With the increasing population heterogeneity and rising tensions in Western
nations, the governments of those countries have sought ways to manage conflict
between different groups. This often comes in the form of laws criminalizing certain
speech, and numerous Western nations, such as the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands,
Canada, and France, have either passed or are attempting to pass bills that would
strengthen their existing laws or add previously unprotected groups to the laws. In
addition, international treaty organizations such as the Council of Europe and
international governments such as the European Union have also proposed treaties and
laws to criminalize speech. These organizations often cite the increased travel and
communication technology (such as the internet) that accompany globalization as a
justification for harmonizing national policies on such laws, henceforth called hate
speech laws.
The combination of each nation’s history and political lobbying have shaped the
strictness of the law and who is included as a victim. For example, in the U.S. lobbyists
and activists were able to get some states to pass laws that increased penalties for crimes
based on racial hatred, but they could not protect only minorities as desired due to the
equal protection provisions in American law (Jenness and Grattet 2001). In the EU,
however, it should be noted that often the European Union creates, funds, and contacts
groups with which it agrees (Beetham and Lord 1998; Danese 1998).
Hate speech laws take different forms in the various nations that pass them due to
their different cultures, legal systems, and previous laws that have shaped the paths each
country may take. However, while individual nations have a uniqueness that creates
disparity in legal solutions, globalization is a homogenizing force on those laws, in part
due to the growing number of international treaties (Jacobson and Ruffer 2003).
1
Page 1 of 9 
Convention