refer exclusively to a speaker haranguing by “direct,” so that task has been left to the his listeners in person. Incitement might be courts. The simplest form of incitement, transmitted “through speeches, shouting or and the easiest to identify, functions as an threats uttered in public places or at public immediate command. A speaker addresses a gatherings, or through the sale or dissemi- crowd, knowing that he or she has authority nation, offer for sale or display of written in the minds of the listeners, and arouses material or printed matter in public places their murderous hatred against a specific or at public gatherings, or through the pub- “enemy.” Immediately afterward, the crowd lic display of placards or posters, or through acts on the suggestions of the speaker. This any other means of audiovisual communica- is the kind of incitement that John Stuart tion.”15 But could materials printed in a Mill proscribed in On : “An opinion newspaper two years before the mass killing that corn dealers are starvers of the poor began constitute incitement to genocide?

64 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SUMMER 2004 A resounding and indignant “no” came from incitement to genocide (as the Rwanda tri- Ngeze’s theatrical American defense lawyer, bunal pointed out in its decision in the Me- John Floyd, and from the equally noisy dia case). The crime at issue cannot be com- Ngeze himself. pared to Brandenburg’s hate speech, or even to cross burning with the intent to intimi- U.S. Incitement Law date. Incitement to genocide is not merely In U.S. law, which Floyd urged the tribunal a louder or more ominous form of hate to apply, incitement is defined by the like- speech. lihood that it will provoke an immediate Incitement to genocide, like genocide response. U.S. law understands incitement itself, is typically perpetrated by the state or narrowly, since it protects speech more by its allies, and is intended to increase the broadly than any other body of law. Indeed, power of the state. By contrast, the right of the fact that the Genocide Convention codi- free speech in the United States is most of- fies the crime of incitement to genocide was ten invoked by those who seek to resist the one ostensible reason why the U.S. Senate government—the First Amendment pro- refused to ratify the for 38 years, un- tects against the state. (Indeed, the Ohio til 1986. In my view, this fear of criminaliz- Klansman in Brandenburg had threatened ing incitement to genocide is misplaced, “revengeance” against Congress, the presi- since incitement to in a relatively dent, and the Supreme Court—as well as peaceful, stable society is quite different against blacks and Jews.) Moreover, the from incitement to genocide. “marketplace of ideas” theory on which U.S. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the controlling free speech law is based is not applicable to U.S. incitement case, the Supreme Court incitement to genocide. considered whether a rant by a member of Odious and even violent speech is pro- the Ku Klux Klan, before a television cam- tected in the United States in the belief that era in a field in rural Ohio, constituted in- the public discourse will contain it, that citement. The court ruled that such speech “bad” speech will eventually be mitigated is illegal only if it is “directed at inciting or by “good” speech. But where genocide is producing imminent lawless action” and is, possible, those in charge have such dispro- in addition, “likely to incite or produce such portionate power, especially with respect to action.” The distinction between “mere ad- the means of disseminating information, vocacy” and illegal incitement resided in that “good speech” has little effect. The whether those listening were likely to take Rwandan marketplace of ideas had long imminent action in response to the speech. since collapsed by the time the mayor of Interestingly, the Supreme Court carved out Taba made his speech. Indeed that was the an exception to this doctrine in 2003, by heart of his defense: “Once the massacres permitting a state to ban cross burning had become widespread, the Accused was “with the intent to intimidate” because denuded of all authority and lacked the cross burning in the United States, the means to stop the killings.” Such an argu- court said, is “inextricably linked...to sud- ment should not (and did not) exonerate den and precipitous violence.”16 Akayesu, but it correctly pointed out that Under U.S. law, in other words, Ngeze he was not in a position alone to cause or probably would not have been found guilty to prevent the genocide. It was already of incitement, since the anti-Tutsi materials too late. he published in Kangura did not produce an The dispositive crime—the one that immediate violent response, and the editor makes the key difference—is the “spread burned no crosses. But U.S. law cannot be [of] petrol throughout the country little by grafted onto international prosecutions for little.” The rub is that this type of incite-

