Aiding and abetting: Would the FBI please investigate Kevin Taylor, the flamboyant charlatan?

I have observed, read, heard, and watched a multitude of ebullient social media commentators, apparently immersed in a gamut of emotions on the revoltingly ugly and somewhat preposterous pronouncements over an alleged fake doctor by a certain importunate social media broadcaster, who goes by the name, Kevin Taylor.

Mr Kevin Taylor has been allegedly encouraging an alleged United States of America trained doctor to commit a crime, and therefore he is criminally liable to the same extent as the alleged fake doctor.

Mr Taylor has unabashedly attacked, abused , and threatened court action on individuals who doubted the credentials of the alleged fake doctor.

Apparently, Mr Taylor has been asserting somewhat audaciously that the said doctor received her medical training from Johns Hopkins University and practises in the United States of America, and therefore he is ready to lock horns with anybody who tries to bring her reputation into disrepute.

I would, therefore, humbly submit that, if the said doctor has indeed committed a crime, then Mr Taylor who has been inexorably aiding and abetting is as guilty as the alleged fake doctor.

After all, it is often said that ‘the successful trial and the subsequent crucifixion of ‘Satan’ would require a witness from hell’.

Mr Taylor has regrettably been hiding behind the cloak of freedom of opinion and expression and persistently abusing innocent people and inciting hate speech day in and day out.

In fact, voluminous and incontrovertible evidence can be found on the social media.

Although the right to freedom of opinion and expression stretches to queer and unpopular ideas and statements which “shock, offend or disturb”, a number of human rights treaties, conventions and declarations, including the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, obligate states to prohibit all forms of hate speech.

Besides, hate speech – the advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race, tribe or religion – occupies an exceptional position in international law.

Apparently, the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the appropriate permitted abridgements are detailed in international law -Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Suffice it to stress that the ways in which restrictions are to be determined and imposed and the criteria which apply to the formulation of permitted abridgement are crucial.

Thus, the restriction of freedom of opinion and expression becomes a crucial and delicate question. For any restrictions cannot be based on ideological perceptions of legislature, executive or judicial, but must be predicated on objectively founded and comprehended criteria.

It must, however, be noted that free speech does not give the right to individuals to say or write whatever they want, whenever they like, without permitted abridgement.

Indeed, freedom of opinion and expression may be subject to restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: “For respect of the rights or reputations of others; for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.

In essence, freedom of opinion and expression is not absolute and must of necessity be subject to limitations on the above lines.

In addition, the right of free speech and expression does not extend to sedition, slander, defamation and obscenity.

Having said so, we must not and cannot lose sight of the fact that most wars, crimes and genocides which were perpetrated against humanity were arguably expedited through the use of hate speech, aimed at securing popular support for illegal and violent action.

Apparently, we can attest to the past events and in the modern era. In fact, we can attest to the Nazi hate speech which preceded the Holocaust, the Radio and Television hate speech which preceded the Rwandan Genocide and al-Qaeda hate speech which preceded the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001.

In effect, we can infer that hate speech could spell doom for a nation.

Strictly stating, freedom of opinion and expression is not an absolute right in national and international jurisprudence. In fact, this right, like others, may be restricted to protect and balance other rights and interests. However, it is the complexion and the degree of these restrictions that is often contended in extant human rights and security jurisprudence.

It is, therefore, not surprising that international law prohibits statements which deny the equality of all human beings.

Take, for example, Article 20(2) of the ICCPR requires states to prohibit hate speech: “Any advocacy of national, tribe, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”.

Even though some experts contend that restrictions on hate speech can be justified, Article 20(2) has proven highly controversial, and is variously criticised as being overly restrictive of free speech or as not going far enough in the categories of hatred.

In so far as Article 20(2) does not obligate states to prohibit all negative statements towards national groups, tribes, races or religions, if a statement “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” it must be condemned in no uncertain terms”.

Actually, the two known restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are: The prohibition of advocacy of any national, racial or religious hatred and the prohibition of propaganda.

Nevertheless, the prohibition of propaganda is not innately contradictory to the right to freedom of expression.

The right holder, however, has to be cognisant of the duty and obligations which are encapsulated in the international human rights instruments.

Interestingly, while propaganda for genocide is codified as an international crime, the propaganda for the incitement to aggressive war is not.

However, incitement to commit an illegal act is in itself illegal under international law.

Moreover, incitement, instigation, abetment and solicitation are all common to various criminal codes world-wide.

These are generally considered "inchoate offense[s]" or "a step toward[s] the commission of another crime, the step itself being serious enough to merit punishment”.

In the English common law for instance, there are three general inchoate offenses: 1) attempt; 2) conspiracy; and 3) incitement.

“ Incitement conveys a "general label to cover any use of words or other device by which a person is requested, urged, advised, and counselled, tempted, commanded, or otherwise enticed to commit a crime."

To Mr Kevin Taylor: even though, you have inalienable rights as a human being to seek, receive and convey information and ideas of all kinds , such rights are subject to permitted abridgement, so stop misusing such inherent rights.

I would, therefore, like to plead with the Federal Investigations Bureau(FBi) to look into the matter.