Syria: Discrimination and Hate Speech: When Dissent Becomes Synonymous with Disloyalty

Discussing highly sensitive issues like discrimination and hate may be considered an intellectual luxury´-or-a mere academic exercise aimed at studying social phenomena in countries that have made significant strides in stability and development.

However, raising this issue today must be viewed as a necessity in light of the current realities in Syria as evidenced by facts that demonstrate a nationwide spread of discrimination and hate without exaggeration. While some may attempt to dismiss such concerns as sensationalism,´-or-mere illusions built on preconceived notions and biases against the current authorities, recent developments on the Syrian stage have shown the rapid growth of discrimination as a mainstream practice adopted by those very authorities contributing to its spread as a -benchmark- for rendering problematic judgments, whether regarding specific issues, individuals´-or-groups active in public life. This in turn opens the door to a remarkable rise in hate speech rooted in this very discrimination which serves as its breeding ground. However, discrimination does not stem solely from the policies of the ruling authority-;- it is also an individual and subjective construct, finding its vital sphere within a collective will that fails to adhere to the moral and legal discourse supposed to immunize society against discrimination and its destructive repercussions.

Discrimination: The Glowing Embers
In fact, the conflict of narratives constitutes one of the features and complexities of discrimination. shifting its latent nature into overt discourse. This discourse has gone beyond the natural differences between the narratives of national groups, escalating into a rift within a single narrative: that of the Syrian Revolution upon which the reconstruction of the national state in the post-Assad dictatorial regime era is founded. It is perhaps vital that this conflict manifests within the frameworks and mechanisms of public dialogue and debate regarding all issues, without exception. The Syrian Revolution, despite its heavy toll, has paved the way toward openness to political and social ideas and currents, as it was supposed to, and toward the acceptance and recognition of the “other,” without resorting to any form of discrimination.

The essence of the Syrian Revolution’s narrative lies in the questions of public freedoms, dignity, and broad participation in decision-making. It was not meant merely to overthrow tyranny, but also to dismantle its entire system and its political, social, and economic mechanisms, with all the theoretical connotations associated with authoritarian practices.

Unfortunately, features of discrimination and hate began to surface with the militarization of the revolution and the gradual dominance of factions over its public discourse. One of the most prominent results was the undermining of the Free Syrian Army, which had originally been viewed as the embodiment of the revolution’s values. This, in turn, weakened the structures of political action and civil society, marginalizing their influence in the liberated areas and the broader Syrian public sphere. In reality, this led to a clash between the Syrian Revolution’s project of a civil state and the jihadist projects that reject any political´-or-religious discourse not emanating from within their own ideology.

This has raised fears of an exacerbation of discrimination between “religious and civil” discourses. Indeed, it later evolved to include ethnic, sectarian, and religious classifications, leaving a potent and highly tangible impact on all aspects of Syrian life. This evolution relied on subjective pretexts and unconvincing justifications that disregard the diversity considered a unique Syrian feature. Most importantly, it can be described as a subversive discrimination aimed at undermining the public sphere, radically altering its beliefs and trends, and working toward a monolithic reconstruction of the state!

While it was legitimate to question whether Islamist forces were capable of absorbing the developments and transformations in Syria during the “revolutionary partnership,” discrimination today has escalated to affect most revolutionary forces. This includes the “Islamist” factions, whose right to manage the state, in accordance with democratic processes, we have always believed in and continue to do so. Unfortunately, what appears to be happening in Syria once again is that the core -benchmark- of discrimination has shifted to a binary of “with´-or-against,” disregarding the recent history of national experiences built during one of Syria’s most perilous periods: 2011–2025. This was not merely a superficial and unjust discrimination-;- rather, it can be viewed as a deliberate tool of destruction aimed at monopolizing, hijacking, and confiscating the national narrative, while barring others from operating within its context, including those whose sacrifices formed an integral part of that narrative and its core structure.