Inciting Genocide, Pleading Free Speech 65 ment is more difficult to identify and to dis- Hutus. Ngeze insisted that he was not en- tinguish from lawful speech. It does not fit dorsing such ideas, but, in fact, the com- into Mill’s bifurcated formula; it is neither mandments were part of an incendiary tract merely an opinion circulated through the titled, “Appeal to the of the press nor hate speech before an excited mob. Hutu.” As for the cover of Kangura de- scribed at the beginning of this essay, Ngeze Spreading Petrol Little by Little said that it was a call for democracy, since it The Ngeze form of incitement—of spread- also bore a photograph of Grégoire Kayiban- ing petrol little by little—can be distin- da, who was elected as the Rwandan repub- guished from protected speech, but it is lic’s first president in 1961. But, as prosecu- necessary to step carefully. First, the legal tion witnesses pointed out, Kayibanda is standard for incitement to genocide must be also known to Rwandans for presiding over distinguished from “mere” incitement to widespread massacres of Tutsis. Rwandan other forms of violence so that governments witnesses further testified that to be includ- cannot plausibly invoke the law to stifle dis- ed in one of the lists of the names of Tutsis sent. (Some critics have argued that the that Ngeze published in Kangura was a Rwanda tribunal’s more expansive definition “death warrant” and that Ngeze himself of incitement in the Media case will be em- used to say that if he wrote about someone, ployed by repressive governments wishing that person would be killed. Ngeze testified to muzzle the press. However, governments that the lists were made up of people sus- that shut down newspapers or broadcast pected of cooperating with fighters of the outlets are usually content to do so without rebel Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), any pretext borrowed from international and that he had obtained the lists from the law.) government, so he was merely transmitting Next, certain legal criteria may be ap- information by publishing them. In their plied in order to distinguish incitement to written judgment, the judges in the case genocide from political speech. The first of noted that in his testimony and other con- these criteria is the question of intent. To be duct during the trial, Ngeze had demon- convicted of incitement to genocide under strated “a thorough disregard for the truth.” international law, one must be shown to The second legal criterion for distin- have had the specific intent to commit guishing incitement is foreseeability: genocide, that is, “to destroy, in whole or in whether speech is likely to provoke violence. part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious That often depends on the authority and group, as such.” This means that a journalist renown of the speaker. Ngeze was aware of who publishes or broadcasts someone else’s Kangura’s growing authority in the period views, no matter how hateful these views leading to the genocide. In one editorial, he may be, cannot be held liable unless the wrote: “Kangura’s role will be studied in the journalist can be shown to share the opin- .... Besides, Kangura has ions and genocidal aspirations of the revealed to the coming generation who the source.17 Tutsi is.” His boast that he could have some- Testifying at his trial, Ngeze disavowed one killed by publishing the person’s name, . He said he had been “pre- if true, proves that he did foresee the in- dicting” the deaths of Tutsis in his newspa- flammatory effect of what he was printing. per, not calling for them, and that he was If a defendant claims that he or she did merely trying to inform the public with not foresee the effect of his or her speech, it lines like “Hutus must cease having any becomes the court’s task to determine what pity for the Tutsi,” which appeared in Kan- the defendant should have been able to fore- gura in a list of “Ten Commandments” for see. This is almost always complicated by

66 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SUMMER 2004 the ambiguous nature of the language of work’ is a literal translation of the Rwandan incitement. Like Ngeze, inciters rarely say, expression that Phocas Habimana, Manager “Go out and kill.” Ngeze would be known of the RTLM, expressly instructed the accused in First Amendment jurisprudence as the to use during his broadcasts. With time, “clever inciter,” and his case would bring this expression came to clearly signify ‘go to mind the so-called Mark Antony prob- fight against members of the RPF and their lem, after the rhetorical, coded speech accomplices.’ With the passage of time, the that Shakespeare’s Mark Antony gives over expression came to mean, ‘go kill the Tutsis Caesar’s bier, inciting his listeners against and Hutu political opponents of the interim Brutus. government.’”18 In its ruling in the Akayesu case, the Startlingly, perhaps, the judges in the Rwanda tribunal had already established Media case heard no evidence that any indi- that speech need not be explicit to be con- vidual RTLM listener or Kangura reader killed sidered “direct” incitement. Where lan- someone in direct response to the station’s guage is ambiguous, a court must try to dis- broadcasts or the paper’s articles and editori- cover how the audience understood the als since causation is not required to prove meaning of the words spoken—and whether incitement under international law. the speaker should have foreseen how those who heard the speech would react. The Where the Law Is Headed judges who heard the Media case strove to The trial in the Media case is a landmark in understand the meaning of Ngeze’s articles a developing body of international jurispru- and RTLM’s broadcasts as their Rwandan au- dence on incitement to genocide. Other diences would have understood them at the courts around the world have also tried in- time. citement cases deriving from the Rwandan Sitting in their courtroom in Arusha, genocide in recent years—with mixed re- the members of the International Criminal sults. Courts in Switzerland and Tribunal for Rwanda pored over translations have heard cases against Rwandans for in- of Kangura and questioned witnesses about citement in the Akayesu mold (speeches de- particular words and phrases. For example, livered in person to a crowd). In one such the pejorative “inyenzi” began as a Rwandan case, Fulgence Niyonteze, the former mayor slang term for armed Tutsi rebels, but ac- of the central Rwandan town of Mushubati, cording to several prosecution witnesses, in- was sentenced to life in prison by a Swiss cluding , a Belgian who military tribunal in 1999 for crimes includ- worked as a broadcaster at RTLM, by 1994 it ing and incitement to murder dur- had come to refer to any Tutsi. ing the genocide, but a military appeals tri- Like Prime Minister Kambanda, Ruggiu bunal later dropped the conviction for in- pleaded guilty to incitement to genocide. citement, on the basis that a military tribu- His plea agreement contains a lesson in nal had no to try such crimes Rwandan genocidal slang of the 1990s. Just when committed abroad by a . as the meaning of the term inyenzi changed In 1995, Rwandan expatriates tipped over time, the phrase “go to work” came to off Canadian authorities that be understood as an order to kill. As the tri- their compatriot Leon Mugesera, a well- bunal noted in its judgment against him, known Hutu government official and pam- citing his plea agreement, “the accused ad- phleteer in Rwanda before the genocide, had mits that as part of the move to appeal for, given a speech to a crowd of a thousand mil- or encourage, ‘civil defence,’ he made a pub- itants of the ruling MRND party in Kabaya, lic broadcast to the population on several Rwanda, on November 22, 1992, a year and occasions to ‘go to work.’ The phrase ‘go to a half before the genocide. (MRND was the

Inciting Genocide, Pleading Free Speech 67 acronym for the National Republican Move- in the country’s leadership, it is hard to be- ment for Development and Democracy, lieve otherwise. whose youth militia, the Interhamwe, car- The Canadian Supreme Court has agreed ried out a large proportion of the killings in to review the case. It should study not only the 1994 genocide.) In the speech, which the famous 1992 speech itself, but Muge- was later widely reported throughout Rwan- sera’s other speeches, writings, and actions da, Mugesera spoke of sending people “back to determine whether he intended to incite to , by the Nyabarongo river.” Dur- genocide and whether he could have fore- ing the genocide, thousands of Tutsi corpses seen the effects of his speech. were thrown into the Nyabarongo. By then, Meanwhile, at the jail run by the Mugesera had fled to Canada. in Arusha, another accused Two Canadian courts ordered Mugesera inciter is awaiting a trial that may push the deported for having committed incitement, law on incitement to genocide further, since but in September 2003 appeals court judge the defendant is a musician, not a political Gilles Letourneau absolved Mugesera in an figure or a journalist. was opinion scathingly critical of the lower the best-known pop singer in Rwanda just courts. In Letourneau’s opinion, Mugesera before the genocide. Bikindi’s anti-Tutsi did not mean to tell his audience to kill songs, which were broadcast constantly on Tutsi, and could not have foreseen that RTLM, were reportedly one of the reasons for they would understand him that way, if the station’s vast popularity, especially they did. “[T]here is nothing in the evi- among the young. dence to indicate that Mr. Mugesera, even Bikindi will be tried for conspiracy to under the cover of anecdotes or imagery, commit genocide as well as for incitement deliberately incited murder, hatred or geno- to genocide. According