A/HRC/39/64 C. Fundamental freedoms The Bengali population exploded and the aliens tried to seize the land of local ethnics. [...] Race cannot be swallowed by the ground but only by another race. All must be loyal to the State in serving their duties, so that such cases will never happen again.10 71. The mission examined the issue of democratic space and the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. While Myanmar has taken significant strides on this front, especially between 2011 and 2015, disturbing trends have emerged. Violence and human rights violations, including in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States, are fuelled by the silencing of critical voices by the Myanmar authorities, who at the same time amplify a hateful rhetoric that emboldens perpetrators. 72. The Myanmar authorities, in particular the Tatmadaw, do not tolerate scrutiny or criticism. They use various laws to arrest, detain or harass civil society actors, journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders who express critical views. The case against two Reuters journalists for their investigative work into the Inn Din massacre and the prosecution of persons peacefully protesting the conflicts in northern Myanmar, including in Yangon, are recent examples. The mission verified instances of reprisals for engagement with the United Nations and of excessive use of force in managing demonstrations. 73. The Government’s response to hate speech has been inadequate. The mission is deeply disturbed by the prevalence of hate speech, offline and online, often including advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. This has accompanied outbreaks of violence, especially in Rakhine State. Dehumanizing and stigmatizing language against the Rohingya, and Muslims in general, has for many years been a key component of the campaign to “protect race and religion”, spearheaded by extremist Buddhist groups like MaBaTha (see para. 13 above). Hate narratives are common. The Myanmar authorities have condoned these developments and, although generally using less inflammatory language, their rhetoric has mirrored and promoted the narratives espoused. This includes the insistence that “Rohingya” do not exist or belong in Myanmar, even denying use of the term; denial of the suffering of Rohingya; the association of Rohingya identity with terrorism; and the repeated allusions to illegal immigration and incontrollable birth rates. The impact of this rhetoric is compounded by the stream of false or incomplete information and explicit calls for patriotic action (for example, in a Facebook post, “every citizen has the duty to safeguard race, religion, cultural identities and national interest”). The Myanmar authorities, including the Government and the Tatmadaw, have fostered a climate in which hate speech thrives, human rights violations are legitimized, and incitement to discrimination and violence facilitated. 74. The role of social media is significant. Facebook has been a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate, in a context where, for most users, Facebook is the Internet. Although improved in recent months, the response of Facebook has been slow and ineffective. The extent to which Facebook posts and messages have led to real-world discrimination and violence must be independently and thoroughly examined. The mission regrets that Facebook is unable to provide country-specific data about the spread of hate speech on its platform, which is imperative to assess the adequacy of its response. V. Hallmarks of Tatmadaw operations 75. The mission highlights four key common characteristics of Tatmadaw operations in Kachin, Rakhine and Shan States. 10 14 Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, “Gallant efforts to defend the HQ against terrorist attacks and brilliant efforts to restore regional peace, security are honoured”, Facebook post, 21 September 2017.