Social Fragmentation and Division
Since the fall of Assad, we have witnessed the evolution of collective joy into a nationwide unrest as widespread discrimination has fabricated a confrontation between political and social currents. Between those who pledge absolute loyalty to the authorities of the new era, viewing all their policies as infallible, and those who maintain a distance from power, monitoring its performance and publicly voicing criticisms of those policies by pointing out flaws with the aim of reform, not subversion.
While it is true that every faction and individual has the right to believe as they wish, and to interpret things for themselves and their affiliated groups in a manner they deem representative, no one has the right to withhold, confiscate,´-or-deny this “right” to others, regardless of the reasons.

What has today become an alarming social and political phenomenon is the intensity of confrontations, alluded to previously as “taking to the streets,” appealing to the people and mobilizing them to act under the guise of “protecting the authorities.’ Consequently, hate speech has emerged as the primary, rising tool to counter any form of peaceful expression.

This hate speech, spreading like wildfire, is bound to erode the social fabric and corrupt the political environment, leading to multifaceted division that threatens stability and security. It impedes the reconstruction of political life and prevents civil society from building its national experience and fulfilling its duties to raise awareness, particularly regarding change and development. Furthermore, it -dir-ectly threatens the foundations of national identity, the principles of citizenship, equality, and justice, while undermining human dignity.
The sheer scale of devastation that could result from the growth and mutations of hate speech, which may ultimately generate various forms of violence, is unimaginable.

Freedom of Expression Under Threat
Perhaps the most prominent victim of discrimination and the proliferation of hate speech is “freedom of expression” itself. The marketing of pretexts and arguments underlying discrimination and hate paradoxically claims to rely on the right to free speech. Yet, it is a right invoked for a deceitful purpose, as it is based on the principle of preventing the “other” from exercising their right to express opinions and ideas, at the core of which is taking a “stance” against the policies of the authorities and the performance of their officials. This includes the rights the authorities grant to themselves, their supporters, and their loyalists to manipulate public affairs without any legal basis.

This pretext of “freedom of expression” takes a path contrary to the very foundations upon which these rights were built, enabling an explicit and overt expression of hatred against the freedom of expression represented by other trends and currents in Syrian society, whether large´-or-small, individual´-or-collective, organized´-or-otherwise. The marketing of these arguments has evolved into a behavioral practice centered on belittling the ideas and opinions emanating from the “other” (those not loyal to the authorities), refusing to recognize their right to dissent, branding them as traitors, and casting them outside the national consensus. They are often labeled as “Assadist remnants” whenever their expression takes the form of “political´-or-economic demands.”

The law must not be weaponized to suppress freedom of expression. Rather, using it to prevent such toxic practices is an absolute necessity. These baseless accusations made by hateful groups should be viewed as grounds for judicial recourse, rather than the lawlessness witnessed today. In our view, the current authorities continue to tolerate double standards in the exercise of rights and freedoms in Syria.

Defusing Violence
In light of continued complacency and the absence of a legal framework that criminalizes “hate” as an offense requiring prosecution, the unchecked expansion of this wave of hatred threatens the public interest and undermines the prestige and capacity of the state.

Undoubtedly, individuals cannot be prosecuted for their internal feelings and intentions, especially when it comes to hatred. However, allowing this situation to fester is something the authorities must neither overlook nor ignore. Otherwise, they position themselves as biased toward a faction from whose unconditional support and defense they benefit, serving their own project of deep-rooting and consolidating their presence. The regime bears -dir-ect responsibility for the current state of division and multifaceted hatred. It is its duty to act without delay to rein in its supporters, halt systemic discrimination and hate, and prevent these from escalating from current bullying and verbal abuse into severe physical violence should political and social polarization intensify, a trajectory that developments in Syria could easily follow under current conditions, especially given the strict control and censorship over the media and the proliferation of weapons.

Added to this is the persistent fuel for public anger over government policies, such as hiking state levies and fees on public services, the wheat crisis, fuel shortages in the north, and the bitter reconciliation agreements whose counterproductive consequences are compounded by delays in implementing justice, failing to hold perpetrators accountable, and appointing war criminals to leadership and administrative positions, particularly in the Syrian Al-Jazira region.

The regime’s success in building a new state today is contingent upon its ability to comprehend the political and social transformations in Syria, and on its capacity to involve national forces in decision-making, resource management, and utilization. It is equally contingent upon ensuring equality in rights and duties, without discrimination´-or-exclusion, and refusing to tolerate any incitement to hatred!

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1