to the tribunal’s cide,” Letourneau wrote. Letourneau im- prosecutors, his songs were an important plied that the lower court judges had or- part of a propaganda campaign on RTLM “to dered Mugesera deported in part because instigate, incite, and encourage the Hutu they had relied on a faulty translation of population to separate themselves from the his speech, but the version of it that Le- Tutsi and to kill them.”20 According to the tourneau reproduced in full in his own indictment, Bikindi participated in the decision contains such lines as “Do not training of Hutu that later massa- be afraid, know that anyone whose neck cred Tutsis, and in June 1994, he led a cara- you do not cut is the one that will cut van of militiamen along a road in Gisenyi your neck.”19 prefecture, exhorting them over a public ad- According to , a Cana- dress system in his own vehicle to “extermi- dian law professor who visited Rwanda on a nate quickly the remaining ones.” He is also fact-finding mission in January 1993, the accused of directly ordering militiamen to country was “in a state of turmoil and agita- kill specific Tutsis. tion provoked” by Mugesera’s speech, and The Rwanda tribunal should consider the Rwandan justice minister had resigned those allegations (if proved) in determining in frustration after he was barred from pros- whether Bikindi intended to incite geno- ecuting Mugesera for incitement. There is cide, just as the Canadian Supreme Court little doubt that Mugesera’s speech was must investigate Mugesera’s intent. Bikin- widely understood in Rwanda—by his par- di’s authority over his listeners and the ef- tisans and opponents alike—as a call to fect of his music, like that of Mugesera’s commit genocide. But he is guilty only if he speech, is hardly in doubt. In fact, Bikindi’s intended and foresaw that his speech would music has been banned in Rwanda since be thus understood. Well-placed as he was 1994.

68 WORLD POLICY JOURNAL • SUMMER 2004 Some would argue that to protect free- 8. UNAOR A/C.6/SR 84, 21 Sept.-10 Dec. 1948, dom of speech and expression Bikindi p. 219 should not be prosecuted for the content 9. Fein, Accounting for Genocide, p. 33, n.7. of his music. But political speech or song 10. The Trial of German Major War Criminals, can be distinguished from incitement to Proceedings of the International Military Tribunal, genocide. If Bikindi intended his music to Nuremberg, Germany, vol. 22, 1949, p. 501. incite others to commit genocide, he did 11. Philip Gourevitch, We Wish to Inform You commit a crime by singing. That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our : • Stories from Rwanda (New York: Farrar, Straus and Notes Giroux, 1998), p. 186. 1. The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean- 12. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Arlington Bosco Barayagwiza, Hassan Ngeze, Case No. ICTR-99- Heights, Ill.: Harlan Davidson, 1947), p. 55. 52-T, Judgement and Sentence, December 3, 2003. 13. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. 2. Ibid, p. 147. ICTR-96-4-T, Indictment, February 16, 1996, 3. See, for example, William Shirer, The Rise and para. 14. Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schus- 14. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judge- ter, 1960), p. 189. ment, , 1998, para. 33. 4. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Opinion and Judge- 15. Ibid., para. 559. ment, IT-94-1, May 7, 1997, para. 96. 16. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). 5. For good accounts of the debate over jam- 17. This point is illustrated by the European ming, see , “”: Court of case, Jersild v. Denmark, America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic September 23, 1994, in which the court overruled Books, 2002), p. 371; and William A. Schabas, the conviction of a journalist for airing an interview “Hate Speech in Rwanda: The Road to Genocide,” with virulently racist youths. The journalist’s skepti- McGill Law Journal, 141:46 (2000), p. 148. cal questions were judged to have distanced him suf- 6. Plea Agreement between Jean Kambanda and ficiently from his subjects’ views. the OTP, cited in The Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, 18. The Prosecutor v. Georges Ruggiu, Case No. Case No. ICTR 97-23-S, Judgement and Sentence, ICTR 97-32-I, Judgement and Sentence, June 1, September 4, 1998. 2000. 7. See, for example, Frank Chalk and Kurt 19. Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship Jonassohn, The History and Sociology of Genocide: and Immigration), Federal Court of Appeal, Septem- Analyses and Case Studies (New Haven: Yale Univer- ber 8, 2003. sity Press, 1990), p. 27; Helen Fein, Accounting for 20. The Prosecutor Against Simon Bikindi, Indict- Genocide: National Responses and Jewish Victimization ment, Case No. ICTR 2001-72-I, June 27, 2001. during the Holocaust (New York: Free Press, 1984), p. 33.

Inciting Genocide, Pleading Free Speech 69