Thirty years after the genocide of the Tutsi, which led to the systematic annihilation of 1, 000, 000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, in about four months as the rest of the world stood by and watched, Rwanda has become the success story that no one envisioned. Rwanda currently ranks in the top 10 safest countries in the world, with a 73.2% safety index, positioned as Africa’s fourth most attractive investment destination, according to the Africa Report in 2021, and is the third least corrupt country in the global corruption perception index.
However, Rwanda still grapples with detractors, and for the last 30 years, is the only country in the world, that has criminalised the denial of the Rwandan genocide. Although, the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda has since its inception in 1994, indicted 93 people, resulting in 61 convictions and 14 acquittals, and is the first-ever international tribunal to deliver verdicts concerning genocide, the first to interpret the definition of genocide outlined in the 1948 Geneva Convention, the first international tribunal to define rape in international criminal law and to recognise rape as a means of perpetrating genocide, and the first international tribunal to hold members of the media responsible for broadcasts intended to inflame the public to commit acts of genocide.
There are still no international convictions or indictments for all the Rwandan genocide denialists that have come to the fore to deny the traumatic and appalling tortures, killings, rapes, and mutilations that occurred during the genocide. How genocide denial works is to evade moral or even criminal responsibility and to protect the perpetrators' reputations, it includes questioning the statistics, denial of intent, definitional debates, and blaming the victims. Genocide scholar, Adam Jones, proposed a framework for genocide denial that consists of several strategies, including minimising fatalities, blaming fatalities on unrelated "natural" causes, denying intent to destroy a group, and claiming self-defence in pre-emptive or disproportionate attacks. These are: • "Hardly anybody died". When the genocides lie far in the past, denial is easier. • "It wasn't intentional". Disease and famine-causing conditions such as forced labour, concentration camps and slavery (even though they may be manufactured by the perpetrator) may be blamed for casualties. • "There weren't that many people to begin with".
Minimising the casualties of the victims, while the criminals destroy or hide the evidence. • "It was self-defence". The killing of civilians, especially able-bodied males is rationalised in pre-emptive attack, as they are accused of plotting against the perpetrators. The perpetrator may exterminate witnesses and relatives of the victims. • "There was no central direction". Perpetrators can use militias, paramilitaries, mercenaries, or death squads to avoid being seen as directly participating. • "It wasn't or isn't 'genocide,' because ..." They may enter definitional or rhetorical argumentation. • "We would never do that". Self-image cannot be questioned; the perpetrator sees itself as benevolent by definition. Evidence doesn't matter. • "We are the real victims". They deflect attention to their own casualties/losses, without historical context. Genocide denial in terms of the Jewish Holocaust has, however, had 22 convictions, 13, of which have led to imprisonment, nine having been fines, for a sum total of approximately €293, 500, supported by the national legislation of 17 European Member countries. The European Union further created a framework for combating denialism, which establishes that intentional conduct is punishable in all EU member States. Member States therefore, ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between one and three years of imprisonment. Similar solidarity, in terms of the African Union is found wanting, and while there is general legislation in most African countries, against what is considered hate speech, and leaves leeway for interpretation of the courts, to assess whether the writing, pictures, electronically transmitted signs, gestures, violent acts or other means are effectively genocide denial and should face punishment, in the protection of the victims of genocide, it is not a unified stance. This has left the job up to civil society groups, who have led the way in advocating for the unification and building of our communities and societies, fully aware of the scale and impact of hate speech, understanding that they all have the moral duty to speak out firmly against instances of hate speech and reject any calls to violence, and while civil society has done well thus far. There is still so much more to do, however, as individuals there are three main acts that one can do; fact-check the origin of information, educate yourself with verified sources of information, and show support, take a public stand, to people who are the target of hate speech. In taking this stand, please join the Rwandan Community, at the 30 years memorial of the genocide against the Tutsi on June 10, 2024, at Hotel 430 from 16:30 to 18:30. All are welcome